Read Time: 27 minutes
1. [Kangana Ranaut vs Javed Akhtar] Bollywood actor Kangana Ranaut has approached the Bombay High Court seeking a stay on the defamation case initiated against her by lyricist Javed Akhtar. Akhtar filed a defamation case against Ranaut following certain remarks she made about him during an interview with Republic TV. Pertinently, Ranaut had also filed a cross-complaint against Akhtar, alleging criminal conspiracy, extortion, and invasion of privacy. However, it was only in July 2023 that the magistrate court dropped extortion charges against Akhtar and summoned him for other charges. Akhtar subsequently filed an application before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court stayed criminal proceedings against Akhtar until his revision application before the court was heard.
Case title: Kangana Ranaut vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Click here to read more.
2.[Mehr] The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that a Muslim woman is entitled to Mehr, which is a lump sum amount, from her first husband even if she is remarried. A single judge bench of Justice Rajesh Patil held that a Muslim woman would be entitled to Mehr as stipulated under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (MWPA) even after remarriage. The high court, in its order, noted that Section 3 does not absolve the husband of his duty to pay a reasonable and fair amount.
Bench: Justice Rajesh Patil.
Case title: Khalil Abbas Fakir vs Tabbasum Khalil Fakir.
3. [Maintenance] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that a woman can be entitled to maintenance even if she lives in the matrimonial house. “The mere fact that she is residing in the matrimonial home is not a pretext to disentitle her to a reasonable amount of maintenance. She still needs some amount towards food, medicine, clothes and educational expenses for the child,” the order reads. A single-judge bench of Justice Neela Gokhale was hearing a plea filed by the husband challenging the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The couple got married in 2012 as per Hindu religion and has a 10-year-old son. Due to marital discord between the parties, they separated in November 2021. The husband said she deserted him without any justifiable reason, and despite his efforts, he could not convince her to live with him. Therefore, he filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. On an application filed by the wife seeking maintenance, the family court directed the man to pay Rs 15,000 per month to her, and Rs 10,000 per month to his minor son.
Bench: Justice Neela Gokhale.
Case title:Rajkumar Amruthrao Guddadigi vs. Shilaja Rajkumar Guddadigi.
4. [Kangana Ranaut vs Javed Akhtar] In response to the petition filed by Bollywood actor Kangana Ranaut seeking a stay on the defamation case, lyricist Javed Akhtar has submitted before the high court that Kangana is attempting to delay the proceedings in the defamation case. “The present Writ Petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the Petitioner has failed to establish any basis for invoking the Writ jurisdiction. At the same time, the present petition is only filed to delay the proceedings before the Ld. 10th MM, Andheri. This is when the Petitioner has already taken numerous adjournments to delay the matter,” the order reads. The reply was filed by Akhtar in response to the petition filed by Kangana Ranaut, who sought a stay on the defamation case filed by Akhtar after an interview with Ranaut aired on Republic TV.
5. [Kala Ghoda] The Bombay High Court has allowed the Kala Ghoda Association (KGA) to conduct its cultural festival at Cross Maidan after the association assured the bench that no refreshment or commercial stalls would be installed. A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata stated that it was permitting the KGA to organize the event, and from next year, the civic authority may grant permission subject to conditions laid down by the high court. The high court stated that if someone wishes to deviate from the conditions laid down by the court, they will have to approach the high court for the same. “We are not permitting slightest deviation from conditions laid down. If anyone seeks relaxation of those conditions or deviations or if applicant is someone else, application to be made to this court,” the order states.
Bench: Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata.
Case title: Kala Ghoda Association vs OVAL.
6. [Sunil Kedar] The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Congress Leader Sunil Kedar, who was convicted by the trial court for irregularities committed in the Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank (NDCC). The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Urmila Joshi, heard an appeal filed by the Congress leader after his conviction by the trial court in the bank scam. The five-time Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) was sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment by the magistrate court in December 2023. Kedar was booked by the officials under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 468 (forgery for cheating) for the alleged scam during his tenure as the chairman of Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank in 2002.
Bench: Justice Urmila Joshi Joshi.
Case title: Sunil Chhatrapal Kedar Vs State of Maharashtra.
7. [Cox & King Promoter] The Bombay High Court has recently denied bail to Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar, the promoter of King & Cox, in the money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate against him. The high court observed that the right to be released is not absolute even after serving half of the minimum imprisonment. “It is to be noted that even the right to be enlarged on bail after undergoing detention for a period exceeding one half of the minimum period of imprisonment is not an absolute right,” the bench noted. A single-judge bench of Justice PK Chavan was hearing the application filed by Kerkar seeking bail in the money laundering case on grounds of prolonged incarceration. Kerkar was arrested after an FIR was filed against Cox & Kings Group of Companies (CKL) and others alleging bank fraud.
