Remembering the sports stars we lost in 2025

A host of figures from the world of sport died in 2025 - BBC Sport remembers some of those sporting names.

from BBC News https://ift.tt/1EwhTzO

Read More

Is The Erasmus Student Scheme Worth The Money?

Government announces return to Erasmus study scheme in 2027.

from BBC News https://ift.tt/WdFsN1i

Read More

Living Separately For Year Not Strict Requirement For Mutual Divorce: Court

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday clarified that couples seeking divorce by mutual consent are not necessarily required to live separately for at least one year, as prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, and that the condition can be waived in appropriate cases.

The clarification came in response to a reference made by a Division Bench seeking authoritative guidance on the timeline prescribed for presenting a petition for divorce by mutual consent under the Act.

At the outset, the court framed the issue in stark terms, posing a rhetorical question: "Is a court mandated to stall divorce by mutual consent, thrusting unwilling parties-not into marital bliss, but into a matrimonial abyss?"

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla, Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Renu Bhatnagar held that the statutory requirement of "living separately for a period of one year" under Section 13B(1) of the HMA is directory and not mandatory, and may be waived by the Family Court or the High Court in suitable cases.

Citing several Supreme Court judgments and their subsequent interpretations, the bench said Section 13B(1), which begins with the words "subject to the provisions of this Act", must be read harmoniously under the conditions of Section 14(1) of the HMA. Section 14(1) empowers courts to waive statutory waiting periods in cases involving "exceptional hardship" to the petitioner or "exceptional depravity" on the part of the respondent.

The court reasoned that even where spouses approach the court for divorce by mutual consent, their decision to part ways is necessarily rooted in some underlying cause, though they may have chosen a consensual route to end the marriage.

"In such circumstances, it would be wholly undesirable to keep spouses embroiled in a bad marriage, instead of releasing them from the matrimonial bond," the Bench observed. It added that prolonging such relationships would inflict "undue psychological and emotional distress" on one or both spouses, which in itself could amount to exceptional hardship.

The court further noted that in some cases, delaying the dissolution of a marriage may prevent one or both spouses from forming meaningful relationships in the future, thereby irreparably affecting their prospects of remarriage and social integration.

"In the face of such a situation, the argument opposing waiver of the statutory period, even though envisaged by the Legislature as a period for reconciliation, would pale into insignificance since all relationships cannot be mended," the Bench said.

While acknowledging the social and cultural importance of marriage, the court emphasised that where both spouses are ad idem-in agreement-that the marriage must end, attempts to preserve it would prioritise outward social pretence over the autonomy and dignity of the individuals concerned.

Summarising its conclusions, the High Court held:

The statutory one-year period prescribed under Section 13B(1) of the HMA as a prerequisite for presenting the first motion for mutual divorce can be waived by applying the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act.

Waiver of the one-year separation period under Section 13B(1) does not automatically entail waiver of the six-month "cooling-off" period for filing the second motion under Section 13B(2). The two waivers are to be considered independently.

Where the court is satisfied that both the one-year period under Section 13B(1) and the six-month period under Section 13B(2) deserve to be waived, it is not legally required to defer the date from which the divorce decree takes effect, and the decree may be made effective forthwith.

Waiver is not to be granted as a matter of course, but only where the court is satisfied that the circumstances of exceptional hardship to the petitioner and/or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent exist, tested against the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court.

Such a waiver may be granted by both the Family Court and the High Court.

If the court finds that a waiver of the one-year period under Section 13B(1) has been obtained by misrepresentation or concealment, it may defer the date on which the divorce takes effect, or dismiss the petition at any stage, without prejudice to the parties' right to file a fresh petition after the expiry of the statutory period on the same or substantially similar facts.

The ruling provides significant clarity on the interpretation of waiting periods under the Hindu Marriage Act and reinforces judicial discretion in cases where continuation of a marriage serves no meaningful purpose.

from NDTV News- Special https://ift.tt/HX4uxZW

Read More

King welcomes those who showed bravery during train knife attack

The group of rail staff and passengers had shown bravery during the Huntingdon train knife attack last month.

from BBC News https://ift.tt/g9YInBW

Read More

Madhya Pradesh Man Uses Kidnapper's Smartwatch To Send SOS, Gets Rescued

A smartwatch became the lifeline for a young hotel manager held hostage over a loan dispute in Madhya Pradesh's Gwalior district. Unable to repay an exorbitant amount demanded by moneylenders, the man was abducted, brutally assaulted, and locked inside a room, but a quick-thinking move using a smartwatch turned the tables on his captors.

The victim, Saurabh Sharma, 25, is a resident of Koteshwar Colony in Gwalior and a hotel manager working in Uttarakhand's Haridwar district. He had returned home on leave a few days ago. According to police, Saurabh had borrowed Rs 2.90 lakh from local moneylenders Hemant Sharma alias Chhotu Tyagi and Sachin Tyagi. Despite having already repaid Rs 3.20 lakh, the accused allegedly added compound interest and began demanding Rs 6 lakh, threatening dire consequences.

Saurabh encountered the two accused when he was near his house. They asked him to ride with them on a motorcycle. When he refused, they allegedly forcibly abducted him, taking him to Sachin Tyagi's house. He was then confined to a room and beaten when he refused to pay the demanded amount.

After the assault, Saurabh was locked inside the room. In a rare stroke of presence of mind, he noticed Sachin Tyagi's smartwatch lying nearby. Using the device, he managed to call his girlfriend and urgently informed her about the kidnapping, sharing his location and pleading for help. His girlfriend immediately contacted Saurabh's father, who rushed to the police.

Acting swiftly on the complaint, police detained Hemant Sharma and pressured him to contact his accomplice. Under police pressure, Sachin Tyagi released Saurabh. The victim was rescued safely, and both accused were arrested shortly thereafter.

Chief Superintendent of Police (CSP) Gwalior Krishna Pal Singh confirmed the arrests, stating that the case pertains to illegal money lending and charging exorbitant interest. "Two youths had held a young man captive over a loan dispute. Based on the victim's complaint, both accused were arrested and have been sent to jail by the court," he said.

from NDTV News- Special https://ift.tt/8w4ZD7u

Read More

Second doctor sentenced in Matthew Perry overdose death

Dr Mark Chavez, one of five people who pleaded guilty in the Friends star's death, was sentenced to eight months of home detention.

from BBC News https://ift.tt/T45nzXL

Read More

MI6 chief warns 'we are in a space between peace and war'

The new head of Britain's overseas spy agency has warned about an interlocking web of security challenges.

from BBC News https://ift.tt/EJ8GvK3

Read More