Domestic Violence Act. The primary and statutory obligation to maintain the wife rests upon the husband. Interim maintenance cannot be mechanically imposed upon the parents-in-law, who are themselves dependent on the husband. The Act does not contemplate automatic or vicarious monetary liability on the in-laws merely by virtue of their relationship with the husband. Karnataka High Court.
Domestic Violence Act. The primary and statutory obligation to maintain the wife rests upon the husband. Interim maintenance cannot be mechanically imposed upon the parents-in-law, who are themselves dependent on the husband. The Act does not contemplate automatic or vicarious monetary liability on the in-laws merely by virtue of their relationship with the husband. Karnataka High Court.
  • 07-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
“Child custody is neither a reward for one parent nor a punishment for the other.” The fact that a child resides with one parent in another country does not, by itself, establish that the other parent is being excluded from the child’s life. Karnataka High Court permits the relocation of a child to a foreign country to enable the mother to pursue her career. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 1705.
“Child custody is neither a reward for one parent nor a punishment for the other.” The fact that a child resides with one parent in another country does not, by itself, establish that the other parent is being excluded from the child’s life. Karnataka High Court permits the relocation of a child to a foreign country to enable the mother to pursue her career. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 1705.
  • 06-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Why is a regime-change revolution difficult in India?
Why is a regime-change revolution difficult in India?
  • 21-October-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Article
News
Order VII Rule 11 CPC. A plaint cannot be rejected merely because the Court considers the plaintiff’s case to be weak or because the plaintiff may ultimately be unable to establish entitlement to the relief sought. The limited inquiry under the provision cannot be converted into a determination of whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed at trial. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 1698.
Order VII Rule 11 CPC. A plaint cannot be rejected merely because the Court considers the plaintiff’s case to be weak or because the plaintiff may ultimately be unable to establish entitlement to the relief sought. The limited inquiry under the provision cannot be converted into a determination of whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed at trial. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 1698.
  • 06-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An objection regarding the stamping or insufficient stamping of an agreement containing an arbitration clause does not fall for determination under Section 8 of the Act. Such objections can be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An objection regarding the stamping or insufficient stamping of an agreement containing an arbitration clause does not fall for determination under Section 8 of the Act. Such objections can be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal. Karnataka High Court.
  • 05-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. A compromise decree cannot be invalidated merely because its terms were recorded in the order sheet. Educated parties who voluntarily sign a compromise petition along with their counsel cannot subsequently resile from the decree on vague allegations of fraud or coercion, particularly when no action is taken against their counsel and the challenge is raised to delay execution proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. A compromise decree cannot be invalidated merely because its terms were recorded in the order sheet. Educated parties who voluntarily sign a compromise petition along with their counsel cannot subsequently resile from the decree on vague allegations of fraud or coercion, particularly when no action is taken against their counsel and the challenge is raised to delay execution proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
  • 06-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Land Acquisition. ‘B’ Kharab Land. Where agricultural land has been acquired for industrial purposes and has lost its agricultural character, exclusion of any portion of the acquired land from compensation merely on the ground that it is classified as ‘B’ kharab land is unjustified, and the landowner is entitled to seek compensation for the entire extent of the acquired land. Karnataka High Court.
Land Acquisition. ‘B’ Kharab Land. Where agricultural land has been acquired for industrial purposes and has lost its agricultural character, exclusion of any portion of the acquired land from compensation merely on the ground that it is classified as ‘B’ kharab land is unjustified, and the landowner is entitled to seek compensation for the entire extent of the acquired land. Karnataka High Court.
  • 05-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Two Children Rule. Laws disqualifying persons having more than two children from contesting Panchayat elections have lost their rationale in view of declining fertility rates and changing demographic realities, besides adversely affecting right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21. Supreme Court refers the issue to a larger Bench for reconsideration of Javed v. State of Haryana.
Two Children Rule. Laws disqualifying persons having more than two children from contesting Panchayat elections have lost their rationale in view of declining fertility rates and changing demographic realities, besides adversely affecting right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21. Supreme Court refers the issue to a larger Bench for reconsideration of Javed v. State of Haryana.
  • 05-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement
Income Tax Act – Section 35(2AB). Expenditure incurred on scientific research becomes eligible for deduction. The same cannot be disallowed merely because such research results in intellectual property over which the assessee acquires proprietary rights. The prescribed authority is competent to examine whether any expenditure is liable to be excluded. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 1680
Income Tax Act – Section 35(2AB). Expenditure incurred on scientific research becomes eligible for deduction. The same cannot be disallowed merely because such research results in intellectual property over which the assessee acquires proprietary rights. The prescribed authority is competent to examine whether any expenditure is liable to be excluded. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 1680
  • 05-November-2026
  • Daksha Legal
Judgement

Become A Member Get Instant Update

Daksha Legal Seminars

Bail & Anticipatory Bail - M.S. Shyamsunder, Advocate, Bangalore

  • 09-December-2020 06:20

Woman as Coparcener. Legal Implications - Justice N Kumar

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Anup Shah

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Instruments Not Duly Stamped - Justice A N Venugopalagowda

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Withdrawal and Adjustment of Suits - Justice A N Venugopalagowda

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Judicial Review jurisdiction Prayers and Reliefs Mr Mohan V Katarki Senior Advocate Supreme Court

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Rejection of Plaint Justice A N Venugopalagowda 16 Sept 2020

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Driving License and Defence to Insurer - Mr S P Shankar Senior Advocate

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Termination of Contract & Drafting Termination Clause & Termination Notice - Ajay Nandalike. Adv.

  • 09-December-2020 06:18

Daksha Legal Seminar Justice Ashok B Hinchigeri. "Civil Procedure Code. Order 26 Rule 9"

  • 25-November-2020 06:12

Daksha Legal Online seminar on disability laws with Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate, Bangalore.

  • 25-November-2020 06:12

Article 370 - Bridge or Barricade? Seminar conducted by Daksha Legal - Mr. J Sai Deepak, Advocate

  • 25-November-2020 06:12

Daksha Legal discussion on Latest Judgement of Karnataka High Court on Hindu Law.

  • 25-November-2020 06:11

Client Reviews

Client Review 1
Client Review 2
Client Review 3
Client Review 4
Pre-emptive suit by testator for avoiding disputes regarding execution and proof of Will.
Pre-emptive suit by testator for avoiding disputes regarding execution and proof of Will.
  • 21-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
Article
'Supreme Court curtailing the inherent powers of the High Courts. Neither Legal nor Justified'. - B.V.Acharya, former Advocate General for Karnataka.
'Supreme Court curtailing the inherent powers of the High Courts. Neither Legal nor Justified'. - B.V.Acharya, former Advocate General for Karnataka.
  • 07-November-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Tender. When the intending party responds to the tender notice, it is not permissible for such party to put forth its own conditions and seek variance in the conditions of tender. Karnataka High Court.
Tender. When the intending party responds to the tender notice, it is not permissible for such party to put forth its own conditions and seek variance in the conditions of tender. Karnataka High Court.
  • 08-October-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Suit for specific performance. Purchaser of suit property from the defendant/vendor is a necessary party to the suit and can be impleaded. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. Purchaser of suit property from the defendant/vendor is a necessary party to the suit and can be impleaded. Karnataka High Court.
  • 03-October-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Suit for specific performance. Plaintiff can seek amendment of pleading to declare that collusive decree between his vendor and third party is not binding on him. Court must prevent multiplicity of the proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. Plaintiff can seek amendment of pleading to declare that collusive decree between his vendor and third party is not binding on him. Court must prevent multiplicity of the proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
  • 01-October-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article
Tender. Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender because it feels that some other terms would have been fair, wiser or logical. Karnataka High Court.
Tender. Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender because it feels that some other terms would have been fair, wiser or logical. Karnataka High Court.
  • 30-September-2024
  • Daksha Legal
Article