April 2025 - Page 2 of 2 - Lawwatch : Legal Resources for Learners

Medical Negligence & the Law Relating to It

By K Rajasekharan 16 April 2025Civil law

Simply because the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that the doctor failed. to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties.

Wife can Claim Maintenance Despite having Compromise Agreement

By K Rajasekharan 15 April 2025Family, Marriage & Divorce

The Kerala High Court in xxx v yyy 2nd February 2023 says a wife is eligible for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC even if there is an agreement by which a wife waives her right of maintenance. This is because such an agreement is against public policy. Therefore, such an agreement is ab initio void and not enforceable.

A Son, Who attained Majority, has no Right in Father’s Property

By K Rajasekharan 14 April 2025Property & Succession

A legal heir, such as the wife, son daughter etc, has no right in the self-acquired property of any of his/her parents so long as they are alive. The owner of the self-acquired property can dispose of the self-acquired property in any manner he wishes to do.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) or an Appeal from an Interlocutory Order

By K Rajasekharan 14 April 2025Civil law

The Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the Order 43 of the CPC enlists the orders against which appeal can be filed. No other order other than those expressly provided in the above provisions in the CPC can be appealed against before a higher court.

Wife holds Some Job is no Ground to Deny her Maintenance: HC

By K Rajasekharan 10 April 2025Family, Marriage & Divorce

The Kerala High Court says, in Jayaprakash E P v Sheney P & Connected Case [2025:KER:5702], that even if the wife holds a temporary job and earns some income, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband, provided she claims that her income is insufficient for her maintenance.

For Registration of a Sale Deed, Prior Title Deeds Not Essential

By K Rajasekharan 8 April 2025Property & Succession

The Supreme Court, in the matter of K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar & Others [2025 INSC 462], has held that a Registering Authority, under the Registration Act of 1908, is not empowered to refuse the registration of a sale or transfer deed on the grounds that the executant has failed to produce prior title documents or that the executant's title to the property is otherwise unsubstantiated.

When a Party to a Suit dies, any Party can Apply for Substitution

By K Rajasekharan 7 April 2025Civil law

The principles to guide courts while considering applications for setting aside abatement and consequent impleading are laid down by the Supreme Court (SC) Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lalloowa (Now Deceased) v Satish Chandra (Now Deceased) based on the judicial precedents.

A Case Must be Decided on Merit Unless the Litigant Makes Lapses

By K Rajasekharan 7 April 2025Civil law

The Supreme Court (SC) in its judgment in Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v Annabai Devram Kini says that the courts have to adopt a justice-oriented approach dictated by the uppermost consideration that ordinarily a litigant ought not to be denied an opportunity of having a case determined on merits unless he has, by gross negligence, deliberate inaction or something akin to misconduct, disentitled himself from seeking the indulgence of the court.

Mutual Consent Divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act

By K Rajasekharan 6 April 2025Family, Marriage & Divorce

Mutual Consent Divorce is the quickest form of divorce for an irreparably broken marriage. It is the divorce sought and obtained from the family court by consenting spouses, preferably by filing a joint petition. Divorce is normally sought only when the husband and wife do not want to live together in a matrimonial relation any longer.

Disciplinary Action against an Officer Need not be Initiated by the Appointing Authority

By K Rajasekharan 2 April 2025Others

The Appointing Authority need not initiate disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant. The appointing authority need not always required to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a state employee, says the Supreme Court (SC) in The State of Jharkhand & Others v Rukma Kesh Mishra [2025 INSC 412].