Advocate | Legal Blogger | Judicial Insights & Updates

  Matrimonial Status and Consent: An Analysis of the Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgment on Sexual Relations Based on Marriage Promise By: Abhishek Jat, Advocate  Introduction The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently delivered a significant judgment that delves into the sensitive intersection of matrimonial status, consent, and allegations of sexual assault arising from promises of marriage . This ruling clarifies how the law views consent obtained under a “misconception of fact” (as defined under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ) when the complainant is already married. This decision not only reinforces the importance of judicial scrutiny in sexual assault prosecutions but also contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on what constitutes “valid consent” in cases involving promises of marriage. Case Citation and Bench Case Title : Withheld for privacy (Criminal Appeal No. [Number], decided August 2025) Bench : Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal ...

  Executing Court’s Power to Restore Possession in Violation of Injunction Decrees: A Study of Naurang v. Lrs of Late Sri Chunnilal & Ors. Author: Advocate Abhishek Jat The Rajasthan High Court in Naurang v. Lrs of Late Sri Chunnilal & Ors. [2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 282; [2025:RJ-JD:36343], S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 145/2025, decided on 19 August 2025] delivered a significant ruling concerning the scope of the executing court’s jurisdiction under Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hon’ble Justice Farjand Ali held that when a decree of permanent injunction is deliberately violated by a judgment-debtor who forcibly takes possession of the decreetal property, the executing court is vested with the authority to direct restoration of possession so as to preserve the efficacy of judicial adjudication. The dispute in this case pertained to agricultural land situated in Chak No.16 ML, Murabba No.10, Kila Nos.1 to 8, measuring 8 bighas in Sri Ganganagar. ...

Accountability of Advocates in Professional Advice: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Vinod v. State of Rajasthan By Advocate Abhishek Jat The Supreme Court of India, in its recent decision in Vinod v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 4292 of 2024, decided on 15 January 2025), has provided crucial clarity on the professional accountability of advocates, particularly in relation to advice rendered informally. The ruling, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, holds particular importance in an era where mobile conversations, WhatsApp messages, and other digital communications frequently come under judicial scrutiny. The central issue before the Court was whether an advocate could be exposed to criminal liability on the basis of advice given casually over a phone call, when such advice subsequently emerged as incriminating material in a criminal investigation. The appellant had argued that as a member of the Bar, his communication with a clien...

Lawyer Sentenced to Life Imprisonment for Misuse of SC/ST Atrocities Act By Abhishek Jat, Advocate The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted with the object of shielding historically marginalized communities from systemic exploitation. However, the misuse of such protective legislation can undermine the credibility of the law and corrode public trust in the justice delivery system. A recent judgment from Lucknow has once again highlighted this concern, where Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi sentenced Advocate Parmanand Gupta to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5.1 lakh for deliberately misusing the SC/ST Act by orchestrating false cases in collusion with a complainant. The facts revealed that Gupta, in active connivance with a Dalit woman, had filed twenty-nine fabricated criminal cases, eighteen of which were instituted directly by him while the woman lodged eleven more. Several of these cases included serious...

  Injunction vs. Stay Order vs. Impugned Order — A Jurisprudential Distinction Author: Abhishek Jat  Advocate In the realm of adjudication, certain judicial remedies are often conflated in common parlance due to their similar procedural consequences. However, from a jurisprudential and procedural standpoint, “injunction” , “stay order” , and “impugned order” are distinct legal constructs, each emanating from different statutory provisions, serving divergent purposes, and operating within separate contours of relief. A precise understanding of these terms is indispensable for legal practitioners, litigants, and even judicial officers, as the misapplication of terminology may not only lead to procedural confusion but can also affect the efficacy of the remedy sought. 1. Injunction: A Preventive and Protective Decree An injunction is a judicial command or prohibition issued by a competent court directing a party to perform or abstain from performing a specific act. Its l...

Alimony from Previous Divorce Not a Factor in Future Matrimonial Claims: Supreme Court  By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India in Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 773] clarified an important aspect of matrimonial jurisprudence: alimony received pursuant to a previous divorce cannot be considered when adjudicating maintenance or alimony claims in a subsequent marriage . The decision was rendered by a bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria, who examined complex issues of alimony, irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC. Case Background The appeal stemmed from a contentious matrimonial dispute between the appellant (husband) and the second respondent (wife), both of whom had previously undergone divorce and subsequently remarried. However, their second marriage broke down within two years, triggering...