👩‍⚖️LAW LEARNER'S GROUP🤵

Section 498A IPC Covers Live-In Relationships That Qualify As "Relationships In Nature Of Marriage" Between Consenting Adults With Intent To Marry: Supreme Court The Apex Court held that Section 498A IPC can apply to live-in relationships qualifying as relationships in the nature of marriage, but restricted the ruling to consenting adults and added that intent to marry must be established because the provision carries criminal consequences. *Dr Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.*

Dear all After a long break we are back in action

### *Step-by-Step Process to Check if Your Physical Verification or Declaration Form Has Been Received by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa* If you have submitted your verification or declaration form in physical format, follow these steps to verify on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa's website (barcouncilmahgoa.org) whether it has been received. This process involves registering, logging in, and checking your dashboard. #### Step 1: Visit the Website - Open your web browser and go to the official website: [barcouncilmahgoa.org] #### Step 2: Navigate to Services - On the homepage, locate and click on the Services tab. #### Step 3: Access Online Verification - Under the Online Services section, find and click on Click Here for Online Verification Process. #### Step 4: Register as a New User - On the next page, click on Register New Users. - A pop-up will appear asking: Are you already a member of BCMG? - Select Yes. #### Step 5: Validate Your Basic Details - Enter your Enrollment Number and Date of Birth. - Click on Validate. #### Step 6: Validate Communication Details - In the section labeled Please Validate Your Communication Details, enter your Email ID and Mobile Number. (Note: Use the Email ID and Mobile Number that are already linked/registered with the Bar Council.) - Click on Validate. #### Step 7: Enter OTPs for Verification - You will receive an OTP on your registered Email ID and another on your Mobile Number. - Enter both OTPs in the respective fields. - Click on Validate. #### Step 8: Complete Registration - A message will appear confirming that your registration is successful. #### Step 9: Proceed to Login - On the same page, click on the Login option that appears. #### Step 10: Log In Using Email - Enter the same Email ID you used during registration. - Click on Send OTP. - You will receive an OTP on your Email ID—enter it in the provided field. - Click on Login. #### Step 11: Access Your Dashboard - Once logged in, you will be directed to your Dashboard. #### Step 12: Check Verification Status - On the Dashboard, go to the Verification tab. - Click on View Details. - You will see your filled verification form. - Scroll down on the same page—look for a message like "Your form has been successfully received, currently under processing." - If this message appears, it confirms that your physical form has been received by the Bar Council. #### Additional Notes: - If you notice any errors or need corrections in the form, you can email the details to the provided Email ID on the page. - Ensure your Email ID and Mobile Number are correctly linked with the Bar Council to avoid issues during OTP verification. Thank you.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/the-summit-17_meet-our-resource-person-international-activity-7324344779763240960-qL7D?utm_source=social_share_video_v2&utm_medium=android_app&rcm=ACoAACogFBkBmGhyT5p-8Ydobdb-yY-R2WdsShc&utm_campaign=copy_link

“There is only allegation that petitioner no. 1 is leading an adulterous life. But such allegation is based only on suspicion. There is no cogent evidence adduced in support of his allegation. The proved fact is that his wife is living separately along with the minor daughter and she is unable to maintain herself and the minor daughter,” the Court added. Hence, the Court said there was no doubt about the entitlement of the wife and her minor daughter to maintenance from the opposite party. The Court held that both the wife and daughter were entitled to maintenance and taking into account the husband's dependents, including aged parents and a second wife, the Court directed him to pay Rs. 2,000 each to the wife and daughter—totalling Rs.4,000 per month. Accordingly, the petition filed by the wife and daughter was thus allowed. Case Title: X v/s Y LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 24

The Patna High Court in a recent ruling has reaffirmed that a Muslim woman, even after being divorced, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) if her former husband has not made sufficient provision for her livelihood during the iddat period or thereafter. The Court observed that the existence of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, does not negate the remedies available under Section 125 Cr.PC. Referring to Supreme Court's decisions on the subject Justice Jitendra Kumar in his order observed: “However, for the sake of clarity regarding law on the issue, it would be suffice to say that despite the Act of 1986, a Muslim wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband during the subsistence of her marriage under Section 125 Cr.PC, if she is unable to maintain herself. Even after divorce, she is entitled to get maintenance from her former husband under Section 125 Cr.PC if she is unable to maintain herself despite payment of maintenance for iddat period or payment of Dainmehar, if the former husband has not made provisions for her life during iddat period or the provisions made during the iddat period is not sufficient to maintain herself at the time of the application under Section 125 Cr.PC. Reliance is placed on Danial Latifi case (supra) and the recent judgment of Md. Abdul Samad (supra) in which Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the subject comprehensively after scanning all the relevant judicial precedents" The Petitioner wife was married to the respondent husband in 2007 as per Islamic rites, and they had a daughter out of the wedlock. As per the maintenance petition filed by the petitioners, after marriage, her husband and in-laws began demanding an additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000. She alleged that she was subjected to cruelty for not fulfilling the dowry demands and was eventually ousted from her matrimonial home. A criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC was also filed. She claimed that her husband owned a boutique in Mumbai earning Rs.30,000 per month, had agricultural land, and also owned another shop. The wife filed a criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC and sought maintenance of ₹20,000 per month for herself and her daughter, alleging her husband earned ₹30,000 monthly from a boutique business in Bombay. In response, the husband denied the allegations of cruelty and dowry, asserting instead that the wife had been living adulterously with another man. He claimed that she refused to return to the matrimonial home and that he had divorced her by triple talaq in a village panchayat in 2012, also paying her Dainmehar (amount paid by groom to wife at the time of marriage) and maintenance for the Iddat period (period/waiting period which Muslim woman observe after death of husband or divorce before they can remarry). The Family Court had awarded Rs. 1,500 per month to the wife from the date of its order and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation costs but made no provision for the minor daughter's maintenance. Before the High Court, the wife challenged the inadequacy of the maintenance amount, the omission of any award for the daughter, and the direction to pay maintenance only from the date of the Family Court's order rather than from the date of the original application. The Court noted that although the husband alleged adultery and that he had divorced his wife, there was no substantive evidence of adulterous conduct. The Court pointed out, “there is no need to go into the claim of the opposite party that he has divorced his wife/petitioner no. 1, because it is not a case of the opposite party that during the iddat period, he has made provision for the whole life of his divorced wife and she is able to maintain herself on the basis of that provision. It is also not a case of the opposite party that his divorced wife has remarried.”

