Air India, a state-owned company, required female flight attendants to retire under three circumstances: (1) upon reaching 35 years of age, with possible extensions up to 45 at the Managing Director’s discretion (2) upon getting married within the first four years of service, or (3) upon first pregnancy. In Air India v.
In the case Lai Hen Beng v Public Prosecutor [2024], the appellant was charged in the magistrate’s court under section 498 of the Penal Code, which criminalized enticing or taking away another man’s wife for illicit sexual intercourse. He argued that section 498 was unconstitutional for violating Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the Federal Constitution, as it treated women as the property of their husbands and denied wives equal legal recourse if their husbands were enticed away.
Law No. 68/2018 of 30 August 2018 determining offenses and penalties in general, Rwanda, entered into force on 27 September 2018, as amended by Law No. 059/2023 of 4 December 2023
NJA 2017 p. 168 was about the enforceability of a mahr agreement (Islamic bridal gift) entered into in Iran at the time of marriage. Under the agreement, the husband undertook to pay a significant sum to the wife upon her request. After the couple established residence in Sweden, the issue arose whether the agreement was valid under Swedish law. The District Court initially recognized the mahr as enforceable. However, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, holding that Swedish law governing matrimonial property relations did not recognize the mahr agreement.
A man and woman of different castes married against the wishes of the woman’s brothers. The brothers lodged false criminal complaints against the husband and his family and claimed the woman was mentally unfit, leading to her wrongful committal. The husband’s family sought relief before the High Court, which directed them to appear before a sessions judge to determine possible criminal liability.
Supreme Court of Japan, Reiwa 1 (Ku) No. 791 Special Appeal on Denial of Gender Status Change
Reiwa 2 (Ku) No. 102 Special Appeal Regarding Objection to a Mayor’s Disposition
