Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Family LawSupreme Court of India

Akanksha Arora vs. Tanay Maben

Not available · 2024 INSC 962Decided 4 Dec 2024
Not available
Justice Pankaj Mithal · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

A Family Court had fixed interim maintenance for the appellant-wife under Section 125 CrPC. Unhappy with the amount, she filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC (the High Court's inherent powers) before the High Court seeking enhancement. The High Court dismissed her petition as not maintainable, holding that she should instead have filed a revision under Section 397 CrPC.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach was overly technical. Relying on its own precedents, the Court reiterated that the label or heading a litigant puts on a petition is not decisive: a High Court can, and should, treat a wrongly labelled Section 482 petition as a Section 397 revision (or vice versa) if that serves the interest of substantive justice, rather than throwing the litigant out and forcing them into fresh, delayed proceedings. The Court set aside the High Court's order and sent the matter back, directing the High Court to treat the petition as a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC and decide the enhancement claim on its merits after hearing both sides.

Lesson Learnt

Courts should look at the substance of a litigant's grievance rather than dismissing it purely because the wrong procedural label or section was used: this is especially important in matters like maintenance, where delay directly affects a dependent spouse's livelihood.

Akanksha Arora vs. Tanay Maben – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware