Top News Headlines 7th August 2021: Marital Rape Is A Valid Ground For Divorce

Marital Rape Is A Valid Ground For Divorce

In a landmark judgement given by Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Kauser Ed Appagath, it has been held by the Kerala High Court that marital rape is now a valid ground for divorce. It was stated that although marital rape was not punishable by law, divorce can still be granted to the wife. The Court observed that disregard and violation of bodily integrity amounts to violation of individual autonomy. Therefore, marital privacy is intimately and intrinsically connected to individual autonomy and any intrusion, physically or otherwise into such space would diminish privacy.

What do you think about this case?

SC: Not Much Scope For Considering Territorial Jurisdiction Issue In A Transfer Petition Under section 25 of CPC

The Supreme Court observed that there is not much scope of going into the question of 'territorial jurisdiction' of a court in a transfer petition under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code. This decision was given by Justice Aniruddha Bose. The said transfer petition was dismissed subsequently. The case is of Naivedya Associates vs. Kriti Nutrients Ltd. As per the observation of the Court, the ‘first past the post’ principle cannot be applied in a petition for transfer under Section 25 CPC.

What do you think about this case?

Order Under Section 17 Enforcing Emergency Arbitrator’s Award Not Appealable Under Section 37

The Supreme Court has held that an order of enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator's order made under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not appealable under Section 37 of the Act.Section 37 is a complete code so far as appeals from orders and awards made under the Arbitration Act are concerned. The decision was given by the Bench of Justice RF Nariman and BR Gavai said while disposing the appeal filed by Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC.

What do you think of this case?

Pure Question of Law Can Be Raised For The First Time In SLP

The Supreme Court has observed that it can entertain new grounds raised for the first time in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution if it involves a question of law which doesn’t require adducing additional evidence. The decision was given by the Bench of Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice M R Shah. The case was of Saurav Jain V. A. B. P. Design. Advocate Venkita Subramoniam T.R. appeared for the appellant, and Sr. Advocate Manoj Swarup appeared for the respondent.

What do you think about this case?

Calcutta High Court Allows Bangladeshi Woman To Be Repatriated By Air

The Calcutta High Court has permitted the deportation of a Bangladeshi national back to her home country after taking into consideration that she had been languishing in a correctional home even after the completion of her detention period. The decision was given by Justice Debangsu Basak. It ordered the Superintendent of the correctional home to depute appropriate police personnel to accompany the petitioner to the airport as she had expressed her desire to travel by air. 

What do you think of this case?

Kerala HC Grants One Week Interim Anticipatory Bail To Accused In ISRO Espionage Case

With regards to ISRO Espionage Case, the Kerala High Court has granted a week long interim anticipatory bail to the accused. The decision was given by Justice Ashok Menon. The case is posted for hearing on August 11, 2021. The Bench was hearing the bail applications moved by several former investigating officers accused of conspiring against framing former ISRO scientist,Nambi Narayan, in the ISRO espionage case.

What do you think about this case?

Delhi HC: Every Child Has Right To Use Mother’s Surname

The Delhi High Court has stated in a case that the father does not own the daughter and that the daughter has every right to use her mother’s surname. The decision was given by Justice RekhaPalli. The case was of Vindhya Saxena V. East Delhi Municipal Corporation. The Court disposed of the petition without any merit. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to show his name as the father’s name in the school records of the petitioner’s daughter.

What do you think about this case?