Supreme CourtAlimony & Property Settlement – Held, alimony received after first divorce was not a relevant factor to determine the alimony payable after the divorce of the second marriage - The respondent's claim for Rs. 12 crores in permanent alimony and encumbrance-free ownership of the apartment as unjustified, considering that appellant-husband is an unemployed person and...
Supreme Court
Alimony & Property Settlement – Held, alimony received after first divorce was not a relevant factor to determine the alimony payable after the divorce of the second marriage - The respondent's claim for Rs. 12 crores in permanent alimony and encumbrance-free ownership of the apartment as unjustified, considering that appellant-husband is an unemployed person and has responsibility of an autistic child - Appeal allowed. [Para 17, 20] A v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : 2025 INSC 926
Article 21 - Judicial Language - Condemnation of Misogynistic Terms - Gender Bias Addressed - The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's use of terms such as “illegitimate wife” and “faithful mistress” to describe a woman in a void marriage, holding that such language is misogynistic and violates the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted a gender disparity, as similar derogatory terms were not applied to men in void marriages, highlighting judicial gender bias. The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, which prescribes gender-just terminology for legal pleadings, orders, and judgments. The use of such misogynistic terms in judicial pronouncements was deemed unconstitutional and contrary to the constitutional ethos of dignity. (Para 24) Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 195 : 2025 INSC 197
Child Custody - A father appealed a High Court decision dismissing his habeas corpus petition for custody of his child, who resided with him for nearly 10 years until the mother's death, after which the child was placed with maternal grandparents. The High Court denied custody, citing the child's comfort with the grandparents and the father's remarriage. Whether maternal grandparents have a superior claim to custody over the father, the natural guardian. Held: The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, holding that the father, as the natural guardian, has a superior claim to custody over the grandparents. No allegations of matrimonial disputes, abuse, or factors disqualifying the father's legal rights or intent to seek custody were raised. The child's welfare was best served by granting custody to the father, an educated and employed natural guardian, with whom the child lived for 10 years. The High Court erred in overlooking this relationship. Grandparents cannot claim superior custody rights absent disqualifying factors against the natural guardian. Custody was granted to the father, with visitation rights allowed for the maternal grandparents. (Para 10) Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 185 : 2025 INSC 159 : (2025) 4 SCC 342
Child Custody - Best Interests of the Child - Mental Capacity - Expert Opinion - When there is uncertainty about the child's ability to make independent decisions, expert opinions confirming a disability should be prioritized over inferences drawn from direct interactions with the child. The Court emphasized the importance of relying on expert medical assessments to determine the capacity of individuals with disabilities to make independent decisions. When a specialist's expert opinion confirms a child's inability to make independent decisions, custody decisions should not be based on the child's implied or express consent, as it could have significant consequences for the child. (Para 22) Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 277 : 2025 INSC 299
Child Custody - Cognitive Capacity - Courts should give due credence to expert opinions on a person's mental capacity, especially when dealing with individuals with cognitive limitations. In child custody matters, the best interests and welfare of the child are paramount, even when considering the wishes of a child with limited capacity. The totality of circumstances must be considered when determining the best interests of the child, including their education, support system, emotional well-being, and familial relationships. (Para 32) Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 277 : 2025 INSC 299
Child Custody - Foreign Orders - Principle of comity of courts and a pre-existing order of a Foreign Court must yield to the best interests of the child, especially when the Court has decided to conduct an elaborate enquiry in this regard. Such cases must be decided on the sole and predominant criterion of 'what would serve the interests and welfare' of the minor. The preexisting order of a Foreign Court is merely one of the circumstances to consider when assessing the best interests and welfare of the person concerned. This doctrine was evolved to protect children who may, unwittingly, become collateral damage in their parents' legal disputes. It has gained significance over the past several years, owing to the frequency and ease of migration. (Para 31) Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 277 : 2025 INSC 299
Child Custody - International Parental Child Abduction - The Appellant (mother) and Respondent No. 4 (father) are US citizens, divorced in the US. Their elder son has mild intellectual developmental disorder and cerebral palsy, resulting in significant cognitive limitations. After the divorce, the father brought the child to India. The mother filed a petition in the High Court alleging illegal detention. The High Court, after a brief interaction with the child, ruled that he was consensually living with his father in India. The Supreme Court, doubting the child's capacity to make independent decisions, ordered a medical assessment at NIMHANS, Bengaluru. The assessment concluded that the child's cognitive abilities were equivalent to an 8–10-year-old, and he lacked the capacity to make complex decisions. Whether the child has the capacity to make independent decisions regarding his place of residence. What course of action would best serve the child's interests and welfare. Held, the Supreme Court relied on the expert opinions from NIMHANS and a previous evaluation by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, concluding that the child does not possess the capacity to make independent, informed decisions on complex matters like long-term residence. The High Court erred in relying solely 2 on a brief interaction with the child. Applying the doctrine of parens patriae, the Supreme Court determined that the child's best interests lie in returning to the US. This decision considered the child's established life, education, support system, and close relationship with his younger brother, who also has special needs, in the US. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and ordered the repatriation of the child to the US under the sole custody of the mother. The father was directed not to impede their return and to maintain contact with his sons. The US Consulate General, Chennai was directed to return the child's passport and facilitate his return. (Para 41) Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 277 : 2025 INSC 299
Child Custody - Welfare of child – Issue - Permanent Child custody - Respondent became aware of Petitioner's remarriage and her intention to relocate the child to Malaysia and also the child's religion had been changed from Hindu to Christian, respondent filed for permanent custody of child - Trial Court granted permanent custody to the mother and extended visitation rights to father - High Court reversed Trial Court order and granted permanent custody to father-respondent citing that relocation to Malaysia would not be in the child's best interest - Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner's appeal, confirming custody with the father - Petitioner filed review petitions on ground that the new of the child's imminent separation from his mother caused immense negative impact on his health – Held - that Clinical Psychologist's Report was filed revealing the minor child was exhibiting anxiety and fears, with a high risk for separation anxiety disorder - Report recommended avoiding separation from his current family and conducting regular psychotherapy session – Held - that child's deteriorating mental health and the psychological assessment reports constituted new evidence, which was a post-decision development and not known at the time of appeal - child's custody is paramount in custody matters and changing permanent custody would disrupt child's stable environment - child has been with mother since he was 11 months and is comfortable with his step-father and sibling, and now, sending him with father who is akin to a stranger in an alien household would be harsh and insensitive - Stability and security of child is an essential ingredient for full development of child's talent and personality - Court restored permanent custody to Petitioner-mother with virtual and in-person visitation rights. Review petition allowed. [Paras 25-30, 34] N v. R, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 714 : 2025 INSC 853
Cruelty and Dowry Harassment - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Allegations Lacking Specificity and Evidence - Family Court Findings Relevant – The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against a husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law. The Court found that the allegations made by the complainant were general, lacked specificity, and were devoid of substantive evidence. Notably, the Family Court had already granted a divorce to the husband on grounds of cruelty by the complainant, finding her allegations of dowry demand and harassment to be baseless and false. The Supreme Court emphasized that criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment or vendetta, and that criminal proceedings cannot continue in the absence of sufficient evidence to prima facie establish the commission of an offense. The continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. (Para 13 – 15) P.V. Krishnabhat v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 149
Divorce by Mutual Consent - Mediation - Property Settlement - Stamp Duty Exemption - Where parties in a transfer petition for divorce, referred to mediation, reached a mutual agreement to dissolve their marriage and settle their property dispute, the Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed the dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. The Court further directed the transfer of absolute ownership of a jointly owned flat to the wife, waiving stamp duty on registration, relying on Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, which exempts registration fees for decrees or orders of the Court, except compromises involving immovable property outside the subject matter of the proceedings. As the flat was the subject of the compromise within the proceedings, the exemption applied. The Court also directed the Sub-Registrar to register the flat in the wife's name without any encumbrances, and the wife waived her right to alimony. (Para 6 & 7) Arun Rameshchand Arya v. Parul Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 305
Family Courts Act, 1984 - Legitimacy - Jurisdiction of Civil and Family Courts - Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the original suit regarding legitimacy. The Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the original suit regarding legitimacy, as the Family Court's exclusive jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act, 1984, applies only to matters involving marital relationships. Since the case involved an alleged extra-marital relationship, the Civil Court was the appropriate forum. The Family Court's jurisdiction is limited to matters involving marital relationships, and it cannot entertain claims based on alleged extra-marital relationships. Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 118
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Section 12(c) - Adoption and Property Rights - Doctrine of Relation Back - The appellant was adopted by defendant No.1, on 16.07.1994, after the death of her husband. The appellant claimed a half share in the suit schedule properties, arguing that he became the legal heir upon adoption. Held, under Section 12(c) of the Act an adopted child cannot divest any person of any estate that vested before the adoption. The court applied the "Doctrine of Relation Back," which states that adoption by a widow relates back to the date of the death of the adoptive father, creating an immediate coparcenary interest in the joint property. However, lawful alienations made by the widow before the adoption are binding on the adopted child. The court upheld the validity of the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favor of defendant Nos.2 and 3, as the alienation was made after defendant No.1 had become the absolute owner of the property. The appellant's challenge to the sale deed was dismissed. The court declared the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favor of defendant Nos.4 and 5 as null and void. The court found that the gift deed lacked the necessary prerequisites for a valid gift, such as delivery and acceptance of the property. The trial court's decision to grant the appellant the entire 'B' and 'C' schedule properties as the sole legal heir of defendant No.1 was restored. Sri Mahesh v. Sangram, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 6
