ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
05 March 2026 23:47
merely on the ground that the F.I.R. was written through an assistance of a lawyer, it cannot be assumed that the informant has lodged a false First Information Report against the Appellant. Further, the F.I.R. being lodged with an advocate's assistance does not by itself dilute the credibility of the said F.I.R., the only caveat that the same requires careful scrutiny to ensure that the same is not malicious or motivated. This Court fails to understand that when legal aid is permissible, at every steps of a criminal legal proceedings and even at the stage of lodging an F.I.R., how can there be an embargo on seeking assistance from a private Advocate,"
Legal Aid and fabricated FIR.
#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK
Π§ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ…
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
05 March 2026 21:25
#Quote@CurrentLegalGK
"Difficulties of litigants in India
indeed begin when they have
obtained a decree"
Privy Council (speaking through the Right Hon. Sir James Colville, J.) in Raj Durbhunga v. Coomar Ramaput Sing 1872
Π§ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ…
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
04 March 2026 08:36
Iran war: The legality, or illegality, of killing a foreign leader, explained π
#express_explained
Π§ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ…
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
04 March 2026 04:03
π« We wish you a colourful Happy Holi π«
Team: Natural Justice
#Festival@CurrentLegalGK
Π§ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ…
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
03 March 2026 11:51
. SHIKSHA KUMARI
v.
SANTOSH KUMAR
2025 (3JB, Delhi HC)
Provisions
Section 13B (inserted by 1976 amendment) and 14(1) proviso Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
The issues are as follows:
1. Is the 1 year separation period under 13B(1) before the petition if filed for mutual divorce is mandatory?
No, it can be waived.
2. Is the 6 months period under 13B(2) for filing motion for divorce is mandatory?
No, it can also be waived.
Legal Position of Supreme Court:
1.
Sureshta Devi vs. Om Prakash, 1991Court recognised 1 year living pre requisite for 13B(1) and held The expression "
living
separately", connotes to our mind not living like husband and wife.
It has no reference to the place of living.
2.
Amardeep Singh vs.
Harveen Kaur, 2017.The 6 months period for motion is not mandatory because the object of amendment was to not let the spouses live in agony with no possibility of reconciliation and courts should have power,
If object of the enactment will be defeated by holding the
same directory, it will be construed as mandatory, whereas if by holding it mandatory serious general inconvenience will be created to innocent persons without very much furthering the object of enactment, the same will be construed as directory.β
(4 factors to waive the 13B(2) period are:
(i) statutory period of 1 year and 6 motnh already over before filing petition (the duration of marriage exceded 1.5 years)
(ii) all efforts of mediation failed order 32A- rule 3 CPC, section 23 of HMA, section 9 of family courts act.
(iii) Parties genuinly resolved issue of alimony, custody etc.
(iv) delay will only enhance agony.
3.
Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal, 2023
Held not mandatory for all 4 factors to he followed if all 4 are met then court is obliged to waive 6 months period and added 8 other factors list such as time of marriage, any other proceedings, child out of wedlock etc...
4.
Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Srinivasan, 2023Affirmed above 2 and Waived 6 months period and held "The procedure should give way to a larger public and personal interest of the parties in ending the litigation(s), and the pain and sorrow effected, by passing a formal decree of divorce, as de facto the marriage had ended much earlier."
High Court of Delhi and Rajasthan.
1.
Pooja Gupta vs Nil, 2010Considering the following 1 uear of 13B(1) can also be waived.
(a) the maturity and the comprehension of the spouses;
(b) absence of coercion/intimidation/undue influence;
(c) the duration of the marriage sought to be dissolved;
(d) absence of any possibility of reconciliation;
(e) lack of frivolity;
(f) lack of misrepresentation or concealment;
(g) the age of the spouses and the deleterious effect of the
continuance of a sterile marriage on the prospects of re-marriage of the parties
1 year waived by Rajasthan HC in
Nitish Agarwal vs. Ms. Anchal, 2020.2.
Sunny vs. Sujata, 2012 held 1 year is mandatory because 13B is complete code but the reasoning is incorrect because it starts with the phrase
subject to the provisions of this code and 14(1) proviso allows a petition to be presented before 1 year which squarely applies in 13B as well provided conditions of 14(1) i.e. exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity are met.
Ratio
1. 14(1) was base don fault theory then why not to apply in mutual divorce.
2. In our opinion, the essential ingredient of section 13B of the HMA is the
consent of parties, and not the timelines set-out in that provision
3. Both 1 year and 6 months can be waived together and decree of divorce can be passed forthwith provided conditions of aforesaid judgment of pooja gupta and 14(1) (for 1 year 13B(1)) and amardeep Singh and amit kumar (for 6 months 13B(2)) are met
4. Sankalp Singh v.
Prarthana Chandra, 2013 is good law but as regards law that only period of 1 year can be waived and not 6 motnh is incorrect because 2017 and 2023 judgment of SC affirms it and both can be waived together additionally court can pass it forthwith and not wait till 1 year analogy from section 14(1) proviso where "may" is used
#HINDU@CurrentLegalGK
Π§ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ…
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
01 March 2026 13:19
Where does Iran β and the world β go from Khamenei death? All you need to know π
#explained_geopolitics #explained_global #express_explained
Π§ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ…
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
28 February 2026 13:49
π― RAM CHARAN v. SUKHARAM 2025
QUESTION OF LAW:
Whether a tribal woman (or her legal heirs) would be entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property or not.
FACTS: Legal heirs of Dhaiya (GOND women) from scheduled tribe filed suit for partition of maternal grandfather property (nanaji) but the trial court, 1st appellate court and HC (2nd appellate) held that they couldn't prove that they are governed by hindu succession act 1956, therefore justified in dismissing the suit.
PROVISIONS FOR INTERPRETATION:
1. βSection 2(2) HSA, 1956 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.β
2. Section 6 of Central provinces Laws Act 1875,
In cases not provided for by section 5 , or by Rule in cases any other law for the time being in force, the Courts shall act according to justice, equity and good conscience.
Briefly stating section 5 deals with family laws including succession for hindu mohammedan and customary as the case may be.
QUESTION BEFORE SUPREME COURT
SC after perusing the background of case concluded that hindu law has no application because parties could not prove they have adopted hindu tradition & since there no application of HSA, 1956 then customs must be proved but they are too not proved.
So now the whole case is dependent of Section 6 application of 1875 Act
SC held that HC rejection to apply 1875 law that it os repealed is incorrect because of saving clause.
LAW ON JUSTICE, EQUITY & GOOD CONSCIENCE
1. It is applied when there is void in law as in present case NO HSA NO CUSTOM
has any application in Dhaiya's case.
2. Landmark large bench case M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das, 2020 (Ram Janmabhoomi Temple) discussed the law as follows:
"The common underlying thread is that justice, good conscience and equity plays a supplementary role in enabling courts to mould the relief to suit the circumstances that present themselves before courts with the principal purpose of ensuring a just outcome. Where the existing statutory framework is inadequate for courts to adjudicate upon the dispute before them, or no settled judicial doctrine or custom can be availed of, courts may legitimately take recourse to the principles of justice, equity and good conscience to effectively and fairly dispose of the case"
RELIED ON: SC relied on Article 14, 15, 38 and 46 and precendents on equality such as Maneka Gandhi v. UoI 1978 and Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2019
Excerpt from shayara bano
Overemphasis on the doctrine of classification or an anxious and sustained attempt to discover some basis for classification may gradually and imperceptibly deprive the Article of its glorious contentβ¦
HELD: No such custom of female succession could
be established by the appellant-plaintiffs, but nonetheless it is
also equally true that a custom to the contrary also could not be
shown in the slightest, much less proved and therefore relying on Justice Equity and Good conscience and Article 14 of constitution dhaiya and her legal heirs are entitled to equal share in property.
ANALYSIS:
The SC mentioned that trial courts and appellate courts presumed the negative connotation that customs of equal share to women doesn't exist in Gond tribe and cpurts relied on a case of where custom is required to be proved, SC said trial courts could have presumed reciprocally by presuming existence of equal share and let defendants prove there is no equal share.
Well generally the burden of proving is on the person claiming the right but in this case there was a void and in these type of situations basic constiutional ethos must be kept in mind such as equality.
#HSA@CurrentLegalGK
#SUCCESSION@CurrentLegalGK
Π§ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ…
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
25 February 2026 13:51
WhatsApp complies with directions on data sharing: A timeline of the case and privacy concerns it raised π
#express_explained
Π§ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ…
20036