FIR BY WIFE AGAINST HUSBAND FOR OUTRAGING HER MODESTY QUASHED: BOMBAY HC
Case Name: Sanket More vs State of Maharashtra
In a plea filed by the wife against her husband under sections 354,506, and 323 of IPC alleging that he touched her without permission, and assaulted her, the court held that a mini-trial to determine that the contents of the FIR are false cannot be conducted and consequently the petition was dismissed.
Legal Provisions:
- Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860-Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
- Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860-Punishment for criminal intimidation.
- Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860-Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
Source: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CONSENT CAN BE WITHDRAWN BY ONE PARTY EVEN AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS UNDER S.13B HINDU MARRIAGE ACT: ORISSA HC
Case Name: Doyel Dey v. The Judge, Family Court, Balasore & Anr.
The Court held that a party can withdraw consent unilaterally in the cases of Divorce by mutual consent just before passing a divorce decree even after the conclusion of arguments under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.
Legal Provisions:
- Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955-Divorce by mutual consent.
Source: ORISSA HIGH COURT
COMPENSATION ENHANCED FOR DIAMOND CUTTER WHO LOST EYESIGHT DURING A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT: SC
Case Name: Jayanandan Vs Varkey & Ors.
The Supreme Court observed that vision loss in an eye is 100 percent disability for a diamond cutter, as his occupation can be performed effectively when he has perfect eyesight in a case where a person who is a diamond cutter by profession has lost his eyesight due to rashness and negligence of the auto rikshaw driver. Finding the 65 percent disability considered by the High Court as insufficient, the Supreme Court increased the compensation to Rs.1,50,000/-.
Source: SUPREME COURT
Also Read- DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS(08 JANUARY 2025)
WRITTEN BY – Veera Syamala Devi Nandikanuma
EDITOR – Vishakha Khatri