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; Section 6(a) - Custody of Minor Child - Welfare of Child - Supreme Court while upholding the High Court's order placing the minor son, who is above five years of age, in the custody of his father, rejected the mother's appeal, noting that the custody issue had not been finally closed and the mother could pursue her remedies under relevant statutes - Noted that the child is a male child and is now aged above five years - Noted that the child was not willing to part company with his father - The fact that both parents are working and cannot always be physically with their children should not be a ground to place custody with one who may be temporarily working from home - It is a matter of common knowledge that married couples work to secure better education and future for their ward - Rejected the notion that a parent working from home provides better care than one who visits the office - The distance from home to school as "not a relevant consideration" particularly when both parties reside in the National Capital Region and the child is travelling for "better education."- Travel time being a few minutes less or more "hardly matters" - Noted that the child continues to be a student at the same school (Heritage School), and his education is not disturbed - The father has elder family members at home, including grandfather, who are giving company to the child - Considering the overall welfare, the male child being above five years old and continuing in the same school with no desire to part from his father, Supreme Court did not find a reason to interfere with the High Court's order. [Paras 7 - 14] Poonam Wadhwa v. Ajay Wadhwa, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1165
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; Section 8(2) and (3) - Voidable transaction - Repudiation by Minor – Held, disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) of Section 8 (i.e., without the previous permission of the court) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him - It is not mandatory for a minor, upon attaining majority, to file a suit for the cancellation of a sale deed executed by their natural guardian in contravention of Section 8(2) of the Act - A voidable transaction executed by the guardian of the minor can be repudiated and ignored by the minor within the prescribed time on attaining majority either by instituting a suit for setting aside the voidable transaction or by repudiating the same by his unequivocal conduct - Avoidance or repudiation by conduct is permissible because - i. The minor may not be aware of the transaction and thus not in a position to institute a suit; ii. The transaction may not have been given effect to, and the party acquiring the right may not have possession, giving the impression that the property is intact in the minor's hands, making a suit seem unnecessary - Transferring the property himself on attaining majority within the prescribed time period is an example of an implied repudiation by conduct - Noted that such an act is sufficient to repudiate the earlier sale deed executed by the father/guardian - The effect of avoidance is that the voidable transaction becomes void from its very inception, and the avoidance relates back to the date of the transaction - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Madhegowda vs Ankegowda (2002) 1 SCC 178; G. Annamalai Pillai vs District Revenue Officer and Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 402; Paras 11-14, 22, 32, 34] K.S. Shivappa v. K. Neelamma, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 981 : 2025 INSC 1195
Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 2(2) - Applicability to Scheduled Tribes (ST) - Customary Law - Justice, Equity and Good conscience - Article 14, 15, 38, 46 of the Constitution of India – Issue - Whether a tribal woman or her legal heirs are entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property - Trial Court and High Court dismissed the suit filed by appellant (heirs of a tribal woman) citing that mother had no right in her father's property as members of Scheduled Tribe are not governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as per section 2(2) and nothing proved by custom - This Court Held - Exclusion of female from inheritance is unreasonable and discriminatory - that Hindu Succession Act is not applicable to the Scheduled Tribes, it does not mean that tribal women are automatically excluded from inheritance - it needs to be seen by Court whether there exists any prevailing custom restricting the female tribal right to share in the ancestral property - In this case parties could not establish the existence of any custom which excluded women from inheritance - Customs are too like the law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others - Held in absence of any specific tribal custom or codified law prohibiting women's right, courts must apply “justice, equity and good conscience” - Where there is no custom prohibiting succession to women, still denying them succession is in violation of Article 14, 15 read with Articles 38 and 46, ensuring that there is no discrimination against women. Held legal heirs of tribal woman entitled to share in the property, set aside order of High Court. Appeal allowed. [Relied on Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Co. ltd. v. State of U.P., (1969) 1 SCC 817; Para 13, 19, 20, 21] Ram Charan v. Sukhram, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 717 : 2025 INSC 865
Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 2 (2) – Applicability to Scheduled Tribes – Held, HSA does not apply to members of STs - Section 2(2) of the HSA, 1956 explicitly states that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution, unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs - The words of the section are explicit, and the HSA, 1956, cannot apply to Scheduled Tribes - Supreme Court set aside High Court's order directing that daughters in tribal areas in the state of H.P. shall inherit property in accordance with HSA and not as per customs and usages - High Court's directions were beyond the scope of the appeal, as the issue was neither directly nor substantially involved in the intra-party appeal, and the directions were not emanating from any of the issues framed or pleas raised by the parties - Set aside order of High Court. [Relied on Tirith Kumar & Ors. vs. Daduram & Ors., (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3810; Paras 4-6] Nawang v. Bahadur, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1025
Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 29, 8 - Locus standi of State - Validity of will - Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 - Probate of will – Held, State cannot invoke Doctrine of Escheat to challenge a will which is granted probate - Government is a stranger to the property when a Hindu hireless male dies with a will - The state's locus standi to assail the probate grant was negated by the Court, as the case involved testamentary succession, not intestate succession attracting Section 29 of HAS - The Court emphasized the doctrine of escheat under section 29 applies only when an intestate leaves no heir qualified under the HAS - It has to be ascertained as to whether there are any Class1 or Class 2 heirs, agnates or cognates - Only on the failure of any qualified heir being present to succeed to the properties, under the HAS Act, Section 29 of the said Act would apply as it would be a case of failure of heirs - Since probate was granted by the High Court, the legatees under the will, had the right to succeed - Held that it is only in the event of intestate succession. Section 29 of the HAS Act applying that there would be a devolution of the estate of a deceased male Hindu on the government and not otherwise - Supreme Court imposed Rs. 1 lakh each on Petitioners for suppression and clarified that only heirs or persons entitled to succeed could seek revocation under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, if probate was wrongfully granted. Appeal dismissed. [Paras 5 - 6] State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 906
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 - Preliminary Decree - Review Jurisdiction - Scope of Review – Held, review proceedings are not an appeal in disguise and are limited to correcting apparent errors of fact or law, not for rehearing or substituting a view - An error apparent on the face of the record is a patent error, not one that requires a 'long-drawn process of reasoning' to establish - Courts ought not to mix-up or overlap one jurisdiction with another jurisdiction - High Court's review order exceeded its jurisdiction- the review order recorded fresh findings on facts and overturned the earlier findings of the fact of the High Court - High Court had exercised or exceeded its jurisdiction by overturning the earlier findings of fact - Set aside High Court's order denying daughter her coparcenary right - Appeal allowed. [Paras 13-18] Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 876 : 2025 INSC 1080
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (2007 Act) - Eviction Authority of Tribunal - Self-Acquired Property - A 75-year-old appellant sought eviction of his son and daughter-in-law (Respondents 8 and 9) from his selfacquired property, used as a rest house, alleging encroachment, harassment, and threats of false criminal cases - Maintenance Tribunal ordered eviction; Single Judge upheld, but Division Bench set aside, suggesting rent determination - Held, Tribunal has authority under the Act to order eviction to ensure senior citizens' maintenance and protection, as affirmed by S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner and Rule 21 (2) (i) of the Bihar Senior Citizens Rules, 2012 - Property was self-acquired, not ancestral - Respondents' worsening behavior justified eviction - The appeal was allowed, and the Division Bench's order was set aside. The Tribunal's eviction order was restored. (Para 10 – 12) Rajeswar Prasad Roy v. State of Bihar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 418
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (2007 Act) - Section 22-24 – Held, the Tribunal under the 2007 Act, has the power to order the eviction of a child from the property of the senior citizen, if there is a breach of obligation to maintain senior citizen - The High Court erred in allowing the appeal on the ground that the respondent was also a senior citizen as per Section 2(h) of the 2007 Act because at the time of filing the application before the Tribunal, the respondent was not yet a senior citizen (Respondent's age was 59 years at that time) - The relevant date is the date of filing of the application - 2007 Act being a welfare legislation should be construed liberally to advance its beneficent purpose of protecting senior citizens - It is well settled that the Tribunal can order eviction of a child or relative from the property of the senior citizen where there is a breach of obligation to maintain the senior citizen - The respondent, despite being financially sound, did not allow the appellant to reside in his properties, thereby frustrating the object of the Act - High Court's decision was untenable and erroneous - Appeal allowed. [Paras 6, 7] Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 947
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (2007 Act) - Section 23 - Requirements - Scope and interpretation of - Beneficial Legislation - Breakdown of Relations - Senior Citizens' Rights - Conditions in property transfers involving senior citizens - Tribunal's Power - Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Tribunal's order granting relief under Section 23 - Held, the Act is a welfare-oriented statute aimed at protecting the rights of senior citizens. It must be interpreted liberally to further its objectives. For a property transfer to be void under Section 23, it must be shown that the transfer was conditional upon the transferee maintaining the transferor and that the transferee failed to fulfill these conditions. The Court noted the appellant's allegations of neglect and abuse by the respondent, holding that such behavior violated the conditions implied in the Gift Deed and related promissory note. The Court reaffirmed the Tribunal's authority under the Act to cancel property transfers and order possession transfer if necessary to protect senior citizens. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Division Bench judgment of the High Court, and the respondent was directed to restore possession of the property to the appellant. It restored the orders of the Single Judge and the Tribunal, quashing the Gift Deed executed by the appellant in favor of the respondent. The judgment reinforced the Act's purpose of providing senior citizens with simple, expedient remedies against neglect or abuse. Tribunal Powers. Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 3 : (2025) 2 SCC 787
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (2007 Act) - The Act does not mandate automatic eviction of children from parents' homes. Eviction orders are not obligatory in every case under the Act. The primary objective is to ensure maintenance and welfare of senior citizens, with eviction permissible only in exceptional circumstances to safeguard their well-being. The Tribunal must exercise discretion judiciously, ordering eviction only when necessary. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside an eviction order in a case where an elderly mother sought to evict her son from their ancestral home, citing insufficient grounds for eviction and pending civil disputes over property shares. The Court expressed concern over declining family unity and the increasing prevalence of disputes between elderly parents and their children. [Referred: S. Vanitha v. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, (2021) 15 SCC 730; Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, (2025) 2 SCC 787; Paras 32 & 33] Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 445 : 2025 INSC 404
Matrimonial Disputes - Malafide Complaints - Quashing of FIR - High Court's Duty under Section 482 CrPC - Vague Allegations - The Supreme Court quashed proceedings under Sections 498A and 411 IPC against the father-in-law and mother-in-law, while allowing continuation against the husband. Allegations raised after 14 years of marriage, filed three days after the husband initiated divorce proceedings, required scrutiny for malafide intent. Under Section 482 CrPC, High Courts must assess complaints in matrimonial disputes for ulterior motives, particularly when allegations lack specificity. Vague claims of "taunts" by in-laws over trivial matters, being part of ordinary domestic life, are insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. Courts must exercise caution to prevent vexatious prosecution of family members in such disputes. (Paras 11 - 13) Kamal v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 440 : 2025 INSC 504
Matruka Property (Inheritance) - Held that Matruka property is the property (both movable and immovable) left by a deceased Muslim - It simply refers to property left behind by the deceased person and nothing more - The scheme for distribution of matruka property first requires separating the part covered by a valid will (maximum one-third of the total matruka, and not in favor of an heir without other heirs' consent) - The balance is distributable among heirs as per Mohammedan Law rules of intestate succession – Held, the scheme for distribution of matruka property first requires separating the part covered by a valid will (maximum one-third of the total matruka, and not in favor of an heir without other heirs' consent) - Sharers are entitled to a prescribed share of the inheritance and wife being a sharer is entitled to 1/8th the share but where there is no child or child of a son how low so ever, the share to which the wife is entitled is 1/4th. [Relied on Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 738; Paras 8-15] Zoharbee v. Imam Khan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1014 : 2025 INSC 1245
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 - Section 3(1)(d) - Right of divorced Muslim woman to recover properties given at the time of marriage - Purposive Construction of Act – Issue - Whether goods given to a daughter or the bridegroom at the time of marriage could be returned to the daughter after divorce under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (1986 Act) - Held that the 1986 Act must be given a purposive construction, keeping the goals of equality, dignity, and autonomy in mind, especially to secure the financial protection of a Muslim woman post-divorce, which aligns with her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Held that the High Court erred by treating the matter purely as a civil dispute and missing the 'purposive construction goalpost' - observed that Section 3(1)(d) of the 1986 Act entitles a divorced woman to receive "all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after her marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends" - This section clears the way for a woman to set up a claim against her husband, or claim back properties given, as the case may be - directed Respondent to remit the amount directly to the wife's bank account, the non-compliance of which would attract interest at 9% per annum - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Daniel Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740; Paras 7-10] Rousanara Begum v. S.K. Salahuddin @ Sk Salauddin, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1160 : 2025 INSC 1375
Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Partition Suit - Exception Pleaded - A partition suit seeking division of joint family property cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at the preliminary stage when the plaintiff invokes an exception to the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) requires the suit to be manifestly barred by law without requiring evidence. However, determining whether properties are benami or joint family assets involves factual inquiries, such as the source of funds and family arrangements, necessitating a trial. When an exception to the Benami Act is pleaded, the plaint cannot be rejected at the pleading stage, as it raises disputed questions of fact requiring evidence-based adjudication. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellants' challenge to the trial court and High Court's refusal to reject the plaint, upholding the continuation of the partition suit for trial to resolve factual disputes regarding the nature of the property. Appeal dismissed; plaint upheld for trial. (Para 28) Shaifali Gupta v. Vidya Devi Gupta, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 604 : 2025 INSC 739
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Extradition Order Quashed - The Trial Court's order directing extradition of the appellant (husband) residing in the USA, due to his non-appearance, was held untenable, especially given the illegal impoundment of his passport. (Para 20) Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 240
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Issuance of bailable warrant - Proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi-criminal and do not warrant such coercive measures unless there is a violation of a protection order. Alisha Berry v. Neelam Berry, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 33
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Physical Presence in DV Act Proceedings - Proceedings under the DV Act are quasi-criminal in nature and do not mandate the personal presence of a party, except in cases of breach of a protection order under Section 31. (Para 18, 20) Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 240
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Power of High Courts to quash complaints under Section 12(1) or orders under Sections 18 to 23 using inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) - Held, High Courts can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) to quash proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, or orders under Sections 18 to 23, to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. The notion that Section 482 CrPC is inapplicable due to the predominantly civil nature of DV Act proceedings is incorrect. However, High Courts must exercise caution and restraint, intervening only in cases of patent illegality or abuse of process, given the DV Act's purpose as welfare legislation to protect women from domestic violence. A cautious approach is recommended to avoid undermining the Act's objectives. The civil nature of DV Act proceedings does not preclude the application of Section 482 CrPC. (Paras 37, 39) Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 599 : AIR 2025 SC 2598 : 2025 INSC 734
Section 112 IEA - DNA Test and Balancing of Interests - The Court emphasized that DNA tests should not be ordered as a matter of course. The right to privacy and dignity of the parties must be balanced against the child's interest in knowing their biological father. In this case, there was no “eminent need” for a DNA test, as the presumption of legitimacy had not been rebutted, and the respondent's claim was based on unsubstantiated allegations. Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : 2025 INSC 115 : AIR 2025 SC 1004
Section 112 IEA - Presumption of Legitimacy and Paternity - Res Judicata - The dispute arose from a maintenance petition filed by the respondent claiming that the appellant was his biological father. The respondent and his mother sought to establish paternity through a DNA test, but the courts consistently upheld the presumption of legitimacy, as the respondent's mother failed to prove non-access during the relevant period. The Family Court initially closed the maintenance petition but allowed its revival if the respondent succeeded in challenging the legitimacy presumption in civil proceedings. When the civil courts upheld the presumption, the Family Court nonetheless revived the maintenance petition, leading to the present appeal. Whether the Family Court was entitled to reopen the maintenance petition. Whether the second round of litigation was barred by the principle of res judicata. Held, the principle of res judicata bars the re-agitation of issues that have already been conclusively decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. The second round of litigation was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the issue of legitimacy had already been conclusively decided by the High Court in 2011, and the Family Court erred in reviving the maintenance petition. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and the Family Court's order reviving the maintenance petition. The proceedings in the maintenance petition were quashed, and the Court reiterated the importance of finality in litigation under the principle of res judicata. Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : 2025 INSC 115 : AIR 2025 SC 1004
Section 112 IEA - Presumption of Legitimacy and Paternity - Whether the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, determines paternity unless rebutted by proof of non-access. Held, legitimacy and paternity are not independent concepts. Under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, a child born during a valid marriage is presumed to be the legitimate child of the husband unless non-access is proven. The presumption of legitimacy is conclusive and cannot be displaced by mere allegations of adultery or requests for DNA tests without strong evidence of non-access. The presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is conclusive and can only be rebutted by proving non-access. DNA tests should be ordered sparingly, considering the rights to privacy and dignity of the parties involved. Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : 2025 INSC 115 : AIR 2025 SC 1004
Section 122 IEA - Communications during marriage - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to privacy – Facts - Appellant-husband in a matrimonial dispute relied on recorded conversation with his wife to prove allegations of cruelty, to which respondent-wife alleged breach of her fundamental right to privacy- High Court held that permitting such recordings in evidence would be unjustified, as conversations were recorded per se cruelty by one party – Held, Section 122 is worded in two parts - “compellability” and “permissibility”- when one of the spouse is not willing to disclose communication made to the other, latter cannot be compelled by any court or authority - “permissibility” if any spouse is willing to disclose communication, then it is not court that can give consent / permission to disclosure but only other spouse can give the same - Rationale behind section 122 was to protect sanctity of marriage and not the right to privacy of the individuals involved - Right to privacy is not a relevant consideration in such disputes - A secretly recorded telephonic conversation of the spouse is admissible as evidence in matrimonial proceedings - That spousal privilege under first part of Section 122 has to be construed in light of the exception provided in same provision - Exception under Section 122 has to be construed in light of the right to a fair trial which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution - Section 122 carves out an exception to right to privacy between spouses and cannot be applied horizontally at all - Section 122 recognizes right to fair trial, right to produce relevant evidence and right to prove one's case against the spouse so as to avail relief - Court rejected argument that permitting such evidence would disturb domestic harmony in matrimonial relationships, defeating objectives of section 122 – Held, if marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, it is in itself a sign of a broken relationship and depicts lack of trust between them - that content of a common law right may be similar to that of a fundamental right, but they are distinguished by the incidence of their duties on private entities and State. Appeal allowed. [Relied on: M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Poonan, (1969) 1 SCC 37 (Para 8, 8.8, 12)] Vibhor Garg v. Neha, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 694 : 2025 INSC 829
Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. - Interpretation of - Whether a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, is absolved of paying maintenance to his wife under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if the wife refuses to comply with the decree and return to the matrimonial home? Held, a wife's refusal to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The refusal must be assessed in light of the facts and circumstances of each case, including whether the wife had justifiable reasons for not returning to the matrimonial home. The Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide social justice and prevent destitution. A decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically bar a wife from claiming maintenance if she has valid reasons for refusing to return to her husband. This judgment clarifies that the mere existence of a restitution decree does not override a wife's right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court must examine the facts of each case to determine whether the wife's refusal to comply with the decree is justified. The ruling reinforces the protective intent of maintenance laws in ensuring the financial security of women. Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 47 : 2025 INSC 55 : AIR 2025 SC 644 : (2025) 3 SCC 33
Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance – Whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting – Held, a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from her second husband, even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved. A formal decree of dissolution is not mandatory. If the woman and her first husband mutually agreed to separate, the absence of a legal divorce does not prevent her from seeking maintenance from her second husband. The right to maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband. (Para 17 & 18) N. Usha Rani v. Moodudula Srinivas, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 156 : 2025 INSC 129
Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents- Question of enhancement of permanent alimony awarded to unmarried wife as per Standard of living wife enjoyed during the marriage – Held, appellant-wife who is unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during marriage and which reasonably secures her future - High Court noted Respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay higher amount and enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 50,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years to ensure financial stability for appellant-wife - Appeal was allowed. (Paras 7 - 9) Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 660 : 2025 INSC 789
Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Refusal to Grant Maintenance - The Family Court erred in relying on a compromise deed filed before a 'Court of Kazi' to hold the appellant-wife responsible for the marital dispute, as the deed contained no admission of fault by the wife. The Supreme Court also rejected the Family Court's assumption that a second marriage precludes dowry demands, deeming it speculative and legally untenable. The Supreme Court set aside the Family Court's findings and directed the husband to pay Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance to the appellant from the date of filing the maintenance petition. [Paras 14 & 15] Shahjahan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 495 : 2025 INSC 528
Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Divorce - Supreme Court orders husband to pay Rs. 1.25 crores permanent alimony to his wife while dissolving marriage – Held, there is no possibility of reconciliation between parties and they have been living separately since 15 years - There is no vestige of matrimonial relationship between them and neither party has shown any inclination to resolve their differences - Mediation efforts also failed - Since the respondent-wife and child have not received any financial support from appellant-husband, Rs. 1.25 crores was directed to be paid - Appeal allowed. [Paras 5-9] X v. Y, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2025 INSC 978
Section 13B - Settlement Agreement - Mutual Consent Divorce- Withdrawal of consent - Supreme Court acknowledged that the respondent-wife's withdrawal from the mutual consent divorce agreement at the second motion was a valid exercise of her statutory right - Held that subsequent demand of wife for a higher alimony demonstrated an intention to coerce a better settlement, and her allegations of coercion, misrepresentation, and fraud regarding the initial settlement were unsubstantiated. [Para 18] A v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : 2025 INSC 926
Section 13 - Divorce – Cruelty – Desertion – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Duty of Court: Supreme Court directed that before concluding that a marriage has broken down irretrievably, it is imperative upon the Family Court or the High Court to determine which party is responsible for breaking the marital tie and forcing the other to live separately- A finding of irretrievable breakdown is likely to have devastating effects, especially on children, unless there is cogent evidence for wilful desertion or refusal to cohabit and/or look after the other spouse- The conclusion regarding irretrievable breakdown puts the Courts under an onerous duty to deeply analyse the entire evidence, consider social circumstances, and the background of the parties- The Supreme Court found that the High Court, in granting divorce on the ground of cruelty, failed to advert to the wife's plea that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home and did not undertake the necessary exercise to determine the essential issues- The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration in accordance with the law- Appeal allowed in part. [Paras 4-7] A v. I, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1143
Sections 140, 166, 168 MV Act - Entitlement of a married daughter and an elderly mother to compensation in a motor accident claim as dependents of the deceased. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision denying compensation for loss of dependency to the married daughter, holding that she is presumed to be financially supported by her husband or his family unless proven otherwise. The married daughter is entitled only to compensation under Section 140 as a legal representative, not as a dependent. The Court set aside the High Court's order denying compensation to the deceased's elderly mother, aged approximately 70 years, who was solely dependent on the deceased with no independent income. Recognizing the duty of a child to maintain their parent in old age, the Court awarded ₹19,22,356/- as compensation to the elderly mother, considering her dependency and potential future hardship. Appeal partly allowed. Compensation denied to the married daughter for loss of dependency but granted to the elderly mother. [Para 13 - 20] Deep Shikha v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 561 : 2025 INSC 675 : AIR 2025 SC 2929
Validity of an oral gift (Hiba) - Succession rights - Limitation pertaining to declaratory suits regarding immovable property – Held, an oral gift (hiba) under the Muslim Law cannot be projected as a “surprise instrument” to stake claims over a property - To constitute, a valid Hiba, all its necessary ingredients - i. declaration by donor, ii. acceptance by donee and iii. taking possession of land - are done publicly rather than secretly - Oral gift (hiba) is permissible in Mohammedan law, the evidence of acting under the gift - such as collecting rent, holding title, or effecting mutation is essential to substantiate the claim of possession - Oral gift was not proved by contemporaneous delivery of possession - The registered sale deeds and mutations carry presumption of validity and unchallenged possession by the defendants - Lack of effecting mutation in revenue records can be a crucial factor invalidating such a claim of gift, in the absence of other evidence of possession - Set aside order - Appeal allowed. [Relied on: Mansoor Saheb v. Salima 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3809; Rasheeda Khatoon v. Ashiq Ali, (2014) 10 SCC 459; Paras 34-42, 49] Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi v. Syeda Arifa Parveen, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 973 : 2025 INSC 1187
Allahabad High Court
Husband Can't Claim Ownership Of Wife's Body, Privacy, Her Consent Paramount; Sharing Intimate Acts' Video A Breach Of Trust: Allahabad HC
Case title – Brijesh Yadav @ Brijesh Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 1
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 1
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is high time for husbands to shed the outdated mentality of the Victorian era and realise that a wife's body, privacy, and rights are her own and not subject to the control or ownership of her husband.
The Court underscored that a husband is expected to honour the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in him by his wife and that sharing videos related to their intimate relationship amounts to a violation of the inherent confidentiality that defines the bond between husband and wife.
Case Title: Amit Dhama v. Smt Pooja And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 13 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 922 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 13
Observing that the mother is the natural guardian of a 4-year-old daughter, the Allahabad High Court has held that even if the company of the minor daughter was given to the husband at the time of separation, it would not deprive the mother of her right to custody of the daughter.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh held
“Merely because the mother has been deprived of the company of her daughter at the time when the couple separated and fact that the daughter had continued to be in company of the father for sometime itself would not be sufficient circumstance to deny custody of the minor daughter to the mother who is her natural guardian. Various physical, emotional and psychological needs of the four year old daughter would be better protected in the care and custody of her mother.”
Case Title: Rachit Verma v. Smt. Anuradha Dey [FIRST APPEAL No. - 37 of 2021]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 16
While granting a decree of divorce on grounds of desertion, the Allahabad High Court has observed that merely because the wife consumes alcohol does not amount to cruelty unless it is followed by uncivilized behavior.
The bench held,
“Consuming of Alcohol by itself does not amount to cruelty, if it is not followed by unwarranted & uncivilized behavior. Though, consuming of alcohol in middle-class society is still a taboo and not a part of culture, however there is no pleadings on record to show as to how consuming of alcohol has caused cruelty to the husband/appellant.”
Case Title: Neeraj Kumar v. Smt. Shradha Goel 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 20 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 880 of 2017]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 20
The Allahabad High Court has held that decision of the Trial Court/ Family Court cannot be set aside because of failure on part of the husband in leading evidence when there is no other infirmity in the order.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh held
“Refusal/ failure on part of the husband to lead any evidence would not be sufficient for this Court to extend a further opportunity to the husband to adduce evidence when no procedural infirmity is shown in the proceedings of the trial court.”
Case Title: Alka Singh Chauhan v. Shakti Singh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 473 of 2019]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 22
The Allahabad High Court has held that order passed by the Supreme Court expediting divorce proceedings cannot be a ground to deprive the wife of her right to contest divorce proceedings.
Observing that the Family Court had not fairly adjudicated the divorce proceedings, the bench of Justice Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh held
“The undue hot haste in which the Court has proceeded cannot be approved of. Although there was a direction by the Supreme Court to expedite the proceedings and conclude it within six months but such direction was to resist any uncalled for adjournment claimed by the parties. The order of the Supreme Court cannot be construed as depriving the wife to contest the proceedings.”
Case Title: Anup Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Chandrabhan Singh [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 29 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 31
The Allahabad High Court has held that place of marriage reception is not relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Family Court under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Section 19(i) of the Act confers jurisdiction under the Act upon a court within whose local limits the marriage between the parties was solemnized.
Case title - Jagriti And 2 Others vs. State Of Up And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 35
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 35
The Allahabad High Court directed that custody of a minor child be handed over to the father, citing the mother's alleged actions of eloping with another man without seeking a formal divorce from her husband.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed that the future of the minor child, a budding citizen of a glorious country, cannot be permitted to be taken care of by 'such a mother' who fled away with a person without divorcing her husband.
Case Title: Sri Nishant Bhardwaj v. Smt. Rishika Gautam [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 12 of 2025]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 39
The Allahabad High Court has held that marriage between two Hindus cannot be dissolved within one year of marriage on grounds of mutual incompatibility, unless there is exceptional hardship or exception depravity as provided under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The parties had filed for mutual dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the same was rejected by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur on grounds that minimum period for moving the application as provided under Section 14 of the Act, had not elapsed.
Case title - Krishnawati Devi And 06 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 53
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 53
The Allahabad High Court observed that in many cases, to harass the husband's family or the person in a domestic relationship, the aggrieved party implicates relatives who have never lived with them in the shared household.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Deshwal added that while issuing notice under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the courts must look into whether the person who is being implicated is living or ever lived with the aggrieved person in a shared household.
Case title - Maharaj Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 133
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 133
In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court has held that even the marriages between two Hindus (a Male and Female) performed in Arya Samaj Temples are valid under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, if they are solemnised in accordance with Vedic or other relevant Hindu rites and ceremonies and that the marriage venue, be it a temple, house, or open space, is irrelevant for such purpose.
Case Title: X & Others v. State Of U.P. And Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 135
The Allahabad High Court has held that a mother-in-law can file a case against her daughter-in-law or any other person, as being harassed or tortured would bring her under the purview of aggrieved person under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act.
Justice Alok Mathur in his order held:
“In case, mother-in-law is harassed or physically or mentally tortured by the daughter-in-law or any other member of the family, certainly she could be brought within the fold of aggrieved person and would have a right to maintain the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”
Case Title: Smt. Minakshi Gupta v. Kailash Chandra [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 207 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 141
The Allahabad High Court has held that just because the parties agreed for mutual divorce after more than 1 year of separation period, the Court cannot neglect the separation period prior to the agreement for divorce. It held that the period of separation prior to the meeting of minds will be considered under sub-section (1) in section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for divorce by mutual consent. Sub-section(1) of section 13 provides that petition for divorce by mutual consent can be presented by parties together on the grounds that they have been living separately for one year or more and that they have not been able to live together and the marriage must be dissolved. Sub-section (2) provides the procedural aspect for deciding such petition.
Case title - Imran Khan @ Ashok Ratna vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 164
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 164
In a significant Judgment, the Allahabad High Court has held that unnatural sexual intercourse by a man with his wife without her consent, even if she is above 18 years, would be punishable u/s 377 IPC though that may not be rape as per Section 375 IPC.
“…it is clear that carnal sex, other than penile-vaginal intercourse is not a natural orientation of sex for the majority of women, therefore the same cannot be done by the husband, even with his wife without her consent,” the bench observed in its order.
Case Title: Smt. Kusum v. Anand Kumar And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2997 of 2022]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 170
The Allahabad High Court has held that Hindu Succession Act, 1956 prevails over the Insurance Act, 1938 as the rights guaranteed to the successor under the former cannot be defeated by the rights guaranteed to the nominee under the latter enactment.
While dealing with the claim of the mother-nominee over the insurance money of her deceased daughter against the rights of the daughter of the deceased, Justice Pankaj Bhatia held,
“On harmonious interpretation of the two provisions i.e. Insurance Act and Hindu Succession Act, the rights conferred by Hindu Succession Act will prevail over the rights claimed by the nominee under Section 39(7) of the Insurance Act, the succession act being specific to succession in contradiction to the Insurance Act which is general.”
Case title - Shanidev And Another vs. State Of Up And 7 Others and connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 183
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 183
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court, in its suo moto writ jurisdiction, directed the State Government to amend Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017, within 6 months so that a robust and verifiable marriage registration mechanism comes into existence, ensuring the validity and sanctity of marriages.
A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar passed this direction months after raising concerns regarding the emergence of an organised racket of touts who are involved in getting fake marriages registered through forged documents.
Case Title: Meenu Rajvanshi v. Brijesh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 49 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 191
The Allahabad High Court has held that an amendment application in divorce proceedings cannot be allowed after a delay of 10 years when the party was aware of the facts at the time of institution of suit. It held that such amendment application is only to prolong litigation and cannot be entertained at the stage of final hearing.
While dealing with wife's plea against allowing husband's amendment application seeking restitution of conjugal rights after 10 years of institution of divorce proceedings, the bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh held,
“the respondent has recently filed an application for amendment just to delay the proceedings and to harass his deserted wife, who is running from pillar to post for the last 10 years. The provisions of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. is to be seen in the perspective of the given facts that unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the court. In the present case, for the last 10 years the respondent was silent over the matter and when the proceedings were at final stage, he moved the amendment application, which is against the spirit of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.”
Case Title: Angad Soni v. Arpita Yadav [First Appeal Defective No.115 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 207
The Allahabad High Court has held that if after filing of criminal case by one spouse against other, the parties have approached the court for divorce by the mutual consent, the same must be granted by invoking the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for divorce by mutual consent. Section 14 of the Act mandates that no divorce petition can be presented before any court within 1 year of marriage. Proviso to Section 14(1) provides that such application can be entertained if the Court before which it is filed if there is exception hardship faced by the party presenting it or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent.
Case Title: Savita Devi @ Pinki Gautam @ Shivangi Shishodiya v. Jitendra Gautam 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 210 [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 530 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 210
The Allahabad High Court has held that the fact whether the second marriage was void due to subsisting first marriage of a spouse is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding application for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena held
“What is important is for the Court to ascertain whether the party seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses, requires it, as to be paid by the other party in a matrimonial dispute pending adjudication.”
Case Title: Ishak v. State of U.P. and 4 others [ WRIT - C No. - 18408 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 261
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 7 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 does not have the power to adjudicate property ownership claims especially in case of third party dispute, and the same must be adjudicated before the Civil Courts.
Observing that the Senior Citizen Act is aimed at providing maintenance and for welfare of senior citizens, the bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,
“The maintenance tribunals constituted under the Act have been empowered to entertain applications relating to claims for maintenance against children, or in case of a childless senior citizen against his relative who would inherit the property. There is no conferment of jurisdiction to adjudicate questions relating to property and ownership rights particularly where there is a dispute with third parties. Disputes in this regard are to be adjudicated before the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction.”
Case title - Shariq Mian And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 283
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 283
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that marriage is an institution of great social relevance, and it gets adversely affected when criminal complaints are lodged in the heat of the moment over trivial matrimonial issues without proper deliberations.
A bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan added that when such a complaint is filed, the parties do not properly visualise the implications and consequences, which can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony, and pain not just for the complainant, accused, and their close relatives but also for the marriage as an institution.
Case Title: Sudha Agarwal Alias Sudha Garg v. State of U.P. And 10 others [MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 3880 of 2025]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 307
While dealing with a wife's prayer to direct the Trial Court to commence hearing a cruelty case, the Allahabad High Court observed that it was regrettable that after more than 2 decades of filing FIR & chargesheet, the trial had not commenced.
Stating that the Court was conscious of the Trial Court's workload, Justice Vinod Diwakar observed
“Notwithstanding the considerable lapse of more than two decades since the FIR was registered, it is regrettable that the trial court has failed to commence or conduct any effective proceedings in the matter. This prolonged and unexplained inaction by the trial court constitutes not only a denial of timely justice but also a serious erosion of the rule of law and a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial.”
Case Title: Sattar Ahmad & 4 Ors v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35994 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 309
While dealing with application for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Allahabad High Court has held that criminal proceedings under the Act can only be initiated if there is a breach in any conditions of the order passed in civil proceedings under Sections 12 to 23 of the Act.
Justice Vinod Diwakar held that
“in the absence of a prior protection order duly passed by the Magistrate, the police is not empowered per se to register an FIR under Section 31 of the Act. The procedural mandate of the Act requires that the process be initiated through the civil mechanism envisaged under Sections 12 to 23 of the Act, and only upon breach of such an order does criminal liability under Section 31 of the Act, 2005 arise.”
Hindu Marriage Doesn't Become Invalid Merely Because It Is Not Registered: Allahabad High Court
Case title - Sunil Dubey vs Minakshi 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 322
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 322
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Hindu marriage does not become invalid merely because it is not registered, and therefore, a Family Court cannot insist on the production of a marriage registration certificate in a mutual divorce petition.
The court added that while the State Governments are empowered to make rules for registering such marriages, their purpose is only to furnish 'convenient evidence of marriage', and the violation of this requirement doesn't affect the validity of a Hindu marriage.
Case title - Anurag Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 327
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 327
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a mentally and physically fit major unmarried daughter can't claim maintenance by filing an application under Section 125 CrPC and that such a claim has to be pursued u/s 20(3) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956.
The Court, however, clarified that if a daughter becomes major during the pendency of the application under S. 125 CrPC, maintenance can be allowed to her in the same proceedings by the family court by invoking the provisions of Section 20(3) of the 1956 Act.
Case title - Ankit Suman vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 328
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 328
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband's liability to pay maintenance pendente lite (under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act) to the wife doesn't end even when the divorce proceedings have been stayed.
A bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam clarified that the husband's liability to pay won't end even if the case proceedings are pending at the revisional or appellate stages. It added that even in cases where the proceedings have been dismissed for want of prosecution and the restoration of the same is pending, the liability continues to exist.
Case Title: Ram Chandra Ram v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24302 of 2024]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 334
The Allahabad High Court has held that DNA test of a rape survivor and her child cannot be ordered in a routine manner as it has serious social consequences.
While dealing with challenge to rejection of DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child, Justice Rajeev Misra held,
“in an offence under Section 376 IPC, the paternity of the child is not required to be looked into...the DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child has serious social consequences. Only when compelling and unavoidable circumstances have emerged on record, which make out a cast-iron case for directing DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child that Court can direct for such a test.”
Case Title: Arpit Garg v. Ekta Gupta [FIRST APPEAL No. - 706 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 355
The Allahabad High Court has denied grant of divorce to a couple who had filed for the same jointly within 6 months of marriage on grounds that there was no exceptional depravity claimed by either party.
Parties got married on 3rd March, 2025 and started living separately from 21st March, 2025. Subsequently, they filed for mutual divorce. However, their application was rejected vide order dated 13th August, 2025. Challenging the order of the Family Court, counsel for appellant-husband argued that leave ought to have been granted for mutual divorce as his exceptional hardship is that he is unable to proceed abroad because of the litigation.
Case Title: Sweta Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 361
The Allahabad High Court has held that wife's right to claim maintenance cannot be denied merely because the marriage “could” be annulled when there is no decree of nullity shown to the Court.
Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla held,
“Unless and until, a marriage, which is voidable, has been declared a nullity by a decree, the status of the revisionist as the legally wedded wife of the opposite party No.2 persists and all the rights that flow from the same continuous.”
[S.125 CrPC] Application For Maintenance Against Minor Is Maintainable: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Abhishek Singh Yadav v. State Of Up And Others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 362
The Allahabad High Court has held that application under Sections 125 and 128 CrPC seeking maintenance against minor are maintainable.
While dealing with a case involving child marriage and a maintenance claim against a minor husband, Justice Madan Pal Singh held that
“There is no bar in entertainment of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 128 Cr.P.C. filed against a minor.”
Case title - Rachana Devi And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 369
The Allahabad High Court has observed that matrimonial discord and differences in domestic life are quite common and if due to this reason, either husband or wife commits suicide, then it cannot be held that due to their abetment, the deceased committed suicide.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed thus while setting aside the order of a Sessions Court which had rejected a discharge application filed by a woman and her parents facing trial under Section 306 IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of her husband.
