Nominal Index [Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (667- 671)]Arun v. Reshma 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 667 M/S Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Senior Inspector & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 668Devna Sumesh v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 669Vimala Jose v. Aboobacker & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 670Ali Akbar @ Ramasimhan v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 671Judgments/Orders...
Nominal Index [Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (667- 671)]
Arun v. Reshma 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 667
M/S Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Senior Inspector & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 668
Devna Sumesh v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 669
Vimala Jose v. Aboobacker & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 670
Ali Akbar @ Ramasimhan v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 671
Judgments/Orders This Week
Case Title: Arun v. Reshma
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 667
The Kerala High Court recently observed the wife not being able to lead a peaceful life in matrimonial home, in view of the particular circumstances there, may not always be 'cruelty' but could be a reasonable ground to deny 'joint residence' and same does not grant the husband any discretion to deny payment of maintenance.
Justice A. Badharudeen, while dealing with an argument that wife may not be legally entitled to get maintenance from husband after leaving matrimonial home voluntarily, said:
... when a party seeks divorce on the ground of cruelty, there shall be sufficient pleadings alleging cruelty, and evidence to prove the cruelty, to succeed in the divorce petition. But difference of opinion otherwise, in view of the particular circumstances at the matrimonial home, whereby the wife could not lead a peaceful life time, shall not, always be 'cruelty', but these are also reasonable grounds to deny joint residence. In such cases, it could not be held that there was willful discretion to deny payment of maintenance.
Case Title: M/S Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Senior Inspector & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 668
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, while dealing with a petition filed by M/S Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against it for not displaying the retail sale price printed on the 'principal display panel' on its FROOTI bottle, but printed on the neck of the bottle, held that same was not violative of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
The instant case arose in the year 2014, while the amendment to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules thereunder were enacted in 2017. The Court therefore discerned that the Rules as in force on the date of incident would alone be applicable herein.
Case Title: Devna Sumesh v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 669
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed a batch of petitions filed by aggrieved participants of Kerala School Kalolsavam's Revenue District Level School Kalolsavam.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman said the court caanot not sit in appeal over the award of marks by the panel of judges in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, as regards the grievance relating to assessment of performance of candidates and evaluation of marks. The Court relied upon the Rhomy Chandra Mohan v. General Convenor, Balakalotsavam and Yuvajanotsavam (1992), and Sweety v. State of Kerala (1994), in this regard.
"With regard to complaints of poor stage arrangements including technical glitches, poor audio system, lack of space for performance, and whether these factors had affected the performance of the contestants, are again matters which cannot be considered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Of course, these matters can be looked into by the appeal committees. The judges against whom allegations of extraneous considerations have been made are not parties to the writ petitions and the allegations are not supported by proof. In most cases, the contestants whose selection has been called in question are not made parties to the writ petitions. qualification of the judges in the panel and their expertise in the particular item of competition are also not matters which this Court can determine," the court said.
Case Title: Vimala Jose v. Aboobacker & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 670
The Kerala High Court recently interpreted the meaning of the word 'Month' for the purposes of ascertaining the limitation period of six months as stipulated under the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019.
Justice Amit Rawal observed that,
"Sub-section (35) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1987 applicable to the State of Kerala would mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar, the same reads as ... : “month” shall mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar"".
Case Title: Ali Akbar @ Ramasimhan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 671
The Kerala High Court recently held that Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Chairman's decision to refer the film 'Puzha Muthal Puzha Vare' to a second Revising Committee is illegal and in violation of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983.
Justice N. Nagaresh said Rule 24(12) specifically mandates that where the Chairman disagrees with the decision of the majority of the Revising Committee, the Board shall itself examine the film or cause the film to be examined again by another Revising Committee and that the decision of the Board or the second Revising Committee, as the case may be, shall be final.
Other Significant Developments This Week
Case Title: Bushara Ali v. Union of India and Ors.
A Petition has been moved before the Kerala High Court challenging various provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Kerala Amendment) Act, 1963 on the ground that they discriminate between male and female Muslim intestate successors.
Justice V G Arun recently admitted the plea and directed the Government Pleader to get instructions. The matter will be taken up immediately after the vacation.
Kerala High Court Issues SOP For Real Time Scrutiny Of E-Files From 8 AM To 8 PM
Kerala High Court has issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for real time scrutiny of e-files. The process involving scrutiny of files from 8 am to 8 pm will be implemented from January 1.
For this purpose, three batches of Filing Scrutiny Officers (FSO) having scrutiny time of six hours each will be deployed. The Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar in charge of the filing section has been asked to fix the number of FSOs to be deployed in each batch.