15 days granted to ASI for Inspection, 1 Month To Complete Conservation Work At Mata Mrikula Devi Temple, is upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh through the learned Judge JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ and JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA, in the case of Court on its own motion. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others(CWPIL No. 12 of 2020)

 

Brief facts of the case:

The development occurred in the suo moto case launched in 2020 in response to a report by the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority of Kullu detailing the deteriorating state of the historically significant temple.

In accordance with a court order issued on April 21, the Director (Conservation), ASI formed a four-member expert committee on April 29 and instructed its members to deliver a report within seven days. The Committee was also asked to produce an estimate for the temple’s preservation. The Committee was unable to accomplish the assignment within the allotted time, so it petitioned the high court for a one-month extension.

However, exhibiting images of the temple, the Amicus Curiae in the case informed the court that the temple is currently in a deteriorated state and that if it is not quickly repaired/restored for conservation purposes, it might collapse at any time.

He also said that the temple’s roof is supported by wooden planks and that both the roof and supporting walls had developed cracks.

JUDGEMENT:

Taking note of Amicus Curiae’s arguments, the court instead gave the Conservation Committee 15 days to finish the inspection and generate the estimate, followed by one month to execute the conservation work.

Court further stated that if, in the interim, any harm is occurred to the temple as a result of delaying the conservation work, the Conservation Section of the ASI will be solely liable.

The Kali-dedicated temple of the 11th century is usually believed to have been erected from a wooden block by the Pandavas during the time of the Mahabharata.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI

Click here to view you judgement

In the absence of proof refuting the assumption of marriage, the child of a long-term cohabiting spouse cannot be denied access to family property, is upheld by the Supreme Court through the learned Judge JUSTICE SA NAZEER and VIKRAM NATH, in the case of Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, (CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6406-6407 OF 2010).

Brief facts of the case:

The suit property in this instance belonged to a family regulated by the Mitakshara Law of Inheritance. The aforementioned land was formerly owned by Kattukandi Edathil Kanaran Vaidyar, who had four sons: Damodaran, Achuthan, Sekharan, and Narayanan. Achuthan was a father. Sekharan and Narayanan did not marry. Damodaran wed Chiruthakutty, and the couple had a son named Krishnan. However, the defendants argued that Damodaran never wed Chiruthakutty and that, as a result of his illegitimacy, Krishnan, the first plaintiff, is not entitled to a portion of the property.

On the basis of an examination of the evidence on file, the trial court determined that Damodaran had a long cohabitation with Chiruthakutty and that, as a result of such cohabitation, it was reasonable to conclude that Damodaran had married Chiruthakutty, and that the first plaintiff was the son born in said marriage. As a result, the Trial Court issued a preliminary decision dividing the subject property into two portions, one of which was allocated to the plaintiffs.

However, the Kerala High Court determined that the first petitioner was not a legal son of Damodaran and Chiruthakutty.

Since their marriage occurred more than 50 years prior to the filing of the lawsuit (now 90 years), the plaintiff contended before the Supreme Court that there is no chance of obtaining documentary evidence of their marriage. Nonetheless, he showed evidence of recurring payments from the husband’s residence to Chiruthakutty. On behalf of the plaintiffs, he also questioned witnesses in support of his position. Consequently, it was argued that the records would indisputably demonstrate that the first plaintiff was the son of Damodaran and Chiruthakutty, and that the defendants’ claim that Damodaran died a bachelor or without a legal son cannot be trusted.

 

JUDGEMENT:

The Court stated at the start that if a man and a woman live together as husband and wife for many years, there is a presumption that they are married. Such a presumption is permissible under Evidence Act section 114. Although the assumption is rebuttable, anyone who seeks to deprive the connection of legal origin has a great burden to demonstrate that no marriage actually transpired.

Coming to the facts of the case, the court took note of the plaintiffs’ argument that Damodaran and Chiruthakutty’s marriage took place in 1940. There was substantial proof that the first plaintiff was born on May 12, 1942. The records supplied by the plaintiffs existed much before the dispute between the parties occurred. Thus, these records, along with the testimony of witnesses, demonstrated that Damodaran and Chiruthakutty had lived together as husband and wife for an extended period of time.

The court ruled that the defendants failed to refute the inference that Damodaran and Chiruthakutty were married due to their lengthy cohabitation. Thus, the contested judgment of the High Court was reversed, and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were reinstated.

 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI

Click here to view you judgement

The High Court of Delhi, through learned judges, Justice Jasmeet Singh & JusticeDinesh Kumar in the case of Mahima Yadhav vs Government of NCT Delhi (W.P.(C) 4117/2021) took suo moto cognizance of lack of rainwater harvesting efforts in Delhi.

BRIEF FACTS: There was an article in Times of India dated 18.06.2022 which talked about lack of rain water harvesting efforts in Delhi. The article suggested that monsoon rain water was not harvested properly within the city of Delhi. The court took note of this article and the fact that due to the monsoon season and otherwise, there were huge traffic snarls in Delhi which according to the court could be easily controlled and regulated instantly through rain water management as well as with the assistance of Google.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT: The court took suo moto cognizance since it was a matter of public importance. The court issued notices to various public departments and parties. The court asked the parties to file a status report within one week indicating the steps taken by the agencies to store and harvest rainwater and  ease traffic jams/snarls in Delhi during monsoons and other periods.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K

Click here to read Judgement

The High Court of Delhi, through learned judges, Chief Justice Pratibha M Singh in the case of Mahima Yadhav vs Government of NCT Delhi (W.P.(C) 4117/2021)  held that termination of pregnancy ought to be permitted even beyond the 24 weeks period. 

BRIEF FACTS: The present petition was filed by the Petitioner, seeking permission for medical termination of her pregnancy. The Petitioner had invoked the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The submission of counsel for the Petitioner was that the Petitioner’s foetus was more than 24 weeks in age and that she should be permitted to carry out the termination in view of the abnormalities of the foetus and the risk involved for the Petitioner who was suffering from severe health conditions.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT: The court remarked that the conditions described clearly constituted ‘substantial foetal abnormalities’ which could have an impact on the physical condition of the foetus even if the entire pregnancy was allowed to mature. This would have a deleterious impact on the mother as well. Since the Amendment Act, 2021 had already been notified and in view of the settled legal position in the various judgments which have been set out herein above, the Court was of the opinion that the termination of pregnancy ought to be permitted even beyond the 24 weeks period. The Petitioner was accordingly permitted to undergo the procedure for medical termination of her pregnancy at the B.L. Kapoor Hospital

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K

Click here to read Judgement

This particular decision is upheld by the High Court of Telangana through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI in the case of Shabana Begum v. State of Telangana (CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4703 OF 2021).

Facts:

The facts of the instant case is that a minor girl was continuously sexually assaulted by her mother’s live-in partner resulting in her getting pregnant. The instant criminal petition under Section 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed by the petitioner/A-2 to release her on bail for the offences under Sections 376(2)(f)(n), 376(3), 342 and 50 of the Penal Code, 1860.

Judgement:

Bench noted that the petitioner/A-2 after the death of her husband had developed intimacy with A-1 and both the petitioner and A-1 were staying together by maintaining a live-in-relationship.

Further, it was noted that the petitioner allowed A-1 to commit sexual assault on her minor daughter, as a result of which her minor daughter, due to a continuous assault upon her by A-1 became pregnant and also gave birth to a male child. After giving birth, also the victim became pregnant twice and A-1 gave pills to her for abortion. The DNA test also revealed that A-1 is the biological father of the male child born to the victim girl.

In view of the above nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, which were grave and heinous in nature, Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner.

High Court while dismissing the criminal petition, stated that since the charge sheet was already submitted, the trial court was directed to commence and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.

Judgement reviewed by – Arvind Roshan

Click here to view the Judgement