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. 

In Anticipatory Bail, Applicant Must Approach the Sessions Court 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.

Four-Step Test for Quashing an FIR: SC

In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of UP, the Supreme Court, noting that this power was not always being used effectively, laid down a clear four-step process for High Courts to consider when hearing quashing petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

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.