Kerala High Court Reunites Senior Couple Separated by Son

by News

The Kerala High Court recently made a compassionate decision to reunite an elderly couple who had been separated due to the husband’s dementia. The heartwarming case unfolded when an 80-year-old woman sought the court’s intervention to bring her 92-year-old husband back into her care. The husband had been taken away from their family home by their son, who believed it was necessary to care for his father due to his dementia.

Justice Devan Ramachandran presided over the case and emphasized the sacredness of marital vows, stating, “Till death do us part.” The judge’s intervention paved the way for the elderly couple to be reunited at their family home.

The son had taken his father away from the family home, asserting that his mother was too frail and elderly to provide the necessary care for her husband. The son also cited a dispute with neighbors as a reason for not staying at the family home.

The mother, in her petition to the High Court, expressed her reluctance to live with her son, fearing potential mistreatment based on past incidents.

Reports from a social justice officer and the local police shed light on the husband’s happiness when he was with his wife. The wife had made it clear that she wanted to live with her husband at the family home, and the reports reinforced her preference.

The government pleader confirmed that the police had found no threats from the neighbors and expressed their readiness to take the necessary steps to ensure the family’s safety.

The son, appearing in person before the Court, contested the reports, suggesting that they had been manipulated to favor his mother. He argued that he was the most suitable person to care for his father, especially given that his mother was unwell.

However, the Court ruled that the son could indeed care for his father within the family home. The High Court’s directive was for a social justice officer to accompany the senior citizens to their home, visiting them weekly and filing monthly reports.

The Court also clarified that the son could visit the family home as long as it aligned with his mother’s wishes. The son was also granted the option to seek police protection should he perceive any threats or potential issues.

The case is set to be heard again on November 13, and Advocate Ramkumar Nambiar will continue to assist the Court as amicus curiae, providing valuable insights and expertise.

This heartwarming case underscores the importance of familial bonds, compassion, and the rights of senior citizens. It serves as a reminder of the reverence attached to marriage and the sanctity of the commitment of “till death do us part.” The Court’s decision showcases the legal system’s role in safeguarding the well-being and happiness of senior citizens, particularly in situations where dementia is a concern.

Supreme Court Rejects Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions in India

by News

The Supreme Court rejected the recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions in a recent case, stating that they are not permissible under current Indian laws. However, there was a minority opinion within the Court that recognized the right of queer couples to enter into civil unions, even if they cannot marry under the existing legal framework. This means that while same-sex marriage remains unrecognized, the Court acknowledged the possibility of civil unions for LGBTQ+ couples.

Delhi High Court Restrains Sale of ‘Good Time’ Cookies Amid Packaging Dispute

by News

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction to prevent the production and sale of butter cookies under the name ‘Good Time.’ This decision came after Britannia Industries Limited filed a complaint, alleging that the packaging of ‘Good Time’ cookies was nearly identical to Britannia’s popular ‘Good Day’ and ‘Good Day Butter Cookies.’

Justice Prathiba M Singh, who presided over the case, reasoned that ‘Good Day’ cookies and their packaging had gained significant recognition and goodwill in the market. Butter cookies like these are widely consumed by a diverse demographic, including children, literate individuals, and those in urban and rural areas. The packaging and brand of Britannia’s ‘Good Day’ have become widely recognized, making it crucial to protect against any potential consumer confusion.

The Court concluded that the packaging of ‘Good Time’ cookies appeared to be a deliberate imitation of Britannia’s ‘Good Day’ packaging. This intentional copying raised concerns about potential trademark infringement and passing off, as consumers could easily mistake the two products due to their packaging similarities.

As a result, the Court issued an interim order, restraining Amar Biscuit Pvt. Ltd., the company producing ‘Good Time’ cookies, from manufacturing, selling, or offering these butter cookies under the ‘Good Time’ name or any other mark that is identical or deceptively similar to Britannia’s ‘Good Day’ mark. The defendants were also instructed to remove any online listings of these infringing products within 48 hours.

Britannia further argued that the packaging of ‘Good Day Butter Cookies’ was not merely a trademark label but also an artistic work protected by copyright. They learned about the imitation through a consumer post on social media.

The Court considered the potential harm to Britannia if the interim injunction were not granted and found that Britannia could suffer irreparable losses. The similarity in packaging and branding could lead to brand dilution and market confusion, impacting Britannia’s goodwill and consumer trust.

In addition to the injunction, the Court ordered Amar Biscuit Pvt. Ltd. to provide a stock statement detailing all materials featuring the contested mark and packaging. This case demonstrates the importance of protecting trademarks, branding, and consumer trust in the marketplace, particularly when similar products with similar packaging risk causing confusion among consumers.

Chhattisgarh High Court Rules Against Recording Phone Conversations Without Consent

by News

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently delivered a significant judgment emphasizing the protection of an individual’s right to privacy, particularly in the context of recorded phone conversations. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey ruled that recording telephone conversations without the knowledge and consent of the involved parties infringes upon their right to privacy, which is safeguarded under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This verdict came as the High Court overturned a decision by a family court to admit phone conversations recorded by a husband with his wife as evidence in a maintenance case.

The case revolved around a maintenance plea filed by the wife in the family court. During the legal proceedings, the husband submitted an application seeking to introduce mobile phone conversations recorded between him and his wife as evidence. The family court accepted this application, allowing the husband to use the recorded conversations to support his claims. In response to this ruling, the wife appealed to the Chhattisgarh High Court, contending that admitting these recordings violated her right to privacy. Her legal counsel argued that the husband had recorded these conversations without her knowledge and, therefore, they should be deemed inadmissible as evidence against her.

In his defense, the husband’s attorney argued that the recorded conversations were vital evidence supporting his claims. He asserted that he had the right to confront his wife with this evidence during the legal proceedings.

The Chhattisgarh High Court, however, rejected the husband’s argument, emphasizing the critical importance of an individual’s right to privacy. It underscored that this right is an integral component of the broader right to life protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Consequently, the family court’s decision to allow the admission of these recordings as evidence was deemed incorrect. The High Court’s decision was informed by various precedent-setting judgments, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in the phone tapping case (PUCL v Union of India). In this landmark case, the Supreme Court upheld that telephone conversations conducted within the privacy of one’s home or office are covered by the right to privacy and cannot be intruded upon unless permitted by established legal procedures.

As a result, the Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the family court’s order, effectively allowing the wife’s appeal. This judgment underscores the central role of an individual’s right to privacy and its protection, even in situations involving familial or marital disputes. It firmly establishes that the act of recording telephone conversations without the knowledge and consent of the other party constitutes a breach of their right to privacy. This case serves as an important precedent, reaffirming the sanctity of an individual’s right to privacy under the Indian Constitution and the nation’s legal framework.

Kapil Dev’s PIL in Delhi High Court Seeks Stricter Animal Welfare Laws

by News

Legendary Indian cricketer Kapil Dev, along with his wife Romi Dev and animal rights activist Anjali Gopalan, has filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court seeking stricter laws against cruelty to animals. The PIL challenges certain provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioners argue that Sections 11(1), 11(3)(b), and 11(3)(c) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, along with Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC, are unconstitutional. Section 11 of the Act deals with cruelty to animals and prescribes fines and imprisonment for offenses. The petitioners assert that these penalties are insufficient and lack a deterrent effect to address the brutality and crimes committed against animals in India.

Additionally, the PIL contends that Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC, which deal with offenses related to causing harm or killing animals, create an unreasonable classification. These sections differentiate between offenses based on the commercial and utility value of the animal, leading to varying penalties for the same offense, depending on the value of the animal. This classification is deemed arbitrary and unreasonable.

Kapil Dev and the other petitioners seek amendments to these provisions to ensure stricter and more appropriate penalties for those found guilty of cruelty to animals. They emphasize that the prevailing penalties trivialize the lives of animals and do not adequately address the severity of the offenses committed against them.

In response to the PIL, the Delhi High Court has issued notices to several authorities, including the Central government, the Animal Welfare Board, the Delhi government, and Delhi Police. These authorities are required to file their responses within four weeks, and the matter is scheduled for the next hearing on December 19.

The PIL brought forward by Kapil Dev and others highlights their commitment to animal welfare and their efforts to strengthen India’s legal framework against cruelty to animals. They aim to protect the rights and well-being of animals, promoting a more humane society where animals are treated with greater compassion and care.

As the case progresses, it may prompt changes in the legal landscape surrounding animal rights and cruelty prevention in India. The responses of the authorities involved will shed light on the potential for legal reforms in this critical area.

89-Year-Old Husband Seeks Divorce from 82-Year-Old Wife, Supreme Court Rejects Plea

by News

In a recent Supreme Court case, an 89-year-old man sought a divorce from his 82-year-old wife. However, the court rejected his plea, highlighting that the concept of an “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” cannot be a one-size-fits-all formula for divorce.

The court emphasized that despite the increasing number of divorce cases in India, marriage is still regarded as a sacred and invaluable institution in Indian society. In this particular case, the wife expressed her willingness to care for her husband and had no intentions of leaving him in their later years. She also conveyed her desire not to be labeled as a “divorcee.”

Considering these sentiments, the court concluded that granting a divorce on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage would be unjust to the wife. The judges noted that respecting the wife’s sentiments and preserving the sacred nature of their long-lasting marriage was essential.

The case revolved around the husband’s claim that his wife’s refusal to accompany him to Chennai, where he was stationed during his military service, amounted to abandonment without reasonable cause. While a district court initially granted the divorce, the decision was overturned by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the wife’s arguments, highlighting her commitment to the marriage since 1963 and her efforts to maintain their sacred relationship. As a result, the husband’s plea for divorce was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

The court’s decision underscores the significance of respecting the sentiments and values associated with marriage, even in the face of marital challenges. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the court stated, should not be the sole criterion for divorce decisions.

Advocate Vipin Gogia represented the husband, while Advocate Madhurima Tatia represented the wife in this case.

Delhi High Court Rejects Tata’s Plea for Injunction Against Puro Wellness Salt Ad

by News

The Delhi High Court has declined to grant an interim injunction against a commercial aired by Puro Wellness for its pink-colored rock salt, marketed as “Puro Healthy Salt,” in a case brought by Tata Sons Private Limited. Tata alleged that the Puro salt advertisement disparaged white salt but failed to establish a prima facie case for an injunction, according to Justice C Hari Shankar.

The Court noted that the commercial did not explicitly make any derogatory comments about white salt. At most, the advertisement expressed a preference for Puro’s salt, claiming it to be a healthy alternative to common salt without making any negative remarks about white salt’s healthiness. The Court found it highly debatable whether the advertisement necessarily implied that white salt was unhealthy.

Tata argued that Puro could not depict or advertise its salt as “healthy” since it would violate Food Safety Regulations. However, the Court clarified that making one’s product seem superior to others through comparative advertising was permissible. The Court stated that the competitor’s right was limited to ensuring that their product was not disparaged and that rivals did not make false or misleading claims without supporting quantitative or qualitative data.

In the Court’s view, Puro’s advertisement fell within the bounds of acceptable comparative advertising. It noted that if such a seemingly innocuous commercial were to be injuncted, the concept of comparative advertising would be rendered moot.

The refusal of interlocutory injunctive relief leaves Puro Wellness free to continue airing its advertisement, emphasizing the importance of truthful, non-disparaging comparative advertising in the marketplace. This case underscores that competitors should focus on ensuring their products are not disparaged rather than attempting to control their rivals’ advertising tactics.

Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rajiv Nayar, along with a team of lawyers, represented Tata Sons in the case. On the other side, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal and his team of lawyers from Khaitan & Co represented Puro Wellness.

This ruling underscores the importance of clear and truthful comparative advertising practices, while also respecting the freedom of companies to market their products in a competitive marketplace.

Patna High Court Takes Cognisance of Bihar Police Dumping Accident Victim’s Body

by News

The Patna High Court has taken suo motu cognisance of a troubling video that circulated on social media, showing three Bihar policemen disposing of a road accident victim’s body in a canal located in Muzaffarpur district. The court expressed profound concern over the actions of the police officers in the video, stating that it was a distressing reflection of societal values.

Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy presided over the bench and stressed the importance of treating lifeless bodies with respect and dignity. They emphasized that although some might view lifeless bodies as disposable, they carry a soul when alive and thus warrant greater reverence in their handling.

The court also referred to the advisory issued by the National Human Rights Commission, which underscores the significance of upholding the dignity and safeguarding the rights of the deceased.

In response, the court directed the state government to furnish information regarding any actions taken against the police officials involved. Additionally, the Director General of Police was instructed to provide a report on the actions taken within a two-week period.

The incident led to the suspension of the three police officers responsible. The case is scheduled for further consideration on October 31.

Delhi High Court’s Landmark Move: Live-Streaming of Chief Justice’s Court Begins on October 11

by News

Starting from October 11, the Delhi High Court will introduce live-streaming of its proceedings, commencing with cases in the Chief Justice’s court. This initiative aims to enhance access to justice and will be implemented on a case-by-case basis following the court’s directions.

The live-streaming can be accessed through the Delhi High Court’s official website under the “LIVE STREAMING” section. However, it’s important to note that the live-streamed and archived content is intended for informational purposes and should not be considered an official court record.

The court has explicitly stated that only authorized individuals or entities are permitted to record, share, or disseminate the live-streamed proceedings or archival data. This restriction applies to print and electronic media as well as social media platforms.

Additionally, the Delhi High Court emphasizes its transition to paperless e-courts, where all court activities, including video conferences and hybrid hearings, are conducted electronically through the Online c-Filing System.

Furthermore, the live streaming will initially cover Court No. 1, which includes Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Hon’ble the Chief Justice, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula. Proceedings before Court No. 39 will also be live-streamed in the near future.

CIC Grants Husband’s RTI Request to Verify Wife’s Income in Maintenance Case

by News

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that a husband can seek limited financial information about his wife through the Right to Information (RTI) Act to verify her income in a maintenance case.

In a recent case titled “Yash Malhotra vs CPIO, Income Tax Department,” the CIC directed a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to provide the husband with only basic financial details such as the net taxable income or gross income of his wife. This decision allows the husband to use this information to verify the financial evidence presented in a maintenance case.

The CIC’s decision is based on a similar case, “Rahmat Bano vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax,” where a similar request was granted. It means that, under certain circumstances, husbands can use the RTI Act to access essential financial information about their wives to ensure fairness in maintenance cases.