Legally Sane

On 01.12.2023, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crminal Appeal No. 3578 of 2023 titled Mohit Singhal & Anr. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. has decided on a substantial question of law relating to the abetment of suicide, wherein, t he widow of the deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the father of the 1st Appellant and she again borrowed Rs. 60,000/- from the same person. While paying the said amount, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was deducted towards interest. The first Appellant demanded money from her deceased husband and he requested some more time to which the first Appellant abused the deceased and assaulted him with a belt. It is further alleged that the first Appellant assaulted the widow of the deceased and the mother of the deceased and threatened to abduct her daughter. It is alleged that the first Appellant had taken 10-12 cheques from the widow of the deceased and one cheque was dishonoured, hence, he issued a legal notice to t...

Once I appeared before a Principal Judge at Family Court in Gurugram, Haryana, and witnessed a strange practice of hearing the parties on the issue of whether they should be allowed to be represented by an advocate or not. I wondered as to which provision of the law allowed the same and discovered to my amazement that Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FCA’) provides that no party before a Family Court is entitled, as a matter of right, to be represented by a legal practitioner. I immediately recalled my law school days when I read that an advocate has a right to appear before courts throughout the country. I referred to the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AA’), and observed that Section 30 provides that every advocate is entitled, as of right, to practise in all courts including the Supreme Court. After analyzing both provisions, I noticed a huge contradiction and therefore decided to research further to understand how a law...

On 26.09.2023, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8428 of 2018  titled Rahimal Bathu & Ors. Vs. Ashiyal Beevi   has decided on a very interesting and substantial question of law relating to the maintainability of a revision petition against an order rejecting a review petition , wherein, a  lady named Fatima Beevi was gifted a property by his father and she further gifted it, through a gift deed, to her son in 1982. Subsequently, the same property was sold, through a sale deed, to her grandson in 1990 by herself. After the death of Fatima Beevi and her son, a dispute arose between the wife of her son and her grandson, therefore, her grandson approached the Court praying for: 1. Declaration of exclusive ownership 2. Additionally, possession of the property  3. Alternatively, the partition of the property  The trial Court held that the gift deed executed in the favour of the son of Fatima Beevi is invalid and the sale deed executed in...