LEGAL CASE MINE

SURESHTA DEVI Vs. OM PRAKASH  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1992 UNILATERAL WITHDRAW OF THE CONSENT AFTER FILING THE PETITION FOR DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT UNDER SECTION 13B OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Facts of the case :  The appellant was married to the respondent. Later both of them filed the petition for divorce by mutual consent under section 13B of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT (HMA). Court recorded the statement of both the parties and left the matter there. After some time the wife filed the application in the court, inter alia, stating that her earlier consent was taken by the force. Therefore she plead against the dissolution of marriage.  Question before the court :  Whether the consent freely given by both the parties for divorce by mutual consent under section 13B can be revoked later by one party unilaterally or is it irrevocable.  JUDGEMENT : The trial court found that the earlier consent of the wife was not under any type of force or coercion and was completely free. However considering the fa

SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  2002 CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION Facts of the case :  The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. Respondent  : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong.  JUDGEMENT :  The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.    High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there was also nothing to prove the desertion by th

BABUI PANMATO KUER Vs. RAM AGYA SINGH PATNA HIGH COURT 1968 CASE ON CONSENT BY FRAUD UNDER SECTION 12(1)(c) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Facts of the case :  The petitioner filed the case for the annulment of marriage on the grounds of fraud under clause(c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner who was somewhat above 18 years, before the solemnization of marriage, overhead her father telling her mother that the bridegroom was of the age between 25 to 30. She didn't objected to it and thus her silence amount to her consent for that marriage. She was having the heavy veil before her face due to which she was not able to see the face of the bridegroom. After marriage she found that her husband was around 60 years old. She ran away twice from her matrimonial home but everytime the respondent was able to get her back in his house by filing the petition under section 498 of IPC. Finally the girl-petitioner decided to file the present case.  JUDGEMENT :  The Addi

BIPINCHANDRA JAISINGHBHAI SHAH Vs. PRABHAVATI  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1957  CASE ON DESERTION UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT In the given case court dealt with the issue of desertion as a ground for the dissolution of marriage. The court observed that mere temporary seperation of spouse does not amount to desertion  The court laid down the two essential conditions for the deserting spouse :  The factum of seperation The intention to bring the cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi) Similarly on the part of deserted spouse, supreme court laid down two essentials :  Absence of consent. Absence of conduct giving the reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to form the above necessary intention.  Therefore desertion is a matter of inference which is drawn from facts and circumstances of the case. Most important question always is that whether the act of seperation is attributable to animus deserendi. If the deserting spouse took the advantage of locus paenitentiae and come back wit

D. K. BASU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (WB) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1996 CASE DETERMINING PREREQUISITE OF ARREST Facts of the case :  The Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Service, West Bengal, wrote a letter to Chief Justice of India drawing his attention towards increasing cases of deaths in police custody and lock-ups. It was requested that the letter to be treated as writ petition under 'Public Interest Litigation' category.  JUDGEMENT :  The court issue certain directions in cases of arrest or detention unless the appropriate legal provisions were legislated in this regard. The police officer carrying out interrogation or arrest should bear a clear visible tag of his name, post etc. The police officer carrying out the arrest should prepare a memo attested by one witness The police officer in charge should inform the relative, friend or a well wisher of the arrestee about the arrest The time and place of arrest and venue of detention shall be informed by officer in charge to the

D. C. WADHWA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1987 CASE ON REPROMULGATION OF SAME ORDINANCE UNDER ARTICLE 213 OF THE CONSTITUTION Facts of the case :  Petitioner filed the petition under article 32 of the constitution challenging the validity of repeated promulgation of the same ordinance by the government of Bihar without replacing it with act of the legislature Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : It was argued that the governor and the government of Bihar repeatedly promulgated the same ordinance multiple times without replacing it with the act of the legislature and thus is ultra vires of the constitution under article 213 making the ordinance invalid.  Respondent  : State of Bihar argued that the petition cannot be sustained in this honourable court as the court cannot decide upon the existence of the situation prerequisite for exercising the power under article 213 of the constitution by the governor of Bihar.  JUDGEMENT :  The court in very first instance held tha

