CHILDREN BORN OUT OF LIVE-IN-RELATIONSHIP ARE NOT ILLEGITIMATE

The Supreme Court has recently laid down that a child born out of a live-in-relationship is not illegitimate and moreover they have the right to inherit the property left behind by any of the parties in this kind of relationship.

The judges gave emphasize to this by relying upon section 114 of the Evidence Act which states that if a man and a woman is residing together for a long time under the same roof then there will be a presumption that they are living as husband and wife and child born to such persons will not be illegitimate. This decision has been given so as to give importance to the institution of marriage as well as to prevent concubine.

This Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court in an appeal filed by one Madan Mohan Singh, against the decision of the Allahabad high Court and two other tribunals which had allowed the right on the estate to the children who were born out  of live-in-relationship. The Supreme Court also held that the relationship is considered to be marriage in the eyes of law if the partners keep the bonding alive for a long duration.

Legal News

Egypt court fined 90 million dollars on former president Hosni Mubarak accusing and other two ministers for shutting down Internet and mobile phone service during the protests culminating in his ouster.

Divorce been legalized in Malta after a survey passed with 53 % of people vote, and saw a 72 percent turnout among the predominantly Catholic 412,966 residents.

Former Delhi partner of Fox and Mandal Ravi Bishnoi has filed a summary suit against its former company alleging them not paying his unpaid dues.

Fifth Somali guilty plea entered in piracy trial criminal law

 Two more Somali men pleaded guilty on Monday to piracy for their roles in the hijacking of a yacht that left four Americans dead, including one who identified which of the 19 men fired at hostages aboard the boat.The duo are among 14 people from Somalia and one from Yemen facing charges related to the February hijacking of the yacht Quest. Three of those men have already pleaded guilty to piracy . Prosecutors said the men intended to bring the Americans to Somalia and hold them for ransom there. Pirates typically seek millions of dollars for hostages.The  pirates were making a lot of money and had big houses and cars, with a financier about joining a pirate expedition that ultimately led him to board the American yacht.

Public property must be sold strategically to get best price: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that the authorities can sale the public property in such manner that it fetches the maximum price. The court directed the PSU, Kerala Financial Corporation to follow its guidelines for the sale of such a property to maximize the auction price.

In the matter of sale of public property, the property is  to be sold at . the best price .This can be achieved when there is maximum public participation in the process of sale and everybody has an opportunity of making an offer.The court stated that a highest bidder in public auction cannot have a right to get the property or any privilege, unless the authority confirms the auction sale, being fully satisfied that the property has fetched the appropriate price and there has been no collusion between the bidders.

Supreme Court cancels land allotment to Sourav Ganguly in Bengal

  The Supreme Court cancelled allotment of land made to former Team India captain Sourav Ganguly by the previous Left Front government in Bengal in the year 2000 for setting up of an academy. A bench comprising Justices G S Shighvi and A K Ganguly directed the cricketer to return the land to the West Bengal government within two weeks. Justice Ganguly, also directed the state government to return the money paid by Sourav Ganguly as consideration for the land.

The apex court allowed the appeal filed by an NGO Humanity challenging the allotment of land made to the former Indian captain in violation of rules at throw-away prices. Ganguly was allotted about 63 acre of land in the posh Salt Lake City of Kolkata.

Supreme Court lifts time bar on mutual consent divorce

The Supreme Court Said “Either the husband or wife could withdraw consent to divorce any time before the decree is passed by matrimonial court”.

A bench comprising of Justice D.K. Jain and H.L. Dathu explained that “With the complete agreement between husband and wife for dissolution of marriage and unless the court is completely satisfied it cannot grant decree for divorce by mutual consent”. The court made it clear that one of the parties may withdraw their consent at any time before the passing of the decree. The most important requirement for grant of divorce by mutual consent is free consent of both parties.