LEXIS AND COMPANY

  Esha Dhir v. Sparsh Dhir : case study Introduction Family court is a special court that deals with legal issues that arise from family relationships. A Family court has jurisdiction over both civil and criminal proceedings. It can deal with any litigation or proceeding involving matrimonial concerns, spousal property, the validity of any person, maintenance, guardianship, or custody or access to any minor under civil affairs. It has authority over orders relating to the support of a wife, children, and parents that are described in  Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code  (CrPC). Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court delved into the subject of the role of a family court judge while deciding the petition of   Esha Dhir v. Sparsh Dhir  (2021). Background of the case In this case, Yashwant Varma, judge of the Delhi High Court, while deciding a petition expressed his views on the subject of the role of a family court judge. The High Court, in this matter, directed

  Critical analysis of Section 319 CrPC Introduction  There are cases where after the production of evidence, the court thinks that a person other than the accused has committed the offence. In such cases, the court has the power under  Section 319  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure  to summon, detain or arrest such a person after service of notice. Section 319 deals with the power of the court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of such an offence for which the accused is prosecuted. This section talks about additional prosecution, when during the trial it appears to the court that a person who has not been joined as accused in the case has committed the offence, then in such a case, the person can be tried together with the accused. This section ensures justice and takes into account the convenience of both the parties by taking cognizance of the newly added accused in the same case. The code also takes into consideration the interests of the person who has been

  Mohamed Obedulla Chinoy v. Rasubai Chinoy : case study Introduction The primary aim of the judicial system is to make the adjudication on the matter simpler, faster, uncomplicated, and inexpensive for the common person. It has been rightly said that justice delayed is justice denied. In a recent event, an utmost disappointment is expressed regarding a judgement passed by the Bombay High Court in the case titled  Mohamed Obedulla Chinoy & Ors. vs Rasubai Suleman Chinoy (2021) , which was pending in the High Court for over thirty-one years. As expressed by the Bombay High Court, the case indeed involved a question of law; however, the answer to it was neither complex nor new. Ironically so, the answer to the question was older than the petition and has been in existence since 1905. Facts of the case In this case, one Rasubai Suleman Chinoy formed a Will in Urdu. She belonged to a religious denomination that is Sunni Hanafi Mahomedan. The Will was made in Mumbai on 20 th  December 1

  Right to Equality : A Fundamental Right Introduction Part III of the Indian Constitution  guarantees certain basic rights to all the citizens of India irrespective of their caste, race, birthplace, religion or gender. These basic rights are known as Fundamental Rights which are justifiable.  Dr. B. R. Ambedkar  referred these as the most citizen part of the constitution. These are deemed an essential part of the constitution as they protect the rights and liberties of the citizens of the country against any misuse or intrusion by the government with the power delegated to them in a democracy. These are the negative obligations of the state and citizens. These rights try to achieve the goals set out in the Preamble, of justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, and dignity. The fundamental rights are classified under six heads under the constitution: Right to equality (Art. 14 – Art 18) Right to freedom (Art. 19 – Art 22) Right against exploitation (Art.23- Art. 24) Right to freedom of r