Wife Cannot Be Denied Half Share in Joint Property by Claiming Husband Paid the Purchase Amount

Posted inMatrimonial and Maintenance CasesNo Comments
While allowing a wife's appeal challenging the Family Court's order declaring her husband as the absolute owner of the property purchased in their joint names, the Kerala High Court, in A v. B. and Another [2026:KER:54162], has held that the property in joint names cannot be claimed by the husband alone on the ground of paying the entire amount, unless there is evidence to show that the property was held on trust or that the property was fraudulently purchased in the name of one spouse.

Approbate and Reprobate: What the Legal Doctrine Means

Posted inArticlesNo Comments
Approbate and reprobate is a legal doctrine which means one cannot accept and reject the same thing, blow hot and cold, or take two opposite stands. It is based on the Latin maxim quod approbo non reprobo ("that which I approve, I cannot disapprove"). It stops a person from taking advantage of a deal or court order and then later claiming it is invalid to get a different advantage.

Failure to Communicate the Grounds of Arrest Would Render Arrest Illegal

Posted inArrest & Related MattersNo Comments
The requirement of informing a person of the grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of BNSS, and absence of the same would render the arrest illegal a series of Supreme Court judgments such as Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 576], Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254], Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269] and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356).

A Party Who Relinquishes a Claim in a Suit Cannot File a Subsequent One on That Claim

Posted inCivil Cases & ProceeduresNo Comments
A plaintiff who intentionally omits or relinquishes a part of their claim is permanently barred from filing a subsequent suit to recover that claim, as per Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Supreme Court held this in Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited [2025 INSC 73].

Inclusion in Promotion Select List Not Possible When Vigilance Preliminary Establishes Charge

Posted inCorruption Cases and Related MattersNo Comments
An officer against whom a vigilance proceeding is initiated following a preliminary enquiry, which prima facie establishes the charge, is ineligible for inclusion in a promotion select list under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR), observed the Kerala High Court in Anoop Varkey v. G.S. Sajiprasad & Ors. [2025: KER:31193].

Supreme Court Cautions Against Growing Trend of Vexatious Matrimonial Cases

Posted inFamily, Marriage & DivorceNo Comments
In Ishwar Chand Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another [2026 INSC 587], the Supreme Court observed that a growing trend of vexatious matrimonial litigation involving omnibus allegations, false POCSO complaints, and misuse of criminal law as an "arm-twisting tactic" is burdening courts and causing harassment to innocent persons, while simultaneously overshadowing genuine cases that deserve urgent judicial attention.

Limitation Does Not Apply to a Probate Petition so long as The Object of the Will Survives

Posted inWill & Related MattersNo Comments
In Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjay Bhardwaj v. Krishnadhan Khaware and Ors. [2026 INSC 708], the Supreme Court, while considering the limited issue of whether an application for probate was barred by limitation, held that the right to apply for probate is a continuous right that can be exercised at any time so long as the object of the Will survives.

Well-Founded Material Evidence, Not Mere Suspicion or Association, Required to Prove Criminal Conspiracy

Posted inCode of Criminal Procedures (CrPC)No Comments
In State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan & Anr. [AIR 2000 SC 3323] Supreme Court of India underscored the need for strict material evidence for proving criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It ruled that an agreement is the core of conspiracy, requiring clear, physical manifestation rather than mere suspicion.