Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India

(2014) 4 SCC 1

Ratio: Any person irrespective of religion can adopt under JJ Act, 2015. HAMA is not the only adoption route.

Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. UOI

AIR 1984 SC 469

Ratio: Laid down comprehensive guidelines for inter-country adoption. Mandatory CARA involvement.

Brijendra Singh v. State of UP

(1998) SC

Ratio: Adoption must comply with S.6 HAMA — giving and taking ceremony is essential. Non-compliance = invalid.

Dwarika Prasad v. Board of Revenue

AIR 1976 SC 2425

Ratio: Adoption is complete and irrevocable from the moment of giving and taking. Cannot be cancelled.

Nandkishore v. Kavita

(2019) SC

Ratio: Valid adoption requires compliance with ALL requisites of S.6 HAMA. Merely treating a child as adopted is insufficient.

Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar

AIR 1985 SC 628

Ratio: Stridhan = wife’s absolute property. Husband = trustee. Refusal to return = S.406 IPC criminal breach of trust.

Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada

(1997) 2 SCC 397

Ratio: Reaffirmed Pratibha Rani. Stridhan entrustment and misappropriation are questions of fact.

Savitaben v. State of Gujarat

(2005) 3 SCC 636

Ratio: No inconsistency between S.125 CrPC and S.18 HAMA. Both operate simultaneously.

Rajnesh v. Neha

(2021) 2 SCC 324

Ratio: Comprehensive maintenance guidelines: mandatory affidavit of disclosure; interim maintenance within 60 days.

Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai

(2000) SC

Ratio: S.125 CrPC prevents vagrancy and destitution. Object is social welfare, not punishment.

Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse

(2014) 1 SCC 188

Ratio: Wife of void marriage (husband’s existing marriage) entitled to maintenance under S.125 CrPC.

Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar

(2011) 1 SCC 141

Ratio: Broad interpretation of ‘wife’ under S.125 — includes women in marriage-like relationships.

Kirtikant Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat

(1996) 4 SCC 479

Ratio: Children’s obligation to maintain parents = fundamental duty rooted in moral and legal principles.

S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra

(2007) 3 SCC 169

Ratio: Wife’s right to residence under DV Act = only in ‘shared household.’ Not in in-laws’ exclusive property.

Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja

(2021) 1 SCC 414

Ratio: Broadened scope: wife can claim residence if she has LIVED there in domestic relationship. Balance rights.

EXAM TIP: Big 5 Maintenance cases: (1) Rajnesh v. Neha (2021 — maintenance Bible); (2) Pratibha Rani (Stridhan = absolute); (3) Savitaben (S.125 + S.18 coexist); (4) S.R. Batra (shared household); (5) Satish Chander Ahuja (broadened Batra).