Bench: Justice MS Karnik.
Case title: Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar vs Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
8. [Effective Remedies In Letter & Spirit] The Bombay High Court has recently observed that appellate authorities to ensure effective remedies are provided in letter and spirit and that there is no scope for a theory by the appellate authorities that the operation is successful but the patient is dead. “There cannot be a scope for a theory of ‘operation being successful however the patient dead’. The petitioners would certainly have a legal right to know, the status of their challenge insofar as the interim reliefs or the final reliefs they seek in their appeals, before they are made to suffer the suspension order,” the order reads. A division bench of the high court, comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla, heard several petitions filed by chemist shop owners concerning the closure of their shops. The chemist shop owners approached the high court, claiming that their appeal was not being listed before the appellate authority. One of the petitioners, Apna Chemist, submitted that an order suspending his license from January 8, 2024, to January 17, 2024, was passed on October 3, 2023. He claimed that he filed an appeal against the order on October 31, 2023, but it had not yet been listed, and no orders were passed staying the effect of the order on their interim applications.
Bench: Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla.
Case title: Apna Chemist vs Asst Commissioner Zone 3.
9. [Maratha Reservation] The Bombay High Court last week refused the urgent listing of the Public Interest Litigation filed by Hemant Patil seeking a ban on the rally, hunger strike, and protest in respect to the Maratha Reservation organized by various Maratha Community Organizations. The PIL was mentioned before the division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor. Patil’s advocate, RN Kachhwe submitted that around 1 crore people were about to gather at the Azad Maidan in Mumbai and sought a direction to be issued not to allow the gathering. The division bench responded and said that it is the authorities who are required to give permissions for such gatherings and not the court. “Is the permission granted? Don't wrap the court into all this. What can be done in such matters? This is not a PIL,” the bench said. The division bench also stated that the high court is not the one to maintain the law and order situation and asked the petitioner to approach the necessary authorities.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor.
Case title: Hemant Patil vs State of Maharashtra.
10. [Bail To Man Booked For Raping Minor] The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a man who was booked for raping a 13-year-old child. The single judge bench of the high court at Nagpur comprising Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke noted that the accused was of a tender age of 26, and the sexual relationship was out of attraction. “Thus it is apparent that, out of the love affair, she joined the company of the present applicant. The applicant is also of a tender age of 26 years and out of love affair they come together. It seems that, the alleged incident of sexual relationship is out of the attraction between the two young persons and it is not the case that applicant has subjected the victim for a sexual assault out of lust,” the order reads. The accused had approached the high court seeking bail after an FIR was filed by the father of the victim under Sections 363, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(3) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, and 17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In August 2020, the girl had left the house on the pretext of bringing back a book from a classmate, but when she did not return, after looking for her in the vicinity, an FIR was lodged with the police. After the investigation, it was found that the girl had eloped with the accused to Bangalore and on their return, the accused was arrested.
Bench: Justice Urmila Joshi.
Case title: Nitin Damodar Dhaberao vs State of Maharashtra.
11. [Living Will] The Bombay High Court has sought a response from the Central Government, State Government, and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in a Public Interest Litigation filed by Dr. Nikhil D. Datar to create a mechanism to recognize living wills. A living will is an advance healthcare directive documented to communicate a patient's healthcare preferences, such as the use of ventilator machines or life-sustaining equipment, in situations where the patient is unable to convey their wishes to the medical staff. The division bench Bombay High Court, led by Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, has given the State, Central Government, and BMC a six-week period to file their responses. Dr. Nikhil Datar, a gynaecologist who appeared in person before the court, highlighted the absence of an authority designated to act as the custodian of living wills despite the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment. Datar also emphasized that a majority of those who have executed Advanced Medical Directives (AMD) are senior citizens.
Case title: Dr Nikhil D Datar & Anr vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
12. [Civic Officers] The Bombay High Court has declined to dismiss an FIR filed against civic officers who were implicated following the tragic demise of five labourers in the collapse of a century-old building. The division bench of the High Court at Nagpur presided over by Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice MW Chandwani, addressed a petition lodged by the owner of the two floors and two civic officers of the Amravati Municipal Corporation seeking to quash the FIR lodged against them. The trio faced charges by the police under Sections 304A (causing death by negligence) and 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) of the Indian Penal Code. The civic officials had issued multiple notices to the structure's owners since 2019, emphasizing the dire state of dilapidation that necessitated immediate demolition. The owner of the two floors demolished the two levels in July 2022. However, several shops on the ground floor were still pending demolition. Subsequently, when one of the shop owners commenced repair work in his shop, the building collapsed, resulting in the death of five labourers. Consequently, an FIR was filed against the shop owner.
Bench: Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice MW Chandwani.
Case title: Rahul Jain vs State of Maharashtra.
Please Login or Register