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CASE ON INDIAN FEDERALISM Facts of the case : The then department of home minister sent the letter to all the chief ministers of the congress ruled states to immediately dissolve thier government. Therefore the case was filed in Supreme Court of India against the central government on the issue of federalism. JUDGEMENT :  The honourable supreme court observed that the Indian constitution is like amphibian which can work both on unitary and federal planes. The Indian union is in sense federal but the extent of federalism largely depends upon the need of the development of the country which is of national importance. The circumstances of the situation should be taken into consideration to decide upon when to work on federal or unitary plane. Now the question that arises is whether the court or the central government itself decide about the requirement of the situation. Regarding this it can be concluded that wach organ sh

SAMAR GHOSH Vs. JAYA GHOSH SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MARCH 26, 2007 CASE ON MENTAL CRUELTY UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Facts of the case :  The respondent, an IAS officer, was a divorcee who was having a daughter from her first marriage. She did the second marriage with the petitioner who is also an IAS officer, but always refused her husband of her matrimonial obligations. Husband filed the petition for the divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : The husband alleged that the wife has performed the acts of mental cruelty to him. He cited several incidence to support his arguments. The wife unilaterally declared to him that she won't share the bed with him and even won't give birth to his child. She and her mother always use to teach her daughter from the first marriage that the petitioner is not his father. Respondent also use to warn the petitioner that her daughter does not have any blood relationship with him this he need to stay away

N.G. DASTANE Vs. S. DASTANE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1975 CASE ON SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, DEALS WITH CRUELTY AND CONDONATION Facts of the case : The petitioner and the respondent were the husband and wife who parted company on February 27, 1961. The husband filed the petition on February 19,1962 for annulment of marriage or alternatively for divorce or judicial seperation.  Contention of the parties : Petitioner  : The husband demanded the decree of annulment of marriage under section 12(I)(c) on the ground the his consent was taken by fraud. Alternatively he filed for divorce under section 13(I)(iii) on the grounds that his wife is incurably of unsound mind. Alternatively he demanded for judicial seperation under section 10(1)(b) on the grounds of cruelty. He alleged that respondent had treated him with such kind of cruelty that it created reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or dangerous for him to live with her.  Wife  : She contended that no such con

COMMON CAUSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA(UOI) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CASE ON ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION FOR RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY Facts of the case : The petition was preferred under article 32 of the constitution for declaring 'right to die' as a fundamental right within the fold of 'right to life and personal liberty' under article 21 of the constitution. It was requested that the directions be issued to the government for making the guidelines for 'My Living Will and Attorney Authorisation' can be produced before the hospital and required authorities.  JUDGEMENT The court referred the judgement of Gian Kaur case in which it was held out that right of a die man to die with dignity and when there is no hope of recovery, then accelerating the process of dying and thus ending the sufferings is covered under right to life with dignity. The bench in Aruna Shanbaug has erred in taking that the judgement in Gian Kaur had held that passive euthanasia could be made lawful o

BHAURAO SHANKAR LOKHANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FEBRUARY 1, 1965 CASE FOR SECTION 7 AND 17 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT  Facts of the case :  The appellant in this case married Indubai in around 1956 and then in February 1962, married to Kamlabai. Therefore the petition was filled before the court to declare the second marriage with Kamlabai as void ab initio and charge the appellant under section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act and under section 494 of IPC. Contention of the parties :  Appellant  : The husband contended that the offence under section 17 of the act is not committed as the second marriage is not solemnized.  Complainant  : They contended that second marriage was completely solemnized as per the prevailing valid customs. They also contended that even if the marriage was not solemnized, the appellant is still liable for bigamy.  Question before the court : Whether the marriage was solemnized or not. Whether the appellant can be convicted even if the marriage wa

