Lawwatch : Legal Resources for Learners

Notional Income of a 5-Year-Old Minor in MACT Case

By K Rajasekharan 10 August 2025Motor Vehicles Act

The High Court of Kerala, in Jyothis Raj Krishna v Sunny George & Ors [2024/KER/81459] addressed the issue of determining the notional income for a 5-year-old minor, Jyothis Raj Krishna, who suffered severe injuries in a motor accident, resulting in a vegetative state.

Setting Aside an Abated or Terminated Suit

By K Rajasekharan 9 August 2025Civil law

Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), a suit abates (terminates) upon the death of a plaintiff or defendant if the cause of action does not survive. Conversely, if the cause of action survives, the legal representatives of the deceased may be substituted to continue the proceedings, as provided under Order XXII, Rules 2 to 4 of the CPC.

Court Can Order a DNA Test Only When Absolutely Necessary

By K Rajasekharan 7 August 2025Family, Marriage & Divorce

The High Court of Kerala, in Gangadharan v. Sreedevi Amma [2024(3) KHC 624], held that a court can order a DNA test only when there is a strong prima facie case (a case that seems valid at first glance), not merely a basic one. This requirement is a sine qua non, or an essential condition.

Jurisdiction in Cheque Dishonour Cases Lies Where the Payee’s Account is Maintained, Not Where the Cheque is Presented

By K Rajasekharan 7 August 2025Negotiable Instruments

The Supreme Court, in Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat [2025: INSC: 897], has reiterated the principle governing territorial jurisdiction for an offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). Jurisdiction lies with the court within whose limits the bank branch is situated where the payee maintains the account through which the cheque was presented for collection.

Wife (IPS Officer) & her Family to publish Public Apology for Filing Frivolous Cases

By K Rajasekharan 4 August 2025Family, Marriage & Divorce

The Supreme Court (SC), in Shivangi Bansal v Sahib Bansal [2025 INSC 883] directed the wife ( IPS Officer) and her family to issue a public apology for filing multiple frivolous cases for harassing her former husband and his family. After their separation in 2018, she filed 15 cases and he filed 10 cases before various Courts/ Authorities.

Proof of Entrustment of Ornaments in Petition for Recovery of Gold

By K Rajasekharan 2 August 2025Family, Marriage & Divorce

A newlywed wife cannot be expected to demand receipts or arrange for independent witnesses when entrusting her jewelry to her husband or in-laws at their request. The High Court of Kerala, in Prasad v. Greeshma [2025: KER:49786], held that consequently, her inability to produce documentary evidence or independent witnesses to prove such entrustment is not fatal to a Petition for the Recovery of Ornaments.

No Evidence or Relief Without Pleadings: The Foundation of a Civil Suit

By K Rajasekharan 1 August 2025Civil law

In the absence of pleadings submitted at the appropriate stage within the stipulated time, any amount of evidence submitted later, will not be taken into consideration by the court, says the Supreme Court (SC) in the case of Biraji @ Brijraji & Another. v. Surya Pratap & Others [AIR Online 2020 SC 806].

Power of Attorney for Transfer of Immoveable Property Needs Registration in Kerala

By K Rajasekharan 30 July 2025Civil law

As per Section 17 (g) of the Registration Act, 1908, a Power of Attorney, which creates any power or right of management, administration, development, transfer or any other transaction relating to immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards requires compulsory registration.

Guardianship of Child Comes under Family Court, but of Child’s Property Comes under District Court

By K Rajasekharan 26 July 2025Family, Marriage & Divorce

The guardianship of a minor person or its custody, Comes under Family Court. It has the jurisdiction to deal with such cases, under explanation to Section 7(1) (g) of the Family Courts Act.

Power To Recall Witness Vests with Court, not to the Parties

By K Rajasekharan 24 July 2025Civil law1 Comment

The Supreme Court (SC), in Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh [2025 INSC 628], held that under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), only the court—not the parties—has the power to recall a witness.

SC Can even Quash Rape Charges Based on the Facts

By K Rajasekharan 22 July 2025Criminal law

The Supreme Court (SC), in Madhukar & Others v The State of Maharashtra & Another. [ 2025 INSC 819], says the court has power under Section 482 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings related to even rape, in exceptional circumstances, based on the facts of the case to secure ends of justice.