I was. I’m talking about your manuscript, literary toil, sweat and stress stained document. I guess a few of you out there are like me, resisting for your own reasons, going down the traditional publishing route. I knew really that it wasn’t the way for me to go. I knew that the demand for my book the British Police and Crime Directory for Writers and Researchers would be insufficient for a traditional publisher to take me on and I knew that a physical copy of the book wasn’t the best medium for the reader to get the most useful experience out of it.
My only real option was to go digital or electronic and publish it as an e-book but wasn’t sure that I could do it myself. One option was to pay someone to do it on my behalf but that didn’t feel right. If I was going to…
View original post 569 more words
Bombay High Court held that willful denial to have sex with spouse without any reason is mental cruelty and is a ground for divorce. High Court upheld the divorce order granted by a family court on the grounds that his wife treated him cruelly by denying sexual relations.
Division bench of Justice Vijaya Kapse-Tahilramani and Justice P N Deshmukh has said, “Sex plays an important role in marital life and cannot be separated from other factors that lend to matrimony a sense of fruition and fulfillment,” The avoidance of wife to have physical relations with him is sufficient to hold that he was subjected to cruelty,” said the bench.
High Court, dismissing her application challenging the divorce said that they are not interfering with the orderpassed by the Family Court.
In another judgment it is held that mere labeling of one spouse by another as schizophrenic is not enough to obtain a divorce decree on the grounds of cruelty. In an appeal against refusal of Divorce by Family Court a wife has come up with allegation of mental illness and cruelty by husband and the High Court has denied divorce holding that for a divorce, the illness should be so grave that the couple could not live together.
Appellant had alleged that her husband had concealed the fact that he suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of their wedding and had subjected her to physical as well as verbal abuse.
Relying on Supreme Court judgment in Ram Narain GuptaVs. Rameshwari Gupta a division bench of Justice Vijaya Kapse-Tahilramani and Justice V L Achliya held as follows.
“If the mere existence of any degree of mental disorder could justify dissolution of a marriage, few marriages would indeed survive in law. Mental disorder of the husband, even if proved, cannot by itself warrant a decree of divorce. It must be further proved that it is of such a nature that the wife could not be expected to live with the husband.“Trivial irritations, quarrels and usual wear and tear of a married life would not be adequate to grant divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty. Married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty.”
Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant failed to prove her allegation of mental disorder and cruelty against husband.
In August 2013 the Supreme Court has ruled that temporary ill-health including schizophrenia, cannot be a ground for divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and V. GopalaGowda, held “Under Hindu law, marriage is an institution, a meeting of two hearts and minds and is something that cannot be taken lightly.”Further, “any person may have bad health, this is not their fault and most times, it is not within their control, as in the present case.”
Source: Live Law
“The principle of law that emerges that the criminal court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any such person even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair-play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the requirements of justice command and examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
Supreme Court of India
State Of A.P.
on 2 July, 2012
Author: T Thakur
Bench: H.L. Dattu, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 874-875 OF 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) Nos.4286-87 OF 2011)
P. Sanjeeva Rao …Appellant
The State of A.P. …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
View original post 3,165 more words
An FCT High Court on Friday fixed Feb. 26 for the continuation of the cross-examination of EFCC witness, Julius Adebulu, an Internal Auditor with the Police Pension Office.
Justice Husseini Baba-Yusuf fixed the date after Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), counsel to Atiku Abubakar Kigo, sought an adjournment.
EFCC arraigned Esai Dangabar, Atiku Abubakar Kigo, Ahmed Wada, Veronica Onyegbula, Sani Zira and Uzoma Attang on a 20-count charge, which includes stealing and criminal breach of trust.
Earlier, counsel to EFCC, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), opposed an attempt by Awomolo to cross-examine his witness over a document.
The document was a payment voucher, which the EFCC witness claimed did not emanate from his office.
At the last sitting of the court, the witness told the court that he was not aware of cheques and vouchers signed after the implementation of the e-payment system by Police Pension Office in September 2009.
View original post 351 more words
By: Tim Hallahan
I recently read an excellent article titled Trials and Tribulations by Hon. Curtis Karnow who is currently hearing complex litigation cases in San Francisco Superior Court. Judge Karnow has taught at Yale, USF, Hastings and Stanford in addition to authoring many articles and book chapters and teaching judges for the Center for Judiciary Education and Research. With his permission I’ve collected here a number of his suggestions on various litigation topics so you can see ideal and less than ideal lawyer behavior from the judge’s perspective. These are all direct quotes from his article.
Dealing with the Judge
Do not address the court staff members (while court is in session) without permission from the judge, including asking them to do a task for you such as look something up in the docket or the computer.Don’t use “Judge” in open court. Even during arraignments. Save that for chambers…
View original post 866 more words
You want to improve the effectiveness of your tweets.
You tweet your messages – but you feel like your messages are being ingnored.
You see no or little evidence of retweets or engagement or increased followers or a rise in the visitors or views to your website or blog.
This 3-part series will help you be more purposeful and effective with your tweets with simple tips on how to Tweak you Tweets.
In Part 1, I shared how you can attract more attention and get more click-throughs to links – but emphasising YOUR AUDIENCE.
In Part 2 – you can learn how you can use fresh repeat tweets.
In this post (part 3) I’ll share some word nerd editing tricks to make your tweets sound more “active” and dynamic – and save space when you reach the end of your tweet 140 character limit.
View original post 707 more words