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA November 8, 1977 CASE IN FEDERAL STRUCTURE Facts of the case : Opposition members in Karnataka assembly wrote to the Union Home Ministry alleging corruption, nepotism and favouritism by government. Thereafter, the state government under the section 3 of Commission Of Inquiry Act, 1932 establishes the inquiry commission for the same. Thereafter, central government constitutes the another one more inquiry commission under the said act for the purposes not covered under the previous inquiry commission constituted by the state government. Thus the state government filed the petition under Article 131 before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the said commission.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : State Government contended that the union government does not have any right to interfere in the subject matters of the state as it is against the federal structure of the constitution. It is illegal and unconst

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DECEMBER 21, 1962 CASE ON FEDERALISM Facts of the case :  The parliament under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, by two notifications dated September 21, 1959 and January 8, 1960 intended to acquire the mining land that was under the control of state of West Bengal. Resenting the above order, government of West Bengal filled the case in Supreme Court of India.  Contention of the parties : Plaintiff  : It was argued that the land which the central government intended to acquire is the property of West Bengal under West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1954 and thus the union of india does not have any right to take over the property of the state that is sovereign. Defendant  : It wad argued that UOI can acquire any land within the geographical boundary of India which is necessary for the growth and development of the country. Moreover the parliament has the power to pass the legislation for th

SWEET Vs. PARSLEY CASE DIFFERENTIATING REGULATORY CRIME AND TRUE CRIME ON BASIS OF MENS REA  Facts of the case.  Stephanie Sweet was a sub - tenant of property of which she has rented several rooms. She didn't live there, but just went there occassionally to collect the letters and rent. Once there found the cannabis resin of which she was totally unaware. She was booked under the section 5(b) of Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965 as she was responsible for the arrangements there. Question before the court : As section 5(b) does not provide anything about mens rea therefore it is to be decided whether the section makes absolute offence or otherwise what were the requisite of the mens rea for offence.  JUDGEMENT The lower court convicted sweet under section 5(b) of Dangerous Drugs Act as it observed the non applicability of principal of mens rea in this case. However the conviction was quashed by the House Of Lords by stating that the knowledge of the use of land is necessary and as it is ab

REGINA(R) Vs. PRINCE 1875 CASE OF MENS REA  Facts of the case :  Henry Prine - defendant was convicted for abducting a minor girl. He was accused of taking aways a 14 years old unmarried girl out of her parent's or guardian's possession without thier knowledge of the same. Contention of the parties : Petitioner  : It was argued that the defendant commited to illegal act under section 55 of Offence Against The Person Act, 1861.  Defendant  : He took a plea that he was unaware of the age of the girl as she misrepresented herself to be 18 years old. He took the defence of mistake of fact.  JUDGEMENT  The honourable court in the present case observed that the court is not bound to the principal of mens rea in the areas where the statute does not specifically mentions for the principal. Moreover the court stated that this is the case of abduction of a minor girl and hence is the case of strict liability, thus mens rea need not be applicable here. Therefore even if the defendant acte

MARBURY Vs. MADISON SUPREME COURT OF USA  FEBRUARY 24, 1803 CASE ON JUDICIAL REVIEW  Facts of the case :  John Adams who was the president of USA lost the election of 1800 to Thomas Jafferson. Before leaving the office, just one day before the oath ceremony, he passed Judiciary Act 1801, under which many new courts were established and thus requires new appointment of judges. John Adams also before leaving, made the list of the new judges, get them approved from the senate and ordered the then secretary of state to deliver the commissions. All the commissions were not been able to delivered before the Thomas Jefferson took over the office and ordered the new secretary of state not to deliver any commission therefrom. Marbury, who was one of the appointee, didn't received his commission and thus filed the petition before the Supreme Court of USA for issuing the writ of mandamus. Question before the court : Whether the petitioner posses the right to recieve commission. Whether the se

