Real judgements, distilled
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.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1073
In circumstantial-evidence cases, forensic and DNA evidence must actually corroborate the alleged crime: a conviction cannot survive where the most crucial scientific evidence, on its own terms, points away from rather than toward the prosecution's theory.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1074
A conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence requires every link in the chain, timeline, witness credibility, forensic matches, and motive, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; gaps or suppressed evidence at any link entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, even in a serious case like a double murder.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8505
Courts will not quash a criminal case merely because the accused has a plausible alibi-type defence; unless that defence is conclusive and undisputed, the matter must be tested through the ordinary trial process.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8547
A private compromise between victim and accused cannot by itself secure quashing of a case involving serious, heinous allegations like attempted murder with a weapon: such matters must proceed to trial regardless of settlement.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8563
Railway Claims Tribunals cannot reject a bona fide passenger's death claim based on speculative inferences when there is no direct evidence of an alternative cause of death; the compensation scheme under the Railways Act is to be interpreted generously in favour of victims' families.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8559
In matrimonial offences, courts can and do quash criminal proceedings once a genuine compromise is verified directly with the complainant, sparing both parties a prolonged and pointless trial.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8541
A co-accused's bail does not automatically extend to another accused where their actual roles in the offence differ materially; delay caused by one's own defence counsel cannot later be used as a ground for bail.
Execution Petition · 2026:DHC:8567
An arbitral award must be adequately stamped before a court can enforce it; courts give only a limited window to cure such defects, after which the award becomes legally unusable until the deficiency is fixed.
Arbitration Petition · 2026:DHC:8555
A genuine settlement reached through mediation renders a pending arbitration-related court petition moot, allowing parties to close out litigation quickly once they resolve their dispute privately.
9257 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreLegal 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 ___).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Neha, the wife, left her matrimonial home shortly after the birth of the couple's son and filed for interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. In 2015, the Family Court awarded her ₹15,000/month and the son ₹5,000-10,000/month; the husband, Rajnesh, challenged this all the way up, while repeatedly falling behind on payments despite several Supreme Court orders directing him to clear arrears. The case dragged on for over seven years, with the wife forced to make repeated enforcement applications.
On the specific appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the maintenance amounts fixed by the Family Court and upheld by the High Court, directed the husband to clear all arrears within 12 weeks and keep paying during the case's pendency, and directed the Family Court to finally decide the underlying maintenance petition within six months. Recognising that this case illustrated a nationwide problem, people claiming (or being made to pay) maintenance repeatedly under different, overlapping laws (the Hindu Marriage Act, Special Marriage Act, CrPC, Domestic Violence Act, etc.), with inconsistent criteria and slow enforcement, the Court used the opportunity to lay down detailed, binding guidelines for all courts handling maintenance cases nationwide, covering: how to avoid double recovery when multiple maintenance proceedings overlap; timelines for deciding interim maintenance applications; factors courts should weigh in fixing the amount (such as both parties' income, status, and reasonable needs); the date from which maintenance should run; and how unpaid maintenance orders should be enforced. It also prescribed a standard, detailed financial-disclosure affidavit format for both spouses to use in all maintenance proceedings going forward.
A person awarded maintenance by a family court does not need to fight afresh to prove their case in every other jurisdiction they approach, courts must account for amounts already granted elsewhere to avoid double recovery, and this judgment fixed standard, mandatory rules (including a specific financial-disclosure form) that all Indian courts must now follow when deciding maintenance claims.
