Good Morning

Thursday, May 14, 2026

NEWS TODAY 14.05..2026

No biryani, wedding turns bloody

Knives Out After Wedding Guests Bicker Over Being Served Pulao

TIMES NEWS NETWORK Ahamedabad 14.05.2026

Ahmedabad : Food can make or break an event. And, a wedding meant to celebrate a new beginning went spectacularly off the rails after a late-night argument over biryani, or rather a lack thereof, exploded into a violent family clash involving knives and iron ladles.

The bride, 23, who had travelled from Delhi with her family for the May 12 wedding, ended up spending the night at a police station, accusing the groom and five others of attacking her relatives after guests complained that pulao, and not biryani, was served at dinner.

According to the bride’s complaint, she and her family were staying near the marriage hall in Kubernagar. The engagement ceremony was held on May 10, followed by the wedding rituals the next evening. Trouble began brewing during a pre-wedding dinner when guests objected to the pulao being served. They also allegedly created a ruckus on it “not being prepared properly”, the complainant stated.

A heated exchange followed, but relatives allegedly managed to calm things down. A few hours later, however, tempers flared again. The bride alleged that around 1 am, the groom, his brother and several others arrived at the hall where her family members were staying and restarted the argument over the food issue.

According to the complaint, the groom’s side began “hurling filthy abuses” at the bride’s father. The bride told police, “One of the men attacked my father with a knife, injuring his left hand, while another relative, who intervened, suffered a knife wound on her left palm. We all stepped in to separate them.” As relatives rushed to stop the fight, the marriage venue allegedly turned into a battleground, with pushing, shouting, and scuffles breaking out between members of both families.

During the chaos, gold ornaments worn by the bride and her aunt reportedly disappeared. The injured relatives were rushed to Civil Hospital for treatment before the bride filed a complaint seeking action against the groom and his relatives. However, the groom’s side has given police a very different version. According to the cross complaint, police were called to settle the verbal dispute that arose during dinner, and both sides “reached an understanding”. “However, around 1.30am, the argument allegedly erupted again after the bride’s brother began abusing members of the groom’s family.

When relatives attempted to calm him down, the bride’s brother, her father and another man attacked them with kitchen utensils and a sharp weapon. An iron ladle was used to strike the complainant on the head,” stated the complaint. Three people from the groom’s family also suffered injuries and were taken to Civil Hospital, the complaint stated. Police have registered complaints from both sides and launched an investigation into the wedding-night showdown.

Father & son who missed Chicago flight win ₹1.4L compensation

DIVERSION DRAMA - COUNSUMER AS KING

Vindhya.Pabolu@timesofindia.com 14.05.2026

Bengaluru : What began as a routine trip to Chicago soon spiralled into an overnight nightmare for two Jayanagar residents, eventually leading to a legal battle. The episode dates back to Jan 4, 2024, when 68-year-old Satish Nagarajan Iyengar and his 38- year-old son, Rupesh, booked Air India round-trip tickets between Bengaluru and Chicago for Rs 2.9 lakh.

Their onward journey was scheduled for Jan 18, with the return flight planned for Jan 22. On Jan 18, the duo checked in at Bengaluru airport and received two boarding passes each, while their baggage was tagged directly to Chica- go. Their flight departed Bengaluru at 9.10pm and was slated to arrive in Delhi at 11.55pm, where they were to board a connecting flight to Chicago at 2.35am.

The flight was normal until it entered Delhi airspace, when the captain announced a diversion to Jaipur, citing low visibility. However, the duo contended that Delhi’s CAT IIIB-compliant runways were operational and the aircraft was equipped for landing in low visibility, alleging the diversion occurred due to pilots lacking CAT IIIB certification.

The aircraft landed in Jaipur, where passengers waited for more than an hour while a CAT IIIB-certified crew was flown in. The flight then reached Delhi at 1.52am, leaving less than 45 minutes for the connection. Despite assurances that they would make the connection, they were met with placards and escorted through a priority channel. However, they were made to wait more than 30 minutes, their baggage was returned and the Chicago leg was cancelled, citing late arrival of AI 808.

Air India’s Integrated Operations Control Centre (IOCC) later confirmed seats were available but said boarding had closed. For Satish, a senior citizen, the situation turned distressing. No food, water, seating or hotel accommodation was provided, nor any timeline for resolution.

After a sleepless night at the airport, they booked a hotel at their own expense. The next morning, Air India issued tickets to Bengaluru and said reimbursement would be provided. On Jan 21, they filed a refund request. On Feb 5, Air India confirmed a full refund within 7-14 days. However, by March 5, only Rs 2.4 lakh was credited, leaving Rs 55,328 pending. Despite acknowledgement and follow-ups, payment was not made. The issue was escalated to the ministry of civil aviation on July 26, but they received no response.

The duo filed a consumer complaint on July 17, 2025. In its defence, Air India cited operational and safety requirements for the diversion, stating low visibility procedures were mandatory. It argued boarding had closed by the time they arrived at the gate, making acceptance impossible. It also said an alternative routing via London was offered but declined, contending that passengers who opted for a refund could not later claim additional damages. On refunds, Air India stated that out of the total fare of Rs 1.5 lakh per ticket, in addition Rs 11,145 had been refunded for one ticket, while Rs 27,664 and Rs 16,519, respectively, remained under process or pending approval.

The airline maintained that the delay in crediting the balance amounts was due to routine reconciliation and settlement procedures and not due to any mala fide intent. The commission observed that the flight diversion was not due to weather alone but stemmed from the crew’s lack of CAT IIIB certification, an internal lapse that could not be treated as force majeure to escape liability.

It held that DGCA exemption clauses could not justify leaving a senior citizen stranded overnight without food, water, rest or accommodation. The partial refund of Rs 2,43,774 was treated as acknowledgement of liability, making the withholding of Rs 55,328 indefensible. It also upheld Rs 33,186 as legitimate damages and concluded that Air India’s actions constituted a clear deficiency in service.

The bench, comprising president Ramachandra MS and members Nandini H Kumbhar and Savitha Airani, on April 29 ordered Air India to refund Rs 55,328 and pay Rs 33,186 for damages incurred at an interest at 6%. It directed the airline to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, Rs 25,000 for pain and suffering, and Rs 10,000 in litigationcosts.

Include foster parents’ names in birth certificate, orders HC

K.Kaushik@timesofindia.com 14.05.2026

Madurai : Dignity and the right to construct one’s own identity with reference to gender, familial and societal contexts is part of the right to privacy, Madras high court observed while granting relief to a woman who sought to include the names of her foster parents in her birth certificate without removing the names of her biological parents.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a woman from Madurai, who is pursuing a UG degree. The petitioner stated that she was born in 2005. After her father passed away in 2006, her mother also deserted her. Her paternal uncle and his wife (aunt) raised her as their own daughter. The petitioner stated that in all her identity-related documents, her uncle and aunt’s names are mentioned as parents’ names. However, in the birth certificate alone, the biological parents’ names are mentioned.

This has affected her right to be known as the daughter of her uncle and aunt and it also leads to serious prejudice to her education and career as well. Therefore, the petitioner made an application to include the names of her uncle and.as her father and mother in the birth certificate. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner should be validly adopted as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Challenging the order, the petitioner moved court. The woman’s counsel submitted that she did not seek to remove the names of the biological parents, but to include the names of her uncle and aunt as well. Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed the petitioner is not praying for proprietary rights in the foster family. She wants to be known as their daughter. The same would be within her fundamental right. This apart, her identity itself will be disputed and her education and career will be jeopardised since the names of her parents in all other certificates and birth certificate are different.

The judge observed that there is not only an obligation on the state to respect the child’s right to preserve her identity, but there is also an obligation to provide appropriate assistance. Hence, the judge directed the petitioner to file notarised affidavits of her uncle and aunt, consenting to their names being added to the birth certificate of the petitioner with the suffix ‘foster’. Upon filing such affidavits, the chief registrar of births and deaths, shall also include the names of the uncle and aunt in the appropriate columns, the judge directed