The Gujarat High Court recently set aside a Family Court order that required a two-and-a-half-year-old child to spend six hours every Thursday on court premises for visitation with his paternal grandfather.

Justice JC Doshi termed the lower court’s approach "unfathomable" and "inhuman," emphasizing that a toddler should not be a victim of rigid litigation.

The Court held that family courts must act as parens patriae, prioritizing a child's emotional and physical welfare over the legal claims of the fighting parties.

Observing that forcing such young children into a court environment for extended periods lacks the necessary sensitivity and empathy required in custody disputes.

[Mansiben v. Keshavjibhai Damjibhai Ghetiya]

The Supreme Court held that an insurer is not liable for accidents caused by a vehicle when it is under requisition by the State for public purposes.

The Court emphasised that during such requisition, control and possession of the vehicle shift entirely to the State authority, and the owner has no say in its use. Relying on earlier precedents, it observed that liability must follow control rather than mere ownership.

Since insurance contracts are based on normal use of the vehicle, they do not cover risks arising from compulsory State use.

Accordingly, the Court held the State authority liable and dismissed the appeal.

[District Magistrate & District Election Officer & Collector, Gwalior (M.P.) v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court held that even if an employee shares confidential business information, it may amount to a breach of contract but does not automatically qualify as defamation.

The Court explained that defamation requires a false or harmful statement to be communicated to others, damaging a person’s reputation.

In this case, there was no such defamatory imputation made to third parties.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the appeal filed by a publishing company, clarifying that breach of confidentiality obligations and defamation are distinct legal issues, and one does not necessarily lead to the other.

[Rohan Book Company Private Ltd. v. Sachin Tyagi]

The Delhi High Court held that negligence by the victim cannot be used as a reason to deny compensation in railway accident cases.

The Court explained that under the Railways Act, once an “untoward incident” like a fall from a train is proved, the Railways have strict (no-fault) liability. This means compensation must be given unless the case falls under specific legal exceptions.

The Court found that the Tribunal had wrongly rejected the claim by focusing on the victim’s alleged negligence.

Setting aside the earlier decision, the High Court directed reconsideration of compensation, emphasising that such laws should be interpreted in favour of victims.

[Dharamawati v. UOI]

The Supreme Court restored ₹60 lakh compensation to the family of a road accident victim, setting aside an MP High Court order that had reduced it to ₹9 lakh.

The Court held that valid proof of income, such as employer testimony and salary records, cannot be ignored without proper reason.

The deceased was a heavy machinery operator, but the High Court wrongly treated him as an unskilled worker and reduced compensation.

The Supreme Court called this approach arbitrary and emphasised that fair compensation must be based on reliable evidence, especially when the financial security of the victim’s family is involved.

The Allahabad High Court held that the right to contest a divorce does not survive after the death of a spouse, emphasising the personal nature of matrimonial proceedings.

The case arose when a woman sought to set aside a 1991 ex parte divorce decree more than three decades later, after her former husband had remarried and passed away.

The Court found such belated proceedings legally unsustainable, particularly as they sought to unsettle settled rights of the second wife and children.

It ruled that matrimonial causes cannot continue against a deceased person, and allowing such claims would create uncertainty in legal and familial relationships.

[Smt. Geeta Rani & Ors v. Smt. Maya Devi & Ors.]

The Kerala High Court held that intellectual disability resulting from a motor accident must be assessed based on its actual impact on a victim's life rather than mere medical percentages.

The Court observed that such disabilities affect intelligence and adaptive functioning, often requiring lifelong supervision.

In this case, the Court found that the 25-year-old victim possessed the mental age of a six-year-old due to a 2004 accident.

Consequently, the Court reassessed her functional disability at 100%, despite a lower medical board rating, and enhanced the compensation to ₹28.33 lakh to ensure financial support for her lifelong care.

The Allahabad High Court directed Indian Railways to pay ₹8 lakh compensation for the death of a foetus following a fatal train accident involving a pregnant woman.

The Court held that an unborn child aged five months or more is equivalent to a child in existence and possesses protected legal rights.

Clarifying that while the Railways Act does not explicitly mention "foetus," such cases fall under Section 124A as an "untoward incident."

Emphasizing that the loss of a foetus is an independent loss of life, the Bench ruled that claimants are entitled to damages separate from the compensation awarded for the mother's death.

[Shri Sukhnandan v. UOI Thru. General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi]

The Supreme Court permitted the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for 32-year-old Harish Rana, who has remained in a permanent vegetative state for over 12 years. 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan applied the 2018 Common Cause guidelines, marking the first time the Court has judicially authorized passive euthanasia.

The bench ruled that Clinically Administered Nutrition (CAN) constitutes medical treatment that can be withheld if there is no hope of recovery.

Following unanimous recommendations from primary and secondary medical boards, the Court directed AIIMS Delhi to admit Rana to its palliative care center to ensure the process is carried out with dignity.

[Harish Rana v. UOI]

The Delhi High Court found Reliance Entertainment and three officials guilty of contempt for "wilful disobedience" in a financial dispute with T-Series.

The Court sentenced the officials to four weeks of simple imprisonment after they failed to deposit court-ordered payments stemming from a ₹168 crore loan agreement.

Although Reliance eventually paid ₹2.32 crore, a shortfall of ₹3.13 crore remains from revenues linked to films like IB-71 and Bholaa.

The court suspended the sentence for two weeks, allowing the officials to purge the contempt by clearing all outstanding dues and interest to avoid jail time.

[Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd.]

The Gujarat High Court held that mere production of a disability certificate is not sufficient proof of actual or functional disability in motor accident compensation claims.

The Court observed that tribunals must carefully scrutinise medical evidence rather than mechanically relying on such certificates.

In the case, a claimant produced a certificate showing 90% disability, but the issuing doctor later stated that the disability could be around 55% permanent disability of the whole body, raising doubts.

The Court ruled that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should allow reassessment by a competent Medical Board and permit parties to challenge the authenticity or accuracy of disability certificates.

[Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Ishwarbhai Panchal & Ors.]

The Kerala High Court held that transferring a matrimonial case when the trial has reached an advanced stage is unjustified and improper.

The Court set aside an order that shifted a pending matrimonial dispute from the Family Court in Kollam to the Family Court in Punalur. It noted that the proceedings had already progressed substantially and were close to completion.

The Court observed that allowing a transfer at such a late stage would disrupt the trial and cause unnecessary delay.

It emphasised that transfer petitions based merely on inconvenience should not be entertained once the case has advanced significantly.

[Binu Das B v. Smitha Raj L]