SWARAJ GARG  Vs. K.M. GARG DELHI HIGH COURT MARCH 7, 1978 . CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Question before the court : Where will be the matrimonial home located after the marriage when both the parties are gainfully employed and there does not exist any agreement either implied or written before the marriage.  Facts of the case : The wife Swaraj - petitioner lived in her village, Sunam, from 1956 and techer at the the school. She was the head mistress at government high school in 1969. She got married to the respondent in 1964. The husband was not having a satisfactory job and earn only 500 p/m in Delhi where he resides. She came to live with her husband for some time and then grt back to her village and continue living there. The Husband therefore filed the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : The petitioner argued that respondent's condition is not satisfactory that he can maint

KESAVANANDA BHARATI Vs. STATE OF KERELA and ANR. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA APRIL 24, 1973 CASE ON BASIC STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTION Facts of the case : Kesavananda Bharati was the head of a Hindu Muth which was situated in Kerela. Kerela government passes two land reforms legislations namely ; The Kerela Land Reforms (Amendment) Act,1969 The Kerela Land Reforms (Amendment) Act,1971 Under these legislations, the land of the muth was overtaken by the government. Thus Kesavananda Bharati filled the writ petition in the honourable court for the violation of his fundamental rights under Article 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the constitution and for declaring the above legislations unconstitutional. Contention of the parties : Respondent  : The respondent argued that the parliament have unlimited amending power under article 368 of the constitution. It can fully ammend fundamental rights. It can also go to the extent of replacing democratic form of government with one party rule. Petitioner  : T

S. R. BOMMAI Vs. UOI SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 11 March 1994  Facts of the case : S. R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of Karnataka from 1988 to 1989. He belonged to the party Janta Dal. In 1989 his government was dismissed under Article 356 of the constitution and subsequently the president rule was imposed in the state. The ground for the failure of the state machinery and dismissal of the government was stated as lost of majority of ruling party following the large scale defection of its legislatures.  S. R. Bommai demanded for the permission to conduct the floor test before the imposition of emergency under Article 356 so that the majority can be proven in the house, but unfortunately the demand was turned down by the governor. Thus S. R. Bommai - petitioner took the matter to the Supreme Court. JUDGEMENT The nine judge Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India listened the matter for 5 years and passed the landmark judgement. The court opined that the power of the President o

NATHU LAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MARCH 22, 1965 CASE ON MENS REA  Question before the court : Whether mens rea is an essential ingredient to determine the culpability under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.  Facts of the case : The appellant was having the store of 885 mounds and 21/4 seers of wheat fir sale without a license which was necessary under 'The Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958'. Therefore the appellant was prosecuted under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Contention of the parties  : Appellant  : The learned council for the appellant argues that the mens rea is an essential ingredient for culpability under the said act. The appellant has not done any unlawful act intentionally. He was of the belief that he has been issued the license although not recieved it as he had submitted the license fees and the authorities were also accepting the fortnight returns filed by the appellant. He was also assur

STATE OF M.P. Vs. NARAYAN SINGH AND ORS. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  JULY 25, 1989 CASE ON MENS REA Question before the court : Whether the violation of export of fertilizer without permit required to proved mens rea. Whether the act of the respondents were mere preperation or the attempted act of unlawful export of fertilizers. Facts of the case : The respondents were lorry drivers, cleaners, and coolies who were carrying bags of fertilizers from Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra. While carrying the bags they were intercepted by the sales tax barriers near the border of Maharashtra. They were only having the invoices and other records with them but lack the permit to export the fertilizers to other state. The case was filed against them under Fertilizer (movement control) order ,1973 read with section 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.  JUDGEMENT The Trial Court acquitted the respondents because :  The prosecution failed to prove mens rea on the part of the respondents.  The act of t

KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  19 NOV 1976 CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Question before the court Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife. Facts of the case The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months. Contention of the parties Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.