Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 221 – 227]XX v XX, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 221Martin Paul v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 222Ajithkumar K. K. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 223Aisha P and Another v Bar Council of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 224P. T. Jahangeer v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 225Nassar v Union of India...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 221 – 227]
XX v XX, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
Martin Paul v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
Ajithkumar K. K. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 223
Aisha P and Another v Bar Council of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 224
P. T. Jahangeer v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 225
Nassar v Union of India and Another & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 226
M.I. Mohammed Versus M/S. Hll Life Care Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 227
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: XX vXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
The Kerala High Court affirmed the decision of a Family Court granting divorce to a wife who alleged that her husband was not interested in having physical relations or children with her due to some superstitious beliefs.
The division bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha remarked that the husband's disinterest in family life indicates his failure to fulfil his marital duties.
Case Title: Martin Paul v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
The Kerala High Court has asked the State government to scrupulously implement its 2015 policy for persons with disabilities under which it had announced a Scheme for distribution of monthly scholarships to eligible students.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu also flagged the 'reluctance and apathy' of ground-level officers in implementing the Scheme and directed the State to take deterrent and punitive action against those found in default, including the Secretaries of the Local Self Government Institutions.
Case Title: Ajithkumar K. K. v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 223
The Kerala High Court observed that police's power provided under Section 179(1) of BNSS cannot be stretched to call for an advocate–who is appearing for the accused in the crime–so as to divulge information shared between him and the client.
In doing so Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that summoning an advocate representing his client potentially infringes the "client's right to representation and also violates the constitutional rights of the legal practitioners" besides impinging upon the stature of an advocate.
Case Title: Aisha P and Another v Bar Council of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 224
The Kerala High Court recently held that co-opted members of the Bar Council cannot be considered as a separate class from elected members.
Justice C. S. Dias made this observation in a petition filed by 2 co-opted members of the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) who challenged the decision of the Council to keep them away from its meeting after the Bar Council of India (BCI) extended the term of the BCK under Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 2015.
Case Title: P. T. Jahangeer v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 225
The Kerala High Court observed that an investigating agency cannot incorporate a cognizable offence in the FIR without any materials before it to bypass Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.
“The requirement of obtaining sanction under Section 155(2) CrPC for the investigation of a non-cognizable offence, cannot be bypassed by such shortcut methods of incorporating a cognizable offence in the FIR, even though there are apparently no materials before the investigating agency to register a case in connection with such an offence” observed Justice G. Girish
Case Title: Nassar v Union of India and Another & Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 226
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (2nd April) granted bail to 10 PFI members allegedly involved in the murder of RSS leader in Palakkad, S. K. Sreenivasan.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan granted bail to 8 of them namely Nassar, Jamsheer H., Abdul Basith, Muhammed Shefeek K., Ashraf K., Jishad B., Ashraf aka Ashraf Moulavi, Sirajudheen after taking into account the long period of incarceration already undergone by them and the lack of direct evidence against them.
Case Title: M.I. Mohammed Versus M/S. Hll Life Care Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 227
The Kerela High Court Bench of Justice Basant Balaji has held that once the arbitration has commenced, parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act, even at an earlier stage.
Other Important Developments This Week
BJP Leader Moves Kerala High Court To Ban 'Empuraan', Says Film Can Incite Communal Violence
Case Title: V. V. Vijesh v The Secretary and Others
Case No: WP(C) 13500/ 2025
A writ petition has been filed in the Kerala High Court seeking to stop the screening of the Malayalam film 'Empuraan'. The petitioner is V. V. Vijesh, a member of the BJP Thrissur District Committee. The petitioner objected to the depiction of the post-Godhra communal riots in the movie and said that there was a risk of inciting communal violence.
Case Title: V. V. Vijesh v The Secretary and Others
Case No: WP(C) 13500/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (April 01) refused to stay the screening of big-budget Mohanlal-starrer “Empuraan” movie, which hit the theatres on March 27.
While refusing to stay the exhibition of the film, Justice CS Dias doubted the bona fide of the BJP leader, calling it a 'publicity interest litigation'.
Case Title: XXX and Another v The Central Bureau of Investigation and Others
Case No: Crl.MC 2885 of 2025 & Other Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (2nd April) passed an interim order protecting the parents of the Walayar victims from any coercive steps.
Today, when the matter came up, Justice C. Jayachandran was of the opinion that it requires detailed hearing and posted it after summer vacation. Meanwhile, interim protection is granted.
Case Title: Divya Pharmacy and Others v The Drug Inspector and Another
Case No: Crl.MC 3242 of 2025
The Kerala High Court on Thursday stayed the proceedings against Divya Pharmacy, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna in a criminal complaint filed under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 over the alleged publication of misleading medical advertisements.
Justice VG Arun passed the interim order while issuing notice on a petition filed by them to quash a criminal case pending before the Magistrate Court in Palakkad. The bench observed that the cognizance appeared for have been taken beyond the period of limitation.
Case Title: Sukanth Suresh P. v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: BA 5091/ 2025
Sukanth Suresh P. who is alleged of being involved in the death of his 24-year colleague and girlfriend Megha Madhusoodhanan has approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Sukanth Suresh P. v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: BA 5091/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Friday (4th April) refused to give interim protection from arrest to Intelligence Officer Sukanth, who was allegedly involved in his colleague and girlfriend's death.
He submitted in his petition that he had an intense and close relationship with the deceased, and they were living together in an apartment near Nedumbassery Airport where he was working. Unconvinced by the petitioner's argument that the deceased committed suicide as her parents were opposed to their relationship, Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan orally observed that the petitioner was answerable as she was living with him.
Case Title: Jannath v State of Kerala & Other Cases
Case Number: WPC No. 31205/2024 & Other Cases
The Kerala High Court on Friday (April 4) orally said that the Supreme Court's decision in the Sabarimala case gave a new perspective to women empowerment in the State, noting that there was opposition to the apex court's directions by women themselves, putting a contradiction in the feminist movement perspective in the state.