nThe hospital authorities filed a writ petition in order to restrain the drug inspector from interfering with their system of collection, storage and transfusion of blood. They contended that blood was not a ‘drug’. Disagreeing with them, the Karnataka High Court held that ‘drug’ under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act included all “substances” used for “?diagnosis, treatment, mitigation of any disease or disorder in human beings” and that “substances” meant any natural or artificial substances in solid, liquid or gaseous states. Therefore, human blood, it said, was a substance subject to regulation under the Act (Adarsha Hospital vs Union of India).
The church handed over a month-old abandoned baby to the petitioner and her mother three years ago. The father later succeeded in obtaining the child’s custody on the strength of his legal rights. The peti- tioner approached the court. Granting interim custody to the petitioner, the Madras High Court held that custody could not be decided by legal rights alone. However, since the father was the natural guardian, it said, he could approach the family court to establish his legal rights (Eva Mary Elezabeth vs Jayaraj).
The wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which entitles a spouse to interim maintenance during divorce proceedings if he or she has no independent income. The trial court rejected her claim, saying that she was a practising doctor and that her name appeared on a clinic’s board. She challenged the decision, stating that she worked with the clinic before marriage. Dismissing the appeal, the Karnataka High Court held that when she was residing with her parents, she was free to work as she was qualified to do so. It said she was capable of having an independent income (E. Shanthi vs Vasudev H.K.).
SOLON
