UNIT 2:

S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami- in notes

UNIT 3:
Lily Thomas v Union of India
It has been two long decades since the Lily Thomas judgement but several questions still
remain unanswered regarding conversion and the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code.
Issues that attract personal law, fundamental rights and the penal provisions keep propping up
every now and then as was seen with the issue of Triple Talaq recently. The recommendations
of several law commissions seem to fall on deaf ears while a concrete and long-lasting
framework that will comprehensively deal with these issues is still missing. A solution that deals
with these issues in a sensitive manner is a sine qua non for avoiding further litigation in this
regard.

UNIT 6:
Seema v Ashwani Kumar AIR 2006 SC 1158
The registration of marriage would serve as the presumption of marriage, and non-registered
marriages would not have the benefit of the presumption. Therefore, all the citizen of all
religions must register their marriage in the state where the marriage was solemnized.

UNIT 8:
Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR 1988 SC 121
"The word ‘Cruelty’ has not been defined," the Supreme Court said. It was undefinable. It's
employed for marriage duties. It's someone's bad behaviour. Mental or physical cruelty might
occur. The Court can easily determine physicality. Fact and degree matter. If it's mental, the
inquiry must start with the nature of cruel treatment and how it affected the spouse's psyche, if it
made them think living with the other would be damaging or injurious. It depends on the action
and its impact on the complaining spouse. However, the conduct may be bad enough to be
illegal. Then the other spouse's harm is irrelevant. If the conduct is proven or admitted, cruelty is
established.”

UNIT 9:
Savitri Pandey v Prem Chand Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73
The Court while dismissing the appeal, embarked upon the concept of cruelty and held that the
evidence led by the Appellant to prove cruelty only shows sensitivity of the Appellant with
respect to the conduct of the Respondent which cannot be termed anything more than ordinary
wear and tear of the family life.
The Court referred to the judgment of Bipin ChandraJaisinghbhaiShah v. Prabhavati (AIR 1957
SC 176) to reiterate the legal position of ‘Desertion’ and observed from the evidence led by the
Appellant in the present case that she abandoned the matrimonial home voluntarily and did not
permit the Respondent to consummate the marriage in order to achieve a particular state of
matrimonial position, which disentitles her to obtain a decree of divorce on the ground of
desertion.
UNIT 11:
Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha 1984 AIR 1562
Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha was sentenced on August 8, 1984. It is
considered a milestone because it challenges the legitimacy of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 when a two-judge panel of the Supreme Court of India upheld the law. Legality of
Restitution of Marital Rights contained in the Act.

UNIT 12:
Hitesh Bhatnagar v Deepa Bhatnagar AIR 2011 SC 637
If the second motion isn't filed within 18 months, the Court isn't required to issue a divorce
decree by mutual agreement. The language of the Section and the established law make it clear
that either party can change their mind at any time before the order is made.
The most important thing that has to happen for a divorce to be granted by mutual agreement is
that both people have to agree to it. In other words, the Court can't give a decree for divorce by
mutual consent unless the husband and wife agree on everything about ending the marriage
and if the Court is happy with everything.

UNIT 14:
RameshwaRI Chandra Daga v Rameshwari Daga AIR 2005 SC422

UNIT 15:
Brijendra Singh v State of MP AIR 2008 SC 1056
The Supreme Court ruled that a married Hindu woman cannot adopt a child without her
husband's consent, even if the couple is separated. The division bench stated that if the couple
was divorced, consent for adoption was not required.

UNIT 17:
Ms. Githa Hariharan & Anr vs Reserve Bank of India
It held that both the father and mother are natural guardians of a minor Hindu child, and the
mother cannot be said to be natural guardian only after the death of the father as that would not
only be discriminatory but also against the welfare of the child, which is legislative intent of
HMGA, 1956.

ABC vs The State (NCT Of Delhi) 2015 SC 609

The State (NCT of Delhi) is a case decided by a two-judge bench of the Supreme court of India,
which held that an unwed woman belonging to the Christian faith can become a legal guardian
of her child without the father's consent.

UNIT 19:
Chand Patel v Bismillah Begum AIR 2008 SC 1915
The Supreme Court held that a Muslim man who marries a wife's sister during the existence of
his marriage with his 1st wife, such marriages shall be deemed to be irregular and not illegal or
void.
UNIT 21:
Shamim Ara v State of UP and Anr. (2002) 7 SCC 518
As ordained by Holy Quran, is that the talaq must be for a reasonable cause and must be led by
attempts of reconciliation between the husband and the wife.
Two arbiters must be present for the same; one from the wife’s family and one from the
husband’s family. If all the attempts made fail, then talaq may be pronounced.

UNIT 25:
Shabnam Hashmi v Union Of India, SC 2014.
In a notable judgement on the petition of the clients of Socio-Legal Information Centre,
'Shabnam Hashmi vs the Union Of India', the Supreme Court has decreed that prospective
parents irrespective of their religious background are free to adopt children after the prescribed
procedure.

UNIT 32:
John Vallamattom & Anr vs Union of India, SC 2003