🔑 *Indian Supreme Court and High Court judgments related to pre-trial detention*: 1. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020 SCC OnLine SC 964) Principle: Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. Held: Courts must balance personal liberty and the necessity of pre-trial detention, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution. 2. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 Principle: Gravity of offense alone is not a reason to deny bail. Held: The Supreme Court granted bail, holding that pre-trial detention should not be punitive and should be avoided unless necessary. 3. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42 Principle: Repeated bail applications can be rejected if circumstances do not change. Held: While personal liberty is important, factors like the severity of the offense and likelihood of tampering with evidence should be considered. 4. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535) Principle: "Bail and not jail" should be the rule. Held: Bail should generally be granted unless exceptional circumstances justify pre-trial detention. 5. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532) Principle: Right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21. Held: Pre-trial detention for an unreasonable period amounts to a denial of justice, and undertrials should not be kept in custody longer than necessary. 6. Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India (1994 SCC (6) 731) Principle: Long incarceration of undertrials is unconstitutional. Held: Ordered the release of prisoners who had served more than half the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense they were accused of. 7. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825) Principle: Unnecessary arrests and prolonged pre-trial detention should be avoided. Held: Guidelines were laid down to prevent excessive incarceration and ensure that bail is granted unless there are compelling reasons for detention.

*10 Landmark Cases on Muslim Law* 1. Mohammed Ahmed v. Shah Bano, 1985 * SC recognized that there was no conflict between the concerned section of the CrPC and the Personal Laws. It held that irrespective of religion, a woman could seek maintenance under Section 125. 2. Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017 * SC declared the practice of triple talaq to be unconstitutional. The court held that the practice violated Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and Article 21 (right to life with dignity) of the Constitution. 3. Danial Latifi and another v. Union of India, 2001 * SC upholding the validity of the Act, held that Muslim husbands are liable to pay maintenance to their divorced wives, which may extend beyond the Iddat period. •  The court also provided provisions for divorced Muslim women who are unable to maintain themselves, allowing them to seek maintenance from their relatives or the State Wakf Board. 4. Shamim Ara v. State of U.P, 2002 * SC held that the divorce was not valid as the requirements of talaq were not fulfilled. * The court emphasized that for a divorce to be effective, it must be pronounced, proclaimed, and articulated. The mere plea of divorce in a written statement does not constitute a valid divorce. 5. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, 1995 SC observed that the practice of polygamy could only be followed by Muslim husbands and not by women. It held that this practice caused agony and amounted to cruelty towards the wife. * The court further stated that the laws of inheritance under Muslim Personal Law were discriminatory. 6. Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum, 2008 * SC held that the marriage between a man and two sisters would be irregular but not void. It stated that the child born out of such a marriage would be entitled to inheritance from the father. * The court further clarified that marriages performed without witnesses or during the 'iddat' period of the former wife would be considered invalid. 7. Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) v. Union of India, 1997 * SC held that the practice of polygamy could only be followed by Muslim husbands and not by women, thereby violating the principles of equality.  8. Imambandi v. Mutsaddi, 1918 * SC held that the mother had no power to transfer the property of the minor child, as she was not the legal guardian. * The court emphasized that guardianship lies with the fathers, in his absence, the paternal grandfather. It clarified that the mother, although not the natural guardian, has the right to custody of the child until a specific age. 9. Gohar Begam vs Suggi Alias Nazma Begam, 1959 * SC affirmed that the mother could be a natural guardian to an illegitimate child. It held that in the case of an illegitimate child, the circumstances are different, and the mother can exercise natural guardianship. Non-transfer of custody of such a child would amount to illegal detention. 10. Noor Sabha Khatoon v. Md. Quasim, 1997 * SC held that the child born out of a Muslim marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. The father is liable to pay maintenance to his son until he attains majority and can provide for himself. The father is also responsible for the maintenance of his daughter until she is married.

Law Trend - A Legal News Network Woman Can Claim Maintenance from Second Husband Even with First Marriage Undissolved: Supreme Court   Click to Read Complete News https://lawtrend.in/woman-can-claim-maintenance-from-second-husband-even-with-first-marriage-undissolved-supreme-court/