Sahayata & Sahayata

  Case Summary Citation: 2025 INSC 1395 Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Augustine George Masih Date: 08 December 2025 📝 Background of the Case Two appellants (A-1: Dadu @ Ankush; A-2: Ankit) were convicted by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC for assault and outraging modesty of a Class XI girl. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction. The appellants approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition. ⚖️ Key Allegations by the Prosecutrix She was home alone at night when A-1 and A-2 came. A-2 allegedly pulled her dupatta and scratched her neck. When her brother (PW-2) arrived, both accused allegedly beat him. Allegation that A-2 knew she was a Scheduled Caste girl and acted with caste-based intention. 👩‍⚖️ Supreme Court’s Analysis The Supreme Court carefully analysed the written complaint, oral testimony, medical evi...

  The Delhi High Court in Shri X v. Smt. Y & Anr. Crl Rev P. 312/2023 (2025 DHC10936) has clarified a crucial legal position: a major unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance from her father under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) , even if the petition was originally filed under Section 125 CrPC . This judgment is significant for family law practitioners, matrimonial lawyers, and litigants seeking clarity on the rights of daughters under Indian law. Why This Judgment Matters This ruling strengthens the maintenance rights of daughters in India , especially in situations where: A daughter is studying and dependent on her parents The father disputes maintainability under Section 125 CrPC A combined application is filed before the Family Court There is a risk of multiple legal proceedings The High Court clarified that Family Courts can exercise jurisdiction under both CrPC and HAMA simultaneous...

  Q1 — Dissolution of marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 Options (summarised):  (I) whereabouts unknown for two years; (II) husband sentenced to imprisonment for five years; (III) failed to perform marital obligations for one year; (IV) neglected to provide maintenance for a period. Answer:   (D) None of these  (with explanation & caution). Explanation:  Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 lists specific statutory grounds on which a Muslim wife may obtain a decree of dissolution — such as disappearance of husband for a longer statutory period, imprisonment for a specified (generally longer) term, failure to maintain or to provide marital obligations for a period specified in the statute, etc. The options in the question give particular durations (two years, five years, one year) which do  not  match the precise periods stated in Section 2. Because all of the options use incorrect periods/wording, the...