admin

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail in a POCSO case after considering factors including the accused’s young age, the surrounding circumstances of the relationship, and prolonged incarceration. The Court treated these circumstances as relevant mitigating factors while deciding whether continued detention was necessary during the pendency of the trial. The decision illustrates that bail in serious criminal cases requires an individual assessment of the facts, period of custody, progress of the proceedings, and other relevant circumstances. The grant of bail does not determine guilt or innocence, which remains a matter for trial.

The Delhi High Court has held that a woman can be prosecuted for gang rape under Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) even though the principal offence of rape is defined in gender-specific terms. The Court interpreted the expression “persons” in Section 70 as gender-neutral, meaning liability for participation in a group acting with a common intention is not restricted only to men. The ruling highlights that a person may face gang-rape liability based on their participation and shared intention in the alleged offence, even if they could not individually commit the principal act of rape as statutorily defined.

A husband cannot ordinarily avoid his maintenance obligations toward his wife and children merely by taking voluntary retirement or claiming a very small agricultural income. In proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, courts may consider a person’s earning capacity, qualifications, previous employment, assets, lifestyle, and overall financial circumstances rather than relying only on stated current income. The Delhi High Court emphasised that an able-bodied husband has a legal duty to provide maintenance, and voluntarily reducing income cannot automatically defeat a legitimate maintenance claim.

Veluri Ramesh Naidu v. Nuthaki Geetha Bhagavathi Case Analysis: Ex-Parte Divorce Cannot Be Reopened After Husband Lawfully Remarries and Has

T. Deivakumar v. State & Anr. Case Analysis: Cruelty, Extramarital Relationships and Abetment of Suicide Case Details Case Title T.

Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a wife or woman in a qualifying domestic relationship may have a right to reside in a shared household even without owning the property or having a legal title to it. However, this right is not the same as ownership and depends on the facts of the domestic relationship and residence. Courts may grant residence orders and protection against unlawful dispossession, while balancing these rights with the property rights and circumstances of other family members.

During divorce proceedings in India, child custody is decided primarily on the welfare and best interests of the child, rather than an automatic preference for either parent. Courts may grant physical custody, joint or shared parenting arrangements, interim custody, and visitation rights depending on the circumstances. Factors such as the child’s age, emotional needs, education, safety, existing relationship with each parent, stability, and sometimes the child’s own preference can influence the court’s decision.

A mother in India does not automatically need the father’s consent every time she travels or relocates to another city with the child. Whether relocation is permissible depends on the existing custody arrangement, court orders, visitation rights, and, above all, the child’s welfare and best interests. If a court order restricts relocation or specifies custody and visitation arrangements, it must be followed or modified through the court. Relocation that seriously affects the child’s stability or relationship with the other parent may also lead to a custody dispute.