Case Title: Ketan Rastogi And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 375
The Allahabad High Court observed that the declaration of marital-status strikes at the very core of society and can only be made by competent Court under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed,
“It goes without saying that the declaration of the parties' marital-status, strikes at the very core of society. Declaration in the light of Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be made only by a competent court of law in an appropriate proceeding by and between the parties and in compliance with all other requirements of law. The courts are under obligation to render a complete and effective decision with regard to the marital status of the parties.”
Case title - Mayank Ojha (Minor) Thru. Here Natural Guardian Mother Shashi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. And 6 Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 376
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable when the custody of a minor child has been handed over pursuant to a judicial order passed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed thus while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking custody of her 11-year-old son claiming that she is her natural guardian.
Case Title: Chitranshi v. Rajnarayan Tripathi
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 378
The Allahabad High Court has held that dismissal of a divorce petition on one ground does not bar a second divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on any other ground between the same parties.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held
“Decision of a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on one ground will not operate as res judicata for filing divorce petition on other grounds as specified in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Once the party is permitted to file a second petition even after dismissal of the first petition on a separate ground, there is no impediment in taking that ground by moving an application for amendment in the petition.”
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 385
The Allahabad High Court recently 'altered' a husband's conviction under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means) and then 'acquitted' him after recording that he and victim-wife had reconciled and were living together as husband and wife since 1988 and had raised two children.
With this, a bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh allowed the criminal appeal filed by husband (Pramod Kumar) challenging the 1987 judgment and order of conviction. Interestingly, the Bench first 'quashed' the trial court's judgement and order of conviction and then 'set it aside' based on the compromise between the parties.
Case Title: Arun And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Of Home Affairs Govt. Sectt. Lko. And 7 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 316 of 2025]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 387
The Allahabad High Court has held that by virtue of the state amendment in Section 17(3) of the Registration Act, 1908, only a registered adoption deed is valid in the State of U.P. Mere notarization of an adoption deed does not make it valid for proving succession, held the Court.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar held
“A conjoint reading of the amended Section 16(2) of the Act, 1956 as applicable in the State of U.P. and Section 17 (1)(f) and (3) of the Act, 1908 as applicable in the State of U.P. makes it clear that after 01.01.1977, any adoption in the State of U.P. can take place only by way of a registered deed and not otherwise.”
Case Title: Vivek Singhal v. Smt.Vijaya Rani Singhal [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 279 of 2011]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 444
The Allahabad High Court has held that in testamentary succession of a Hindu, if a property does not fall in the territories specified by S. 57 (a) and (b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, there would be no requirement for obtaining a probate as under S. 213 of the Act.
S. 57 of the Indian Succession Act extends the Act's provisions on wills to Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains, in a limited manner. It provides that such rules apply first, to wills made within or relating to property in the old Presidency towns of Bengal, Madras and Bombay, and later (from 1 January 1927) to all wills made by such persons throughout India. Further, S. 213 of the Act provides that no rights as an executor or legatee can be legally established in any court unless probate has been granted by a competent court.
Case title - Shailesh Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 472
The Allahabad High Court has directed all the family court across the state mandatorily frame 'points for determination' in all final orders passed under Section 125 CrPC, in compliance with Section 354(6) CrPC.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh also directed that its order be circulated to all District Judges and all Principal Judges of Family Courts for strict compliance.
Case title - Ramraj Patel vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 489
The Allahabad High Court observed that a DNA test to determine the paternity of a child cannot be directed in a 'routine manner' merely because a party disputes the parentage during legal proceedings.
A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash said that such orders for DNA Test can only be passed in specific circumstances where "no chance for cohabitation" is proven between parties during the relevant period.
Case title - Gaurav Mehta vs. State of U.P. and another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 526
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of filing forged allegedly to understate his financial capacity in the maintenance proceedings.
The Court observed that filing a forged document is a 'direct assault' on the principle of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and constitutes an "insult to the majesty of law".
Case title - Ankit Saha vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 529
The Allahabad High Court observed that a wife is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if she is gainfully employed and earning a sufficient salary to maintain herself.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh thus set aside a Family Court order directing a husband to pay Rs. 5K as maintenance to his wife merely to "balance the income" and to equalise status between the parties, even though the wife was earning Rs. 36K per month.
Case title - Madhu Alias Aruna Bhajpai vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 537
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a woman can't claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from a partner she lives with if her first marriage is still legally valid. The Court held that even a long-term relationship resembling marriage does not grant her the legal status of a 'wife' if she has not obtained a divorce from her first husband.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh observed that permitting such claims would undermine the "ethical and cultural foundation of Hindu family law"
Case Title: Nagendra Sharma And Another Versus The State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretry Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow And Another [TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 225 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 545
The Allahabad High Court has held that the husband himself filing for divorce in one Court and after the decree seeking transfer of recall proceedings to another city shows his ulterior motive to cause delay in conclusion of divorce proceedings.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“The conduct of the applicant to prefer the Family Court at Gonda for instituting the proceeding and thereafter to make request for transfer of the subsequent proceeding emanating from the same to the Family Court at Lucknow, is reflective of his ulterior motive to cause delay in the proceeding.”
Case Title: Modh. Asif v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5182 of 2025]
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 547
While dealing with maintenance dispute arising in a Muslim marriage, the Allahabad High Court has held that a husband maintaining second wife cannot be a ground to deny maintenance to the lawfully wedded first wife who is wholly dependent on her parents for financial support.
Briefly put, husband approached the High Court against a Family Court order awarding Rs. 20,000 monthly maintenance to his first wife on grounds that he was earning merely Rs. 83,000 per annum and the award was exorbitant.
Case Title: X & Anr. v. Y
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 559
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Hindu marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be declared void at the behest of in-laws at a belated stage raising claim of her being underage at the time of solemnization of the marriage.
Sub-clause (iii) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that a bridegroom should be of 21 years of age and the bride should be of 18 years at the time of marriage as conditions for a Hindu marriage. Section 11 of the Act provides of void marriages where violation of sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Section 5 can be reasons for declaring marriage void if either party to the marriage.
Case title - Farha Naz vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 560
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order passed by the Family Court, which had rejected a wife's application for maintenance on the sole ground that she is a YouTuber and earns through 'Reels'.
A Bench of Justice Harvir Singh observed that the Family court had arrived at the finding that the wife is capable of supporting herself without an actual assessment.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: X vs. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 16
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that reconciliation proceedings between a married couple before the Family Court are to be conducted in the personal presence of both parties and video conferencing in such a case is impermissible.
Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh (2018), Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari held:
"I am of the considered view that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in Santhini: (i) for the purposes of reconciliation in matrimonial matters before the Family Courts video conferencing is not permissible, and (ii) it is only after the efforts of reconciliation and settlement fails, the videoconferencing can be resorted on the joint application filed by the parties or the memorandum of consent by both the parties, husband and wife, for such videoconferencing, in the discretion of the Court, if the Court considers it appropriate."
Case Title: Smt. K. Hamakshi v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 34
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a daughter-in-law is an integral part of the family and is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds.
The Court further noted that while the government recognises a son or daughter of the deceased government employee for compassionate appointment, the daughter-in-law, despite not being traditionally classified as family, should also be extended the same benefit.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam observed:
“After a daughter gets married, she becomes an integral part of the family she joins. Conversely, the daughter-in-law, who enters the family, becomes a vital member and has a more substantial right to request compassionate appointments to ensure the welfare of her children.”
Case Title: X v. Y and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 64
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted conditional visitation rights to a father, despite his minor son being a witness against him in a case where he was accused of murder of the child's mother.
Noting the father's acquittal in the criminal trial, a division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan held it appropriate to grant conditional visitation rights which will enable the father to get an “opportunity to win over the love and affection of the child, by his acts, conduct behaviour and sharings.” It held:
“The misunderstandings or wrong impressions, may be for any reason, tutoring, living separately for long or otherwise, may get removed. The visitation rights can be allowed with restrictions and imposing conditions in the hope that, with the passage of time the bond between the father and son, may develop. We are of the view that after acquittal the father, ordinarily, should not be deprived of the love and affection of the child or of his company, restricted and supervised…”
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 105
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that criminal case filed by a wife to embarrass and incarcerate her husband and his family members, when in reality they are not guilty, causes persistent trauma and humiliation in social circle, and constitutes mental cruelty and is a ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act.
Applying this principle to a case where the wife's allegations resulted in the husband and his parents facing prosecution and eventual acquittal, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tihari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan held,
"Mental cruelty cause much serious injury than physical harm. The criminal cases filed by wife to embarrass and incarcerate the husband and his family members cause persistent trauma, humiliation in social circle which amount to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of H.M.Act, and particularly when in reality they are not guilty and so acquitted. Such can only be imagined by others. Its difficult to prove mental cruelty and therefore the normal rule which governs the criminal proceedings is that it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt"
“We are of the considered view that the act and conduct of the wife in filing the criminal complaint in C.C.No.228 of 2003 under Section 498-A IPC against the husband and his parents in which they had to obtain bail and were finally acquitted as the allegations were not proved was a conduct causing mental cruelty, and agony to the husband. It amounted to mental cruelty and furnished a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the H.M.Act,” it added.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against two maternal uncles and aunts of a man at the behest of his wife, on the ground that they got him married to the complainant woman, despite knowing that he could not develop physical relations with any woman. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Rajesh Patil said whether a husband suffers from such a medical condition or not, is usually known to himself and generally such information is not known even to the nearest relatives.
Bombay High Court Declines To Quash FIR Lodged By Wife Against Husband For Outraging Her Modesty
Case Title: Sanket More vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 14
The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man by his estranged wife, for outraging her modesty. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Rajesh Patil refused to quash a FIR lodged with the Kasturba Sub Police Station in Malvani, Mumbai, under sections 354 (outraging modesty of a woman), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 323 (causing voluntarily hurt) lodged against the husband by his wife.
Case Title: VC vs RC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 18
A wife filing a false complaint against her husband just for correcting his behaviour would not find place in harmonious relations a married couple would maintain normally and the same will amount to cruelty, the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna refused to interfere with the decision of a Family Court, which while granting divorce to a couple noted the fact that the wife had lodged a false case against the husband and his family members, which caused them mental cruelty.
Case Title: MM vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 19
The Bombay High Court recently held that merely telling a woman that if she fails to bring the amount demanded by her husband or in-laws, from her parental house, she would not be allowed to cohabit with her husband, will not amount to mental or physical harassment. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi noted that the wife in her First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the husband and her in-laws, had stated that they had asked her to bring Rs 5 lakh from her parents' house so that the husband can pay the same for getting a permanent job in public service. She however, stated that her parents are poor and thus, would not be in a position to pay the said amount.
Case Title: Musin Thengade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 48
The Bombay High Court recently held that that the point of limitation under section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) shall commence from the last act of cruelty. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi said that limitation for prosecution under section 498A will not continue for an indefinite period.
Case Title: Pooja Popalghat vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 78
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that a natural guardian being the eldest member of a Hindu joint family can exercise powers to deal with the rights of the minors in the joint family, keeping in mind the aspect of legal necessity and benefit of the minor.
Case Title: Priyanka Bannerji vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
A marriage duly certified under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 cannot be deemed illegal or void just because either of the spouses did not comply with section 5 of the Act, which mandates one of them to live in the district, where they register their marriage, for 30 days, the Bombay High Court held. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna said once a marriage certificate is issued by the Registrar of Marriages under the Special Marriage Act, it is conclusive evidence of the legality of the marriage until it is quashed by a court of law.
Case Title: V C vs N C
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 115
The Bombay High Court has held that a spouse threatening to commit suicide and even attempting the same, would amount to cruelty and it can be a ground for one to seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. Justice RM Joshi dismissed the second appeal filed by a woman, who challenged a judgment of a Family Court, which had granted decree of divorce in favour of the husband with a finding that his wife subjected him to cruelty.
Case Title: ST vs Commissioner, Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 129
Even if a father has not seen the face of the child since its birth and is addicted to vices, does not give a right to the mother to become a single parent and mask the paternity of the child in its birth record, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Mangesh Patil and Yanshivraj Khobragade said parents embroiled in matrimonial disputes, cannot claim right over the child's birth record, just to 'satisfy their egos.' The bench therefore, imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on a woman, who sought to remove her husband's name from their child's birth records.
Case Title: PV vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 138
Once a marriage is legally registered and a couple establishes sexual relations, the husband cannot be booked for rape because he did not fulfill his 'promise to marry the wife as per religious customs', the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court, held recently.
Case title: Nivritti Pandurang Nale vs Uttam Ganu Nale
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 142
The Bombay High Court has observed that mere registration of an adopted deed cannot give rise to a presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. It noted that the presumption under Section 16 is conditional upon the signing of the deed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption.
Only Triple Talaq Is Prohibited, Not Talaq-e-Ahsan: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Tanveer Ahmed Patel vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 159
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 23) held that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 only prohibits the instantaneous and irrevocable "Triple Talaq" also known as "Talaq-e-biddat" but does not prohibit the traditional mode of divorce under Islam known as "Talaq-e-Ahsan."
Case Title: Sheikh Ibrahim vs Sheikh Rehman
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 161
A Muslim father, who transfers his property to his son as a gift known as 'Hiba' under the Islamic Law, can continue to reside in the said property along with his son and need not leave the said residence as the law does not mandate delivery of 'actual and physical' possession of the property other it only provides for 'constructive possession', the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held, recently.
Religion Is One Consideration In Custody Matter But Welfare Of Child Paramount: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sahil Gilani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 164
The Bombay High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by the second husband of popular fashion entrepreneur and social media influencer Pernia Qureshi, who sought the custody of their three year old daughter. A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shriram Modak reiterated that though religion is one of the considerations in child custody matters, yet the welfare of the child is always paramount.
Case Title: Ameykumar s/o Nitinchandra Patil vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 190
In-laws telling a woman to divorce her husband so that he can be married to some other girl of a higher caste is not cruelty under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh noted that the allegation against the applicant, the sister-in-law of the complainant woman, was only that she asked the woman to give divorce to her husband (applicant's brother) so that he could be married to a girl of a higher caste since the complainant was of a lower caste.
Mother Hiring Maid To Look After Child Not Ground To Deny Custody: Bombay High Court
Case Title: SSK vs ASK
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 198
A mother appointing a maid servant to take care of the child is not a ground to deny her the custody of the said child, the Bombay High Court held recently. Single-judge Justice RM Joshi pointed out that appointing maid servants to take care of children is not an 'uncommon' practice.
Case Title: Ambadas Chandrakant Aaretta vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 220
The Bombay High Court recently refused to commute the conviction of a man from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder after noting that the convict acted in a 'cruel' manner by setting his wife ablaze and further not letting anyone to help her. A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shyam Chandak said the convict Ambadas Aaretta acted in a cruel manner and took advantage of the 'vulnerability' of his own wife and children.
Case Title: SDA vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 221
While quashing an FIR lodged against seven members of a family, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court bemoaned the misuse of section 498A at the hands of women by roping in all the family members of the husband in criminal cases only to settle their personal scores. A division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Pravin Patil expressed concern over such a tendency of women implicating all the family members of a husband in criminal cases.
Case Title: Chandiram Anandram Hemnani vs Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has recently held that if a son and his wife are permitted by his parents to stay in the house owned by them, it would not confer any right in their favour and they cannot compel the old parents to allow them to reside in the said house, against their (old parents') desire. Single-judge Justice Prafulla Khubalkar said if there is some hostile relations between the son and his wife, the wife cannot claim any right to then stay in the house owned by her parents-in-law.
Case Title: SKPS vs PSS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 237
Just because a wife is earning does not mean that she can be deprived of the support from her husband with the same standard of living to which she was accustomed to after her marriage, the Bombay High Court held recently. Single-judge Justice Manjusha Deshpande noted that the wife in the instant case, though earning, her income was not sufficient for her own maintenance since she had to travel daily a long distance for her job.
Case Title: Sujal Mangala Birwadkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 259
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a student's plea seeking a caste validity certificate under the Scheduled Caste category based on his mother's caste, holding that there was no material to show he suffered any discrimination, deprivation, or disadvantage to warrant such recognition. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale was hearing a writ petition filed by Sujal Mangala Birwadkar challenging the order dated April 15, 2024, passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, which had rejected his claim for recognition as belonging to the Chambhar (SC) community.
Case Title: SKP vs KSP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 266
The Bombay High Court has held that even if a mother agrees to get done the DNA profiling test of her child to ascertain its paternity, the courts must still act as the 'custodian' of the rights of the child and consider the pros and cons of the said test before calling upon the minor to undergo the test.Single-judge Justice RM Joshi said the a child being a minor is not capable of taking decision of agreeing or refusing the DNA test.
Case Title: PAB vs ARB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 294
The conduct of a wife refusing to have a physical relationship with her husband and accusing him of having an extra-marital affair, while insulting him in front of his friends, will amount to cruelty to the husband, the Bombay High Court held on Thursday. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale also said that the wife insulting the husband in front of his friends and ill-treating his employees will cause mental agony to the husband.
Case Title: Parvati @ Swati vs Vyankat
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 296
The Bombay High Court has held that after the father's death, the mother becomes the natural guardian of a minor and cannot be denied interim custody unless there is clear evidence that her guardianship would be detrimental to the welfare of the child. The Court set aside an order of the District Judge denying interim custody to the mother and directed that the child be handed over to her.
Case Title: KSIQ vs IAQ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 300
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday (July 21) held that even when a personal law is pitted against the welfare and comfort of a child, the latter would always have an upper hand. Single-judge Justice Shailesh Brahme noted that the Muslim Personal Law allows the custody of a minor above the age of 7-years to the father and the child in the instant case was 9-years-old. However, after personally interacting with the child, the judge noted that he has a greater bonding with his mother and thus granted custody in her favour.
Case Title: Sadashiv Parbati Rupnawar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 305
Taunting a woman about her complexion and inability to prepare food properly are 'domestic quarrels' and the same cannot be a ground to invoke sections 498-A (harassment) and 306 (abetment to suicide) if the woman dies by suicide, the Bombay High Court held recently, while acquitting a man of a 27-year-old case. Single-judge Justice Shriram Modak said the allegations that the appellant husband taunted the deceased wife on her dark complexion and her father-in-law taunted her about the food quality, etc., though harassment but cannot be said to be of a higher degree.
Wife Accusing Husband Of Impotency In Divorce Proceedings Not Defamation: Bombay High Court
Case Title: PVG vs VIG
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 314
A wife in her divorce petition or FIR, stating that her husband is 'impotent' would not amount to defamation, the Bombay High Court held recently while quashing a defamation case against a woman, her brother and father. Single-judge Justice Shriram Modak held that a wife making an allegation that her husband is impotent and this has caused mental cruelty to her, is justified.
Husband's Friend Is Not His Relative, Can't Be Booked U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court
Case Title: NMM vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 315
A male friend of the husband is not his relative and thus cannot be booked under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), held the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently, while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man booked under the said offence. A division of Justices Anil Pansare and Mahendra Nerlikar noted that one of the applicants before it was the husband's friend, who was named by the complainant wife in her FIR against her husband and his parents.
Case Title: Pravin Nathalal Parch vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 360
A child's custody cannot be given to his grandparents just because there is an emotional attachment and the same does not confer any 'superior' right to custody over that of the biological parents, the Bombay High Court held on September 4 (Thursday) while allowing a father's habeas corpus plea to get the custody of his son. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad noted that the petitioner couple was blessed with twin boys on November 12, 2019 and since the father (of the twins) replaced his own father in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) after the latter's retirement, the family agreed to keep one of the twins with the grandparents and one with the biological parents.
Case Title: NHS vs ANS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 382
The Bombay High Court, while dissolving a marriage, held that if a spouse suppresses a fact that she suffers from an incurable disease like "cerebral palsy" before marriage, that can be a ground for the other spouse to seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. A division bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar More decided the appeal filed by a husband, who challenged the judgment of a Family Court, which, by an order passed on August 17, 2023, dismissed his plea seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty.
Case Title: VVB vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 388
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court on Friday held that merely levelling allegations of "adultery" against a woman cannot disentitle her from claiming a right in her deceased husband's family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (MCSR). A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Yanshivraj Khobragade therefore, refused to grant any relief to the brother and mother of a deceased man, who was living separately from his wife after accusing her of adultery.
Case Title: Suprabha Nitesh Patil @ Suprabha Anant Khot vs Nitesh Gajanan Patil
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 438
The Bombay High Court has held that when two petitions for divorce or judicial separation between the same parties are filed in different courts, the second petition must be transferred to the court where the first petition was filed, in accordance with Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: Ramprakash @ Popat Govind Manohar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 472
The Bombay High Court has held that the in-laws or husband of a woman cannot be convicted under charges of cruelty punishable under section 498-A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) merely on the basis of the statements of the wife's parents that their daughter was 'unhappy' in the marriage and often 'wept' in front of them due to the alleged harassment by her in-laws.
Case Title: Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Additional Collecter & Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 553
The Bombay High Court on Monday (December 8) held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial act which is meant for safeguarding the rights of the vulnerable senior citizens and that it cannot be misused (by the senior citizens) as a tool for seeking eviction of their children without following the law.
Case Title: Rangamma Soundappa Chetty vs Palaniswamy Obuli Chetty
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 605
"Siblings should learn to give up then to give into litigation" advised the Bombay High Court recently while suggesting a senior citizen brother and sister duo to amicably settle their dispute over their parents' property. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain while taking note of the use of 'abusive language' by the brother-sister in their pleadings in a defamation suit, emphasised the importance of 'Raksha Bandhan' and 'Bhaubeej' in our country.
Calcutta High Court
Case: Dr. Hiralal Konar & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 216
The Calcutta High Court has quashed cases filed by a wife against her husband and in-laws, accusing them of cruelty under Section 498A the Indian Penal Code, and under various sections of the SC/ST Act and Juvenile Justice Act.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held: "The opposite party no. 2 is an educated and earning woman, and the routine expectations of contributing towards household expenses, making online purchases during the Covid-19 lockdown, or being asked to feed the child by the mother-in-law, cannot, by any stretch, constitute “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. Likewise, payment of EMIs for a jointly acquired apartment, or the father taking the child outside, are not unusual incidents of domestic life. Where no specific role is attributed to any accused, and allegations lack particulars as to date, time, or manner of commission of offence, continuation of criminal proceedings would operate as prejudice and oppression against the accused."
Case: Sumanlal Kodialbail & Ors vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 226
The Calcutta High Court has held that the mere inability of a wife to adjust with her in-laws, leading her to live separately, does not amount to mental cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: "There is also no material to suggest that there had been any wilful conduct on the part of husband or any in law of such a nature as was likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury as danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical. Mere inability to adjust or absence of sweet relationship, compelling wife to live separately at others family does not amount to even “mental cruelty” as defined under the section."
Case: RANJIT SAHA VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 264
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a mother-in-law and brother-in-law under Section 498A IPC, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish any consistent or reliable evidence of cruelty or dowry harassment. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das delivered the judgment on November 24, 2025.
The trial court had sentenced the appellants to two years' rigorous imprisonment in 2003, though it had acquitted them of the more serious charge of dowry death under Section 304B IPC.
Case: Abhijit Mitra Vs. Smt. Dipa Mitra (Ghosh)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 122
The Calcutta High Court has granted divorce to a man on grounds of cruelty by his wife in a 2018 divorce case. The man had been denied divorce by the trial court in an order which was found to be "copy-pasted" from earlier orders by the trial court in matrimonial suits.
While finding the trial judge's notions "patriarchal" and "condescending", a division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:
"The entire mindset of the learned Trial Judge appears to spring up from a patriarchal and condescending approach, thereby attributing a condescending role to the husband, to advice his wife properly and also to condone cruel acts of the wife by trying to “bridge the gap” between the parties. Such observations have nothing to do with the law on the subject. The settled law in matrimonial disputes is that the court has to look at the conduct of the parties from their perspective and to come to a finding as to whether there is any cruelty, either mental or physical, perpetrated by either of the spouses against the other so as to make it impossible for normal conjugal life to be led together by them."
Chhattisgarh High Court
Husband Can't Compel Wife To Share Mobile Or Bank Passwords: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: CM v. NG
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 67
The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that a husband cannot compel his wife to share private information, communications, personal belongings and even passwords of mobile phones and bank accounts.
The Bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey also observed that any such compulsion by the husband shall amount to infringement of privacy and would also potentially lead to invocation of the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV).
“Marriage does not grant the husband automatic access to the wife's private information, communications and personal belongings. The husband cannot compel the wife to share her passwords of the cellphone or bank account and such an act would amount to a violation of privacy and potentially domestic violence. There should be a balance between marital privacy and the need for transparency and at the same time trust in the relationship.”
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 74
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that for seeking annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(b) Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of mental illness/disorder of spouse, sufficient evidence has to be led in the form of medical experts' testimony and reports of clinical diagnosis if any.
It thus said that mere filing of medical prescriptions is insufficient for proving mental illness of spouse.
Upholding the dismissal of marriage annulment plea made by a husband, the Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held –
“In matrimonial proceedings seeking annulment of marriage on the ground of mental incapacity, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to establish, through clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent was suffering from a mental disorder of such a nature or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and procreation of children. In the absence of any medical expert's testimony, and without any clinical diagnosis confirmed by competent witnesses, such a serious ground cannot be accepted as proved.”
Case Title: Smt. Ragmania (Dead) through LRs v. Jagmet & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 89
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that as per the Mitakshara school of law, a daughter is not entitled to inherit the properties of her deceased Hindu father, who died prior to the year 1956 i.e. year of enactment of Hindu Succession Act, if son is alive.
A Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas also clarified that a daughter can claim her right over such property in absence of son. In the words of the Court –
“It is well settled legal position of law that as per Mitakshara Law, the daughter is not entitled to inherit the property of her father before the enactment of the Act, 1956…Under the Mitakshara law, even the self-acquired property of a male devolved exclusively upon his male issue, and only in the absence of such male issue did it pass to other heirs and as per Law of inheritance the self-acquired estate of a male would descend to his male issue and only in default of such issue would it descend to others.”
Case Title: Raj Kumar Sonwani v. Kumari Purnima
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 106
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a father is legally as well as morally duty bound to provide maintenance and marriage expenses to his daughter, even after she attains the age of majority.
While dismissing an appeal against maintenance order passed by Family Court, the Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal held -
"The appellant/defendant, being the father of respondent/plaintiff, has a moral and legal responsibility and obligation to maintain his daughter, who is unmarried, even though she has attained the age of majority. He cannot deny to pay the marriage expenses on any ground whatsoever when he is getting a reasonably well salary by working as a Government Teacher…"
Delhi High Court
Case title: Sumit Bharana v. UoI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 4
The Delhi High Court has held that co-accused are entitled to apply separately for compounding of offences committed by a Company or a Hindu Undivided Family under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that the co-accused need not await filing of application for compounding by the company or the HUF.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 34
The Delhi High Court has observed that an order for interim maintenance can be granted merely upon the satisfaction of the Court that the application by the wife prima facie disclosed the commission of domestic violence.
“While the veracity of the case of the wife would be tested during the course of trial, interim relief can be granted merely upon the satisfaction that the application by the wife prima facie disclosed the commission of domestic violence,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.
Title: MEENU AGRAWAL v. BHARAT GOEL
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 291
The Delhi High Court has said that while dealing with matrimonial matters, family courts must adopt an approach which is different from ordinary civil proceedings.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 346
The Delhi High Court has observed that a well educated wife with suitable job experience must not remain idle solely to gain maintenance from her husband.
Case title: Shikha Kanwar vs. Rajat Kanwar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 433
While admonishing a husband for his misbehaviour against his wife's counsel in matrimonial proceedings, the Delhi High Court remarked that lawyers have a responsibility to advise their clients towards resolving the dispute rather than making allegations against the other party. It further remarked that while matrimonial disputes could be frustrating, the litigants cannot misbehave with the opposing counsels.
Title: SACHIN GAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 437
The Delhi High Court has observed that in the proceedings under the Domestic ViolenceAct, the examination in chief of a witness can be tendered by way of an affidavit.
Title: SAISHA CHHILLAR MINOR REPRESENTED THROUGH HER MOTHER MS. JYOTI CHHILLAR v. THE DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 518
The Delhi High Court has observed that a school cannot deny transfer certificate to a child merely because the parents have ongoing matrimonial or guardianship dispute.
“…the school cannot deny the issuance of Transfer Certificate (TC) to the child who has sought admission in other school. In the event of delay in issuance of Transfer Certificate, even a disciplinary action can be taken against the Head-Master or In-Charge of the school. Needless to say that in a matrimonial or guardianship dispute, it is the interest of the child which is of paramount consideration,” Justice Vikas Mahajan said.
Case title: Praveen Kumar v. Pooja Arya
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 542
The Delhi High Court has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is qualified and was employed, if she was compelled to quit to take care of the child.
Title: SH. VINEET GUPTA v. SMT. BHAWNA GUPTA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 608
The Delhi High Court has ruