MAN CAN’T ESCAPE RESPONSIBILITY OF CHILD’S MAINTENANCE: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Case Name: Unknown vs. Family Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a father is still responsible for child maintenance, even if the mother earns adequately. Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a husband’s appeal against paying Rs 7,000 interim maintenance, emphasising that Section 125 CrPC upholds the father’s legal duty to support his child, independent of the mother’s income.
Source: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
MAHARASHTRA PAROLE RULE REQUIRING 1.5-YEAR JAIL STAY QUESTIONED BY BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case Name: Balaji s/o Abhaji Puyad vs. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court challenged Maharashtra’s rule mandating 1.5 years of imprisonment before parole eligibility, allowing exceptions only for the death of a close relative. Highlighting unpredictable emergencies like critical family illnesses, Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande termed the rule “manifestly arbitrary” and directed prison authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s application based on merit.
Source: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS MUST ASSESS CASE WITHDRAWAL INDEPENDENTLY: KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Name: Muhammed Ashraf KA vs. The Sub Inspector of Police & ors
The Kerala High Court emphasised that public prosecutors must independently evaluate case withdrawal decisions under Section 321 CrPC, rather than blindly following government directives. Justice K Babu ruled that prosecutors should confirm withdrawals align with public interest to avoid undermining justice, and instructed a continuation of trial proceedings due to the gravity of the offences.
Source: KERALA HIGH COURT
