Geek Upd8 - Online Law Reporter

Latest Post

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Before :- Suneet Kumar, J.
Writ-C No. 51421 of 2016. D/d. 5.11.2016.

Smt. Hina and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 Others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- C.S.C.
Allahabad High Court Judgments

JUDGMENT
Suneet Kumar, J. - Petitioners claim to have married as per muslim custom under personal law. First petitioner, i.e. the lady is aged about 23 years, whereas, second petitioner is aged about 53 years; both are illiterate. The document in support of their age is the Aadhar card. Both the petitioners are present in the Court, and have been identified by their counsel. In para-11 of the petition, it is averred that the second petitioner has contracted the present marriage after effecting instant talak (Triple Talaq) to his wife.

Ajay Bhardwaj Versus Jyotsna and others on November 23, 2016

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Jaishree Thakur, J.
Crl. Revision No. (F) 166 of 2015 (O&M). D/d. 23.11.2016.

Ajay Bhardwaj - Petitioner
Versus
Jyotsna and others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Ajay Bhardwaj, petitioner in person.
For the Respondent :- Ms. Jyotsna, respondent in person.
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments

JUDGMENT
Jaishree Thakur, J. - Aggrieved against the order dated 4.5.2015, passed by the learned District Family Court, Gurgaon, granting interim maintenance @ L 20,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and L 10,000/- per month each to the two children, this revision petition has been preferred.
2. In brief the facts, as alleged by respondent No.1, are that respondent No.1 came to know the petitioner in the year 2007, while still being married to one Gaurav Sharda.

Rajiv Sood Versus State of Punjab on August 25, 2015

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.
C.R.M. M-18295 of 2015. D/d. 25.8.2015.

Rajiv Sood - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- S.S. Sarwara, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Daljeet Singh Virk, AAG, Punjab.
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments

JUDGMENT
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. (Oral) - Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 4.5.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby application of the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.') was dismissed, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the impugned order.

Sanjay Mishra Versus Ms. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and another on 24 February, 2009

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Before :- A.S. Oka, J.
Criminal Application No. 4694 of 2008. D/d. 24.02.2009.

Sanjay Mishra - Applicant
Versus
Ms. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and another - Respondents

For the Applicant :- Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Shailesh Kabtharia, Advocates.
For the State :- Ms. A.T. Jhaveri, A.P.P.
Bombay High Court Judgments

JUDGMENT
A.S. Oka, J. - The submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant were heard in support of this application under sub-section 4 of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The applicant is the complainant. The applicant filed a complaint against the 1st respondent alleging commission of offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

Sachin & Anr. Versus Jhabbu Lal & Anr. on 24 November, 2016

DELHI HIGH COURT

Before :- Pratibha Rani, J.
RSA No. 136 of 2016 & CM No. 19123 of 2016. D/d. 24.11.2016.

Sachin & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Jhabbu Lal & Anr. - Respondents

For the Appellant No.1 :- In person.
For the Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar, Advocate with respondents in person.
Delhi High Court, Delhi Judgments

JUDGMENT
Pratibha Rani, J. (Oral) - The appellant No.1, who is present in person, requests for an adjournment on the ground that he wants to change his counsel. The appellants are enjoying an ex-parte interim stay granted in their favour on 20th May, 2016

K.V. Prakash Babu Versus State of Karnataka on 22 November, 2016

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, JJ.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1138-1139 of 2016 (@ S.L.P. (Crl) Nos. 5928-5929 of 2016). D/d. 22.11.2016.

K.V. Prakash Babu - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent

For the Appellant :- S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Anurag Thomas, B. Vishwanath Bhandarkar, H.K. Naik, Karunakar Mahalik, Advocates.
For the Respondent :- V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate.
Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J. - Leave granted.
2. The instant appeals reveal a factual score that has the potentiality to shock a sensitive mind and a sincere heart, for the materials brought on record show how "suspicion" can corrode the rational perception of value of life and cloud the thought of a wife to such an extent, that would persuade her to commit suicide which entail more deaths, that is, of the alleged paramour, her mother and brother who being not able to emotionally cope up with the social humiliation, extinguish their life-spark; and ultimately the situation ropes in the husband to face the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A

Puneet Batish Advocate

{facebook#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Adv.Batish} {twitter#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Twitter} {google-plus#http://g8.geekupd8.com/+pb} {pinterest#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Pinterest} {youtube#http://g8.geekupd8.com/YouTube}

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget