By default

When a wife failed to pay her telephone bills, her husband’s telephone line was also disconnected. At the Delhi High Court, the wife argued that she and her husband were distinct legal entities and so the discon-nection of his telephone was illegal. The Supreme Court held that Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, which provided for the disconnection of a telephone line if the subscriber defaulted on his bill, was to be interpreted by the court in a way that justified its intention of ensuring timely payment. The court felt that the telephone authorities, in such cases, could disconnect a telephone line that belonged to the husband who actually paid his defaulting wife’s bills. (Surjit Singh vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.)

Whose mother?

A daughter laid claim to her mother’s property after the latter died. The dead woman’s son, however, filed an application for a DNA test, arguing that neither the ‘daughter’ (the plaintiff) nor her brother were the woman’s biological children. The son claimed that the brother and sister were born when the dead woman and her husband were separated and so they could not be their biological children. The lower court allowed the application for the DNA test. When the ‘daughter’ challenged the order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that if there was a conflict as to whether the brother and sister were really the dead woman’s children, it was a fit case for a DNA test. (Marada Venkateswara Rao vs Oleti Vara Lakshmi)

Hear, hear

The Bihar University withheld the result of a candidate who had appeared for her B.A. Part II examination. The examinee filed a writ petition when her request for publishing her result was turned down. The university contended that as she was found using unfair means during the examination, a report had been sent to the superintendent of the examination centre and an FIR had also been lodged with the Bihar police. It added that the student was expelled and also debarred from appearing in other examinations in future. The examinee said that the steps had been taken without hearing her account. Directing the university to publish the results, the Patna High Court held that since she had not been given a hearing, her result could not be withheld. (Rupashree Sinha vs State of Bihar and others)

SOLON