Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages

Top Stories

Home / Top Stories
Professional Guidance, The Profession, Top Stories

Certificate Course in Association With Lets Be Eloquent

Curious For law invites you to our Certificate Course in association with Lets Be Eloquent. The course will be conducted by Mrs. Apoorvaa Aggrawal, a former lawyer wokring with AZB and Partners. The resource person is also a certified ettiquette coach and has assisted thousands of students on the above matter of ettiquette and professional conduct. The course aims to resolve all your doubts on the two subjects.

The Course is provisoned to provide you with online classes along with study material to clear all your queries on the subjects. The dates for the Classes are as follows:

4th September, 2021: Interviewing Skills
5th September, 2021: CV/Resume Drafting

Timings for the above classes will be notified through further communication.

How to Apply:

  1. Click on this link:
  2. Fill out the relevant details.
  3. Pay the required amount as per the course(s) opted for.
  4. Upload the screenshot of the payment with the Payment No., clearly visible.

LAST DATE TO APPLY: 3rd September 11:59 p.m.

In case of any qurey whatsapp us at 79996-29733

News, Top Stories

Once the son turns 18, the father’s duty does not end: Delhi High Court

The court said that when the son completes his graduation and starts earning till then all his expenses must be suffered by the father alone and the mother can never be asked to bear such onus

By: Sachin Jain, Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi 

Delhi High Court gave rise to this statement on Tuesday, June 23 while granting interim maintenance to a divorced woman to cover costs for her adult son until he completes his studies or starts earning.

It was contended that the woman has to take care of the entire expenditure of the son who has now attained majority but is not earning because he is still studying.

“The Family Court, therefore, failed to appreciate the fact that since no contribution is being made by the respondent(man) herein towards the son, the salary earned by the woman would not be sufficient for the woman to maintain herself,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said. 

“It cannot turn a blind eye to the rising costs of living and it is unreasonable to let the mother single-handedly bear the entire burden for herself and her children,” Court stated while granting interim maintenance of ₹15,000 to a divorced woman from the date of her son attaining the age of majority till he completes his graduation or starts earning or whichever is earlier.

In November 1997, this couple got married and had one son who is now 18 years old and one daughter who is now 20 years. They got divorced in November 2011.

The high court during the proceeding remarked that the woman was working in Delhi Municipal Corporation as an upper-division Clerk with a salary of about ₹60,000 per month. The court also asserted that the salary certificate filed by the man mentioned gross monthly income, as of November 2020, was around ₹1.67 lakh.

News, Top Stories

Husband’s Extra-marital Partner Can’t Be Made A Party To Domestic Violence Case By Wife: Karnataka High Court

Karnataka High Court ruled that the husband’s extramarital partner can’t be a respondent in an application moved by his wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act)

By: Sachin Jain, Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi

The petitioner was inferred of having an illicit relationship with the husband of the woman who had filed a complaint of domestic violence but there was no allegation of cruelty against her.

The judgment passed by Justice Shreeniwas Harish Kumar noted that as per Section 2(q) of the DV Act, “only those persons who have been in a domestic relationship can be made as respondents.”

“Section 2(q) of the Act makes it clear that only those persons who have been in the domestic relationship can be made as respondents. In this case, as argued by the petitioner’s counsel, the allegation against the petitioner is that the 1st respondent’s husband was suspected to be having an illegal relationship with the petitioner and he thought of bringing the petitioner to his house. Except for this allegation, there are no other allegations against the petitioner which indicate that she too joined with the husband of the 1st respondent in harassing her. Therefore the petitioner does not come within the scope of the respondent as envisaged under Section 2(q) of the Act. Making her respondent in the application filed under Section 12 of the Act is unwarranted,” the bench decreed.

Petitioner’s counsel, Advocate MH Prakash, contended that she has, with no cause, been made a party by the first respondent(wife) in her application before the Magistrate under Section 12 of the DV Act.

It was contended that she could not have been made a party to the case as she does not come within the definition of a respondent as mentioned under Section 2(q) of the DV Act.

But the wife(respondent) opposed the plea contending that she was harassed in the first place because of an illicit relationship between the petitioner and her husband. It was further contended that Domestic Violence has been committed on the petitioner’s incitement. Therefore, making her a party to the application filed under Section 12 of the DV Act is unavoidable.

The bench then began evaluating the scope of Section 2(q) of the DV Act to infer who can be made a respondent.

Section 2(q) of the Act reads:

“Section 2(q) ‘respondent’ means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act.

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship like marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.”

The bench concluded that the woman (petitioner) with whom the husband was allegedly having an illicit affair, won’t fall under the ambit of ‘respondent’ as defined under section 2(q) of the DV Act.

“Section 2(q) of the Act makes it clear that only those persons who have been in the domestic relationship can be made as respondents,” the Court stated.

The Court ordered to quash the proceedings already moved against the petitioner only before the trial court while permitting the petition moved by her. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

News, Top Stories

Justice Ashok Bhushan’s Farewell- “He Will Be Remembered For His Judgments”: CJI NV Ramana

Justice Bhushan is retiring on July 4 but Wednesday (June 30) was his last working day. As he will be leaving for Allahabad before July 4th i.e., his official retirement date to attend the funeral ceremonies of his late mother and thus, will not be attending court till then

By: Sachin Jain, Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi

Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, in his speech, said that many of the Chief Justices used to entrust complex cases to Justice Ashok Bhushan. Justice Bhushan will be remembered for his judgments, the CJI said.

Further, CJI said, “I recently came across an interview of Justice Bhushan’s where he rightly said- “The Judges are only known by their judgments. Judgments are the only true criteria for testing the mettle of a Judge. Judges delivering the greatest of decisions are justifiably remembered. Justice Ashok Bhushan will always be remembered for his judgments.”

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association also said, “Justice Bhushan was an extremely humble person and extremely gentle to young members of the bar. He never let any lawyer feel he is unprepared even if he felt so or that the lawyer didn’t know the law. He always guided the junior lawyers. Even if you lost a case, you never felt dissatisfied in his court.”

Justice Ashok Bhushan was born in Jaunpur (district), Uttar Pradesh on July 5, 1956, to Late Chandrama Prasad Srivastava and Kalavathi Srivastava. He graduated in 1975 and obtained his Law Degree from Allahabad University in 1979 and enrolled as an advocate on April 6, 1979, in Uttar Pradesh.

On April 24, 2001, he was elevated as a permanent Judge of the Allahabad High Court, after holding more than 20 years of successful expertise in practice.

Later on, after completing his job as the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, he was then elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on May 13, 2016.

A bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan, on his last working day, delivered a vital judgment in favor of persons who succumbed to COVID-19, concerning payment of Ex- Gratia Compensation to their families.

News, Top Stories

The Live-in-relationship Nowadays Is Not A New Phenomenon But Society Has Not Evolved To The Extent Of Accepting Such Relationship Without Raising Eyebrows: Punjab And Haryana High Court [READ ORDER]

A single bench headed by Justice Rajesh Bharadwaj granted protection to a girl and boy, 18 and 19-year-old respectively, who are in a live-in-relationship

By: Pooja Reddy

A petition was filed by the boy and girl seeking protection to their life and liberty from the respondents. It was contended that both the petitioners met on social media, they fell in love and decided to get married. Both of them are majors but not of marriageable age. They have contended that they are in a live-in-relationship and would marry as and when they would attain marriageable age.

It was submitted that the girl’s parents wanted to get her married to another boy which was not acceptable by the girl. She tried to persuade her family members but they did not budge. Having no other alternative, the petitioners decided to reside with each other in live-in-relationship but their relationship is not acceptable to their family members and hence, they are being issued threats time and again.

“It is evident that both the petitioners are above the age of 18 years, however, the boy is not of marriageable age. The live-in-relationship nowadays is not a new phenomena but the society has not evolved to the extent of accepting such relationship without raising the eyebrows to such relationship”, the Court said.

In the Supreme Court judgement of Nandakumar and another Vs. The State of Kerala and others, it was held that ‘live-in relationship’ is recognised by the Legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005.

“Thus, time and again Hon’ble Apex Court as well as various other High Courts have accepted the live-in-relationship and have come to the rescue of the couple as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though issue raised by the petitioners in the petition is qua their live in-relationship and their fundamental right to their life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India but the Court is concerned only with their right under Article 21 of the Constitution”, Justice Rajesh Bharadwaj said.

Further, the Court directed Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh to take into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioners in the representation and assess the threat perception if any to the petitioners. In case the allegations are found substantiated, then the requisite action be taken as in accordance with the law.

1 2 3 129 130
About Exponent

Exponent is a modern business theme, that lets you build stunning high performance websites using a fully visual interface. Start with any of the demos below or build one on your own.

Get Started


Privacy Settings
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. If you are using our Services via a browser you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. We also use content and scripts from third parties that may use tracking technologies. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. For complete information about the cookies we use, data we collect and how we process them, please check our Privacy Policy
Consent to display content from Youtube
Consent to display content from Vimeo
Google Maps
Consent to display content from Google
Consent to display content from Spotify
Sound Cloud
Consent to display content from Sound
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages