Karnataka HC: Financially Independent Wife Earning More Than Husband Can't Claim Maintenance Merely Because She Is A Woman

 Only because a woman more particularly a wife files

a petition invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act or

the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or the

provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, where

the right to claim maintenance is recognized, the Courts cannot

straight away pass an order awarding some amount towards

maintenance payable by the husband. When the wife is

financially sound and in case where the income of the wife is

more than that of the husband and where no other liabilities are

found on part of the wife, like looking after the children, Courts

should not be inclined to pass an order granting maintenance on

the ground that women are required to be maintained by men

or wife is required to be maintained by her husband. It should

be borne in mind that only when it is shown that the wife has no

financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards

of her husband, then only Courts are required to award

maintenance either interim or final. {Para 9}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WP No. 2327 of 2026

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

SRI RAVI S @ JEEVAN S., Vs SMT. SAHANA DEVI A.,

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

Citation: NC: 2026:KHC:30140

Print Page

Supreme Court: Non-filing of a copy of the chargesheet cannot become a ground for default bail if chargesheet is filed within stipulated time

 In the above backdrop, we are of the considered view that the present Appellant is not entitled to the relief of default bail. Undoubtedly, it is borne from the record that the chargesheet/police report stood filed within the prescribed statutory time before the magistrate on 02.09.2025. The contents thereof, being in compliance with Section 193(3) BNSS. Consequently, on 02.09.2025, the right to default bail became extinguished and the Appellant ought to have applied for regular bail. Moreover, it is also a matter of record that cognizance has also been taken on the chargesheet filed by the investigating agency. This order has not been challenged to date, thereby implying that the contents of the charge-sheet are in accordance with law. {Para 26}

27. Consequently, in our view, the Courts below have rightly held that the non-filing of a copy of the chargesheet cannot become a ground for default bail and the submission of the Appellant cannot be accepted.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3094 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4333 of 2026)

Decided On: 01.07.2026

Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 666, MANU/SC/0658/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court Lays Down Law On Using ITRs in Motor Accident Claims To Assess Victim's Income

 In the considered view of this Court, there can be no hard and fast formula for computing the annual income of a deceased person/claimant. ITRs being a statutory document are an important reference point when it comes to assessing one's income, for the purposes of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. {Para 17}

18. We find force in the submission put forth by Mr. J.R. Midha, learned Senior Counsel. There must be a bifurcation made between salaried individuals and self-employed individuals when it comes to assessment of annual income. In our view, for salaried individuals, only the ITR of the previous year will be sufficient for showcasing the annual income from salary. The reason for considering only the preceding year is that the financial impact of promotions is significant and may be reflected in the ITR for only that year. A situation may also arise whereby the deceased/claimant might not have completed a year in the promoted position before the accident or might not have filed ITR for such period. In such cases the Court concerned shall take reference to the promotion letter and other corroboratory financial statements.

19. When it comes to self-employed/individuals carrying out their own business, in our view, the average of the income specified in the ITRs of up to the previous three years is to be taken as a reference point for assessment of annual income from their business. There may also be a scenario where only one or two ITRs have been filed. Given such scenarios and the fluctuation of income in these professions, surrounding circumstances are also to be taken into consideration. These would include:

a) The nature of the business (including geographic location, category etc.);

b) Growth pattern of the business and impact of death on the business;

c) Potential growth of business (for instance certain businesses are capital intensive at the outset and are profitable at scale/in the future);

d) Negative income (certain businesses may require losses in the initial years, which may not reflect the true financial standing); and

e) Any other relevant factor relating to the business.

20. The date when the ITRs are filed would also become a relevant consideration, as there may be scenarios where inflated income is showcased after death/injury. In these circumstances, the surrounding factors of the business would become more relevant. However, if sufficiently supported by financial statements, such ITRs may also be taken into consideration.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8735 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024)

Decided On: 01.07.2026

Rashmirekha Tripathy and Ors. Vs. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 661,MANU/SC/0663/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Decision based on fake precedents are void as they cannot be treated as a decision in the eyes of the law and said decisions should be set aside at an earliest

Judicial process and the judgment under challenge are tainted by the usage of materials which are said to be precedents, but in reality, they are unreal, fake, and do not exist at all. A decision of a Court or an adjudicating authority based on material which is fake and hallucinated is no decision at all, and it amounts to subversion of the rule of law. Such a decision is unsustainable and has to be set aside at the earliest7. {Para 17}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 11950 of 2025

Decided On: 02.07.2026

Pooja Ramesh Singh Vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ.

Citation: 2026 INSC 668, MANU/SC/0668/2026

Print Page