Tag: Inheritance Rights

Nomination vs. Succession: Supreme Court Clarifies Who Gets GPF Funds After Death
3Mar By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Nomination vs. Succession: Supreme Court Clarifies Who Gets GPF Funds After Death

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that a nomination under the General Provident Fund Rules only authorizes receipt of funds and does not confer absolute title. When a nomination becomes invalid due to the subscriber acquiring a family, the amount must be distributed equally among all eligible family members, regardless of any unmodified nomination. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from the death of Bolla Mohan, a government employee who died in service on July 4, 2021. Upon joining service in 2000, the deceased had nominated his mother, B. Suguna (respondent No. 1), as the recipient of his General Provident Fund (GPF), Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEIS), and Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). However, on June 20, 2003, he married Bolla Malathi (the app...
Read More
Right to Privacy Prevails: Supreme Court Rejects Forced DNA Test in Paternity Dispute
29Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Right to Privacy Prevails: Supreme Court Rejects Forced DNA Test in Paternity Dispute

In this Supreme Court judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that a DNA test cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. It emphasized that the conclusive presumption of a child's legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act can only be displaced by proving "non-access." Absent such proof and a direct nexus to the alleged offence, forced testing violates the right to privacy and bodily autonomy. Facts Of The Case: Respondent No. 1, Kamar Nisha, was married to Abdul Latheef in 2001. Latheef, suffering from a skin ailment, was successfully treated by the appellant, Dr. R. Rajendran. Latheef confided in the doctor about his lack of progeny, leading to a request for medical assistance for his wife. Following this, an extramarital relationship developed between the appellant and...
Read More
Daughter’s Coparcenary Rights Upheld: Supreme Court Sets Aside Review Order
11Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Daughter’s Coparcenary Rights Upheld: Supreme Court Sets Aside Review Order

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. A review cannot re-appreciate evidence or reverse findings as an appeal would. The order under review did not correct a patent error but substituted a view, which is impermissible in review proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a partition suit (O.S. No. 192 of 2000) filed by Subramani against his father, Munusamy Naidu, concerning ancestral properties. An ex-parte preliminary decree was passed in 2003, dividing the property into two equal shares. The Appellant, Malleeswari, who is the daughter of Munusamy Naidu, was not initially impleaded in this suit. Subsequent to the decree, her father executed a sale deed in favor of the first respo...
Read More
No Civil Suit Barrier: Supreme Court Rules Criminal Trial Must Proceed in Land Scam Case
22Jul By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Civil Suit Barrier: Supreme Court Rules Criminal Trial Must Proceed in Land Scam Case

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 120B, 415, and 420 IPC against respondents for allegedly fabricating a partition deed and family tree to exclude daughters from property compensation. It ruled that pendency of civil suits does not bar criminal prosecution if a prima facie case exists. The Court emphasized that criminal conspiracy and cheating must be tried independently, reinstating the trial court’s proceedings. The judgment reaffirms that civil and criminal remedies can coexist, ensuring accountability for fraudulent deprivation of property rights. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around a dispute over compensation amounting to ₹33 crores awarded by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation for ancestral land purchased by K...
Read More
Husband’s Income vs Wife’s Rights: Supreme Court’s Decision on Permanent Alimony”
13Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Husband’s Income vs Wife’s Rights: Supreme Court’s Decision on Permanent Alimony”

The Supreme Court enhanced the appellant-wife's permanent alimony to ₹50,000 per month with a 5% increase every two years, modifying the High Court's order. The Court held the previous alimony inadequate given the respondent-husband's income and the appellant's need to maintain her standard of living. Financial support for the 26-year-old son was not mandated. Facts Of The Case: Rakhi Sadhukhan (appellant-wife) and Raja Sadhukhan (respondent-husband) were married on June 18, 1997, and had a son on August 5, 1998. In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. The appellant-wife then filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 for interim maintenance, and the Trial Court awarded her ₹8,000 per month and ₹10,000 for litigation expens...
Read More