Desertion within the meaning of Section 10(1)(a) of the Act read with the Explanation does not imply only a separated residence and separate living. It is also necessary that there must be a determination to put an end to marital relation and cohabitation.
AIR 1971 SC 1002 : (1971) Suppl. SCR 46 : (1971) 2 SCC 63 In India, as in England, the executive has to act subject to the control of the legislature, but […]
KEYWORDS:- Self Defence- AIR 1971 SC 1208 : (1971) 3 SCC 275 : (1971) CriLJ SC 1057 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Dominic Varkey Appellant Versus The State of Kerala Respondent (Before : […]
KEYWORDS:- House breaking In order to support the conviction under Section 457 of IPC it is necessary to prove first that there was lurking house trespass by night or house breaking by […]
A mutt in Hindu Law is a judicial person capable of holding and vindicating legal rights, through the medium of human agency: SC
The property belonging to a math is in fact attached to the office of the mahant, and passed by inheritance to no one who does not fill the office. The head of […]
Victim voluntarily moved with accused and last seen together, no probability of abduction, intention doubtful, conviction modified murder to homicide -SC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ( Before : Y. V. Chandrachud, J; M. Hameedullah Beg, J; A. C. Gupta, J ) KUNDAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION — Respondent Criminal […]
Whereas suit was filed for recognition of right of easement and later on amendment sought in the plaint for introducing essential ingredients of easement – The amendment, if allowed at the appellate […]
It is a settled principle of law that in order to prove that the possession of any person in any immovable property is legal, it is necessary for such person to prove prima facie that he is either the owner of such property or is in possession as a lawful tenant or is in its permissive possession with the express consent of its true owner. Such is not the case here.
Whether refusal to have sexual intercourse for a long time without sufficient reason itself amounts to mental cruelty? SC Yes
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh
A retrospective operation is, therefore, not to be given to a statute so as to impair existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matter of procedure .unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. Before applying a statute retrospectively the Court has to be satisfied that the statute is in fact retrospective. The presumption against retrospective operation is strong in .cases in which the statute, if operated retrospectively, would prejudicially affect vested rights or the illegality of the past transactions, or impair contracts, or impose new duty or attach new disability in respect of past transactions or consideration already passed.