“Renouncing a particular religion and to get converted is a matter of choice and cannot cease relationships which are established and exist by birth. Therefore, Hindu convert is entitled to his/her father’s property, if father died intestate,” said the court.
Madras High Court: Man convicted for killing his son who ‘road blocked his sexual journey towards his wife’
The Madras High Court upheld a Madras trial court’s judgment which, convicted a man who killed his son for being a “roadblock for his sexual journey towards his wife” as per the prosecution. A woman lodged a complaint against her husband for killing her son and deposed as a witness to the murder in a Madras trial court. The prosecution’s case was that the wife was subject to husband’s sexual abuse and their son used to discourage this behaviour. Naturally the father and deceased did not share a cordial relationship due to the son’s intervention, leading the father to kill his son with a spade one day. The trial convicted the man who later moved to the higher court.
The Madras High Court considered the statements of the couple’s minor daughter and a neighbour as evidence and upheld the conviction of the husband. The court observed that, “The son, the hapless and innocent, as he was, earned the enmity of his evil incarnate father, just because of his efforts in eroding the chances of erotic encounters of his father with his elusive life partner, whose cause and concern the son believed to be espousing. Thus, the son exposed his own life to fatality, fit enough to be a sacrifice, sufficient to save his mother from her tormentor for a considerable period, but not sufficient to save his own life.”
Bombay High Court: Hindu converted to Muslim has the right to inherit father’s property
The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court’s order which, held that a person changing his religion would have a right to the intestate property of the deceased father. One of the five sisters of a family who had married a Muslim in 1979 and had changed her religion had filed a petition against her brother, respondent, who had claimed the property for himself in the trial court. The deceased had left a flat and his shop intestate. The respondent had sold the shop after his father’s death and wanted to sell the flat. On claiming her share in the property, the brother took refuge behind religion conversion and refused to part her share.
The high court observed that it is not an ancestral property and nowhere does the Hindu Succession Act define who is a Hindu and the Act does not categorise people who converted their religion.
Therefore, the court held that, “The right to inheritance is not a choice but it is by birth and in some case by marriage, it is acquired. Therefore, renouncing a particular religion and to get converted is a matter of choice and cannot cease relationships which are established and exist by birth. Therefore, Hindu convert is entitled to his/her father’s property, if father died intestate.”
Punjab & Haryana High Court: Court allows HIV positive woman to terminate 18 weeks pregnancy
The Punjab & Haryana High Court took into consideration the health and mental condition of the petitioner and permitted a woman suffering from HIV positive to terminate her 18 weeks pregnancy. Earlier the court had directed the woman to get herself examined by a Medical Board in order to have evidence if the unborn child would suffer from HIV as well.
After receiving an opinion from the Medical Board and taking into consideration that the petitioner’s husband deserted her and left her at her parents home, the court in a single page order directed the woman to terminate her pregnancy immediately and a detailed judgment is awaited.
Delhi Court: Summons allowed to be sent through WhatsApp, SMS and Email
The Karkardooma Court permitted a woman complainant to issue summons through WhatsApp, sms and email as the respondent resided in Australia and eight months had passed in vain. Summons were being returned each time as the respondent at present was not residing at his last listed address.
In 2015, the respondent left for Australia to pursue further studies and gradually severed all contact from his wife and daughter who lived in Noida. The petitioner therefore had filed a domestic violence case against him.