Where our words come from

This is not our opinion. Every legal claim we make points to a judgment, an Act or the Constitution.

On screen we show the case name and the year. The caption carries the full citation and a link.
We give the old and the new section numbers together, because many cases still run under the old code.
Anything dated after June 2026 is read in the judgment or the Act itself before we use it.
When we get something wrong, we correct it in public and say so.

Last updated 17 October 2026.

The judgments we rely on

Both halves of the truth, always: protection for people falsely accused, and protection for genuine victims.

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
No automatic arrest in a cruelty case. The police must record real reasons before arresting, and a magistrate must check them. Find the judgment
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 281
Kept 498A. Warned of misuse. Answer is safeguards, not abolition. Find the judgment
Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667
Exaggerated complaints dragging in distant relatives cause huge suffering. Look carefully before summoning a whole family. Find the judgment
Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 10 December 2024, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682
Vague omnibus allegations naming every in-law without specific acts must be nipped in the bud. Find the judgment
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2 May 2024
The Court asked Parliament to consider rewording Sections 85 and 86 BNS. Find the judgment
K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1831
Two contradictory statements are not automatically perjury. The lie must be deliberate. Find the judgment

State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg, directions of 20 August 2026, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 858
Directions of 20 August 2026 to speed up dowry and cruelty trials, including identifying and monitoring every case older than three years. Mediation is to be considered only where the dispute arises mainly from matrimonial discord, never where there is death, grievous violence or another serious offence. Find the judgment
Janshruti (People's Voice) v. Union of India, 15 April 2025, 2025 INSC 536
The Court declined to strike down 498A or force gender neutral drafting. Changing it is for Parliament. Find the judgment
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 443
Removed family welfare committees placed between a complainant and the police, because they delayed help for real victims. Find the judgment
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
Sexual harassment at work violates equality and dignity. Led to the POSH Act, 2013. Find the judgment
S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban, (2021) 15 SCC 730
In-laws cannot use the Senior Citizens Act to evict a daughter-in-law and defeat her DV Act residence right. Find the judgment
Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165
Women can also be respondents under the DV Act. Find the judgment

Rajnesh v. Neha, 4 November 2020, reported (2021) 2 SCC 324
Both sides in every maintenance case must file a sworn Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities. Money paid in one case is adjusted in another. Find the judgment
Aditi (Mithi) v. Jitesh Sharma, 6 November 2023
The Court ordered Rajnesh v. Neha recirculated to every judicial officer, because many courts were not following it. Find the judgment
Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, 15 July 2024
Reinforced the affidavit rule and enforcement of maintenance orders. Find the judgment
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370
When a court itself must file the complaint for false evidence (the Section 340 route) and when an ordinary complaint works. Find the judgment
James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 21 August 2024
Perjury action only where the falsehood is deliberate and it is really in the interests of justice. Find the judgment
Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 398
People who file false affidavits or misuse the court can face costs and prosecution. Applies to any gender, any side. Find the judgment

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979, reported (1980) 1 SCC 81
A speedy trial is part of the right to life under Article 21. Find the judgment
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
Privacy is a fundamental right. Find the judgment
Sidhartha Vashisht (Manu Sharma) v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1
Trial by media can prejudice a fair trial. Find the judgment
Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703
The identity of a victim of a sexual offence must never be disclosed, not even indirectly. Find the judgment
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438
Transgender persons have the right to identify their gender. Articles 14, 19 and 21 protect them. Find the judgment
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1
Consensual same sex relationships between adults are not a crime. Find the judgment
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39
Adultery is no longer a crime. Equality cuts both ways. Find the judgment

Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746
The six month waiting period for mutual consent divorce can be waived. Find the judgment
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 1 May 2023
When a marriage has completely broken down, the Supreme Court can grant divorce directly under Article 142. Find the judgment
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303
A High Court can quash a criminal case on genuine settlement. Not for grave offences. Find the judgment
K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226
Matrimonial disputes are suited to mediation and courts should use it early, though the 2026 directions keep mediation to disputes arising mainly from matrimonial discord, never where there is death or grievous violence. Find the judgment
Neha Tyagi v. Deepak Tyagi, 2022
The child's welfare is paramount. A parent's duty to support survives divorce. Find the judgment
Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, 2009
The welfare of the child is paramount in custody. Find the judgment
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2019
A promise honestly made and later broken is not rape. A promise made only to obtain consent may be. Find the judgment