Supreme Court of India

In Khurana and Others v. Union of India and Others, the Cine Costume Make-up Artists and Hair Dressers Association of Mumbai, registered as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, maintained by-laws that barred qualified women make-up artists from membership solely on the basis of sex. Ms. Charu Khurana, whose application for membership was rejected, challenged the prohibition as a violation of her constitutional rights to equality, employment, and livelihood.

In Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, a man convicted in part under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code appealed his conviction for abetting his wife’s suicide. Evidence showed a history of dowry-related abuse, including his demand for an additional 40,000 rupees from his wife and her family before she died by self-immolation.

In Danial Latifi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (MWPRDA), which appeared to limit a Muslim husband’s obligation to maintain his divorced wife to the iddat period, after which responsibility would shift to her relatives.

In Mandal v. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital, a public interest litigation was filed urging the Indian government to address high levels of maternal mortality. The Court ordered the government to end discriminatory practices in programs aimed at reducing maternal mortality, to report on corrective measures for monitoring and improving those programs, and to create additional programs if needed.

In Md. Kalam v. State of Bihar, the appellant, convicted of assaulting a six-year-old girl, challenged his 10-year sentence, arguing that the child victim’s testimony should not have been accepted without corroboration and that the sentence was excessive. The Court held that a child’s testimony is admissible if carefully evaluated. Both the trial court and the High Court had assessed the evidence and found it reliable.

Ms. Shah Bano Begum was married to a lawyer named Mr. Mohd. Ahmed Khan. They lived together for 43 years and had five children. In 1978, Mr. Khan threw Ms. Begum out of the shared household and Ms. Begum applied for maintenance from Mr. Khan under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C, 1973). Pending her application, Mr. Khan dissolved the marriage by pronouncing a triple talaq (divorce on the triple utterance of the word “talaq” by a Muslim husband) and paid Ms.

The trial court convicted the appellant of murdering her brother-in-law, which the High Court confirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the trial court based its conviction solely on the appellant's confession to killing the deceased with a katari (type of dagger). However, the appellant also stated that the deceased had attacked and attempted to rape her before she grabbed the katari and used it in self-defense.

In Moti Lal v. State of M.P., the appellant raped a woman while she was guarding her husband’s agricultural field. The woman, a member of a Scheduled Caste, and her husband filed a police report.

In Neera Mathur v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, a woman applied for employment with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). After passing the written test and interview, she was required to complete a declaration form disclosing whether she was pregnant and details of her menstrual cycle, and to undergo a medical examination. She submitted the declaration, passed the examination, and was certified fit for the job.

Shortly after a couple wed, the husband and his relatives began treating the wife poorly and demanded dowry from her. The husband and his brother later strangled her with rope and his sisters held the wife’s arms. This led to her death. All of the accused were convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 498(a) of the Indian Penal Code.