Top News Headlines 17th June 2021: Allahabad HC: Custody of Minor Husband Cannot Be Given To Wife As It Would Be Cohabitation Between Adult and Child

Allahabad High Court: Custody of Minor Husband Cannot Be Given To Wife As It Would Be Cohabitation Between Adult and Child

The Allahabad High Court ruled that custody of a ‘minor’ husband cannot be given to the wife as it would lead to cohabitation between an adult and a child. It would be permitting an offence under the POCSO Act. The Bench of Justice JJ Munir held that the given marriage was voidable and ruled that permitting the minor husband to stay in the custody of the wife would be sanctioning an offence under Section 3/4 of the Act. 

What do you think of the case?

Supreme Court: Non Listing of Bail Application Impinges On Liberty of Accused; Half of HC Judges to Sit On Alternate Days

The Supreme Court observed that the accused has a right of hearing his bail application which had been kept listed for over a year. The denial of the same would infringe upon the accused's right and liberty. A Division Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian made this observation during the hearing of a Special Leave Petition. The Bench also stated that at least half of the judges should sit on alternative days so that hearing of a person can be done even during the pandemic.

What do you think of this case?

Narada Case: Siddharth Luthra tells Calcutta HC that Power To be Exercised Rarely As It Reflects On Judge's Conduct

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra argued in the Narada CAse stating that the power to transfer under 406-409 of the CrPC is not to be exercised lightly as it reflects on the Judge’s conduct. There were rare aberrations when it comes to transfers. He also stated that judicial orders cannot be interpreted on the basis of newspaper reports or third party allegations. 

What do you think of this case?

Madras HC Directs State To Not Insist On RT-PCR Report For Deciding Compensation Claims

The Madras High Court has directed the State to not insist on the RT-PCR Report if CT-Scan test shows COVID positive report when dealing with claims for compensation. A Single Bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh had directed the Health Authorities of Tamil Nadu Government to not stick to technicalities and not make the submission of the RT-PCR report mandatory. A claim was made by the petitioner under the PM Garib Package Insurance Scheme for Health Workers Fighting COVID 19. However, the  application for claiming the compensation was declined due to the inability of the Petitioner to produce the RT-PCR report.

What do you think of this case?

Delhi HC: Responsibility of Father Does Not End With Children Attaining Age of Majority

The judgement was given by Justice Subramonium Prasad. Section 125 of the CrPC was quoted saying that at the age of 18, the education of the son is not complete and hence the son cannot possibly sustain himself. Hence, it is the father’s responsibility to provide for his wife and children even after they attain the age of majority. The rising cost of living cannot be ignored. The aim of Section 125 of the CrPC is to reduce the financial suffering of the woman who has left her matrimonial home and to prevent the destitution of the deserted wife, the High Court noted.

What do you think of this case?

Madras HC: 2019 Amendment To Law Officer Appointment Rules Valid

The Petitioner had raised concern over the Amendment to the Law Officer Appointment Rules saying that  inexperienced lawyers had been using the said rule for being appointed as law officers. This has been interfering with the administration of justice by the Court. The amendment was introduced in 2019. The validity of the amendments made to this rule was upheld by the Madras High Court. As per the amendment made to the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017, a person would not be eligible for appointment as a Government Advocate unless a letter has been given by a senior stating that he had worked in the High Court for at least 3 years.

What do you think of this case?