Vivek's legal notes

 In an SLP (Special Leave Petition) hearing before the Supreme Court, where the court provides only 1–2 minutes to present your case, it is crucial to be precise, concise, and impactful. The focus should be on the following points, tailored to the limited time: The Core Issue (Question of Law): Begin with the legal issue that warrants the court's attention. Highlight why the case raises a substantial question of law or an issue of general public importance. For instance: "This matter concerns a violation of the fundamental rights under Article 21 due to [specific context]." Grave Injustice: Briefly mention the injustice caused by the impugned order/judgment. For example: "The High Court's order violates established principles of [specific doctrine/law] and has resulted in irreparable harm." Specific Ground for Interference: Summarize the most compelling reason why the Supreme Court should intervene, such as: Contradiction with prior judgments of the Supre...

See https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-8316-cross-objections-under-order-41-rule-22-of-civil-procedure-code-1908.html CASE I : DHEERAJ SINGH vs GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. (6 different ppl filed 6 different appeals against GNIDA) https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/30692/30692_2018_8_1502_44751_Judgement_04-Jul-2023.pdf Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26491 of 2018 dt 4 july 2023 "12. Order 41 Rule 22, which is the governing law in the present case, elaborates on the remedies available to a respondent in the court of first appeal where an original decree has been challenged. An analysis of the said provision, in our opinion, is essential to adjudicate upon the present case.  13. In cases where the decree passed by the court of first instance is in favor of the respondent in whole, in such circumstance, no remedy exists in favour of the respondent to appeal such decree, since no right to appeal can be vested onto a party, ...

Source: From internet.   'Perhaps you will fall in love with many people over the course of your life, but you cannot marry them all. Some are personality infatuations. Some represent real connections that could not be brought into being because the people were not ready or mature enough to participate effectively together. In the moment, you will not know what is what. So be careful about letting yourself become so infatuated with anyone. Do not want and try to be in love. That is blind and foolish. There are many people who could excite the deeper passions of the heart with whom you could never function together. You can be in love with someone whose values are so different from yours that you could not stand to be together beyond the initial romantic phase. You will constantly be arguing, constantly in friction, constantly disagreeing, constantly maladapting to each other. People fall in love and get married without any idea of what they are doing in their lives or where th...

 Following petitions are listed against S 9 HMA Petition draft: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HhNxY3yUyhgHQDxJkBXUCk3GE3YUNagg/view?usp=drive_link 3 W.P.(C) No. 250/2019 PIL-W OJASWA PATHAK AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA PRANJAL KISHORE [P-1],[P-2] CAVEATOR-IN-PERSON,ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA[R-1] VISHWA PAL SINGH[INT],PRASHANT PADMANABHAN[INT],FAUZIA SHAKIL[INT] [ TO GO BEFORE THREE HON'BLE JUDGES ] ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA IA No. 16731/2022 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 46011/2019 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON IA No. 37957/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES CONNECTED 3.1 W.P.(C) No. 584/2022 PIL-W CHETNA WELFARE SOCIETY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. PETITIONER-IN-PERSON ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA[R-1],[R-2] IA No. 105721/2022 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON CONNECTED 3.2 W.P.(C) No. 948/2021 PIL-W MANJARI GUPTA Versus UNION OF INDIA VANSHAJA SHUKLA IA No.106673/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 106673/2021 - EXEMPTIO...

Let's track it for myself, I'm in this alone. The idea is to present opportunity for the child to connect. The purpose is that child do not get lost and depressed as long as he is child. In adulthood, life is anyway very very very hard for everybody, I have to accept my inability to control his life and destiny. If he is full of hatred, he will reject me. My goal is to be present on the day he is empty. If that day comes only once in 18 years, it is worth all the efforts.  22.06.24 - Child did not talk at all. Call getting disrupted and disconnected multiple times. Child at end of 45 mins spoke first line of the meeting to tell something like, "Tujhe maar dunga, nichod dunga" and disconnected 15 mins early.

 Someone shared this mediocre arguments of Sh. Kapil Sibal in https://youtu.be/OxDqabItiDo?si=i8-tzzUT48b7ftqn Sibal correctly identified the core issues of Maintenance (financials) and custody. But then instead of proposing any solution for these 2 fundamental core issues, he suggested that these issues be kept open while the court based on some prima facie material proceeds to grant divorce in a jiffy. The judges obviously refused to accept such an argument. It was indeed a poor argument, something that he thought maybe 10 mins before the case. As I observed, both feminists and MRAs would oppose such a suggestion. Feminists would argue that husband would definitely not pay maintenance after getting divorce and just get married again while MRAs would know that custody issue is too fundamental and if wife re-marries, child safety is reduced esp. when she has kids from second marriage.  Further, sugegsting that divorce be granted based on prima-facie grounds without proven...