An Unmarried Daughter Can Claim Reasonable Wedding Expenses from Her Father

In a case Akza Rajan v. Rajan M.S [2023/KER/23485], the High Court of Kerala made a significant ruling about a father's duty to pay for his daughters' wedding expenses. The court ruled that unmarried daughters, aged 21 and 26, have a legal right to receive a reasonable amount for their marriages from their father, not just a moral one. This right, the court declared, applies to all fathers regardless of their religion. 

Anticipatory Bail: Must the Sessions Court Be Approached Before the High Court?

The Supreme Court recently reinforced this view in Mohammed Rasal C. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., noting the consistent practice across most states. The Court clarified that while High Courts can entertain direct applications in special or extra-ordinary circumstances, these reasons must be recorded in writing. This aligns with the five-judge bench decision in Ankit Bharti v. State of UP & Anr., which held that it is for the concerned judge to determine if such special circumstances exist.

Loss of Consortium includes Spousal, Parental, and Filial Rights

The law was clarified by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in The New India Assurance Company v. Somwati (2020). Relying on the principles established by a two-judge bench in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram & others [(2018) 18 SCC 130], the Court recognized three distinct categories of consortium: spousal, parental, and filial.

The Courts must Apply Triple Test while Granting Bail

The "Triple Test" (or Tripod Test) remains the cornerstone of bail jurisprudence. As restated by the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [AIR 2019 SC 4198], the principle requires courts to assess three primary factors before granting bail: The risk of the accused absconding if released. The risk of the accused tampering with evidence. The risk of the accused influencing or intimidating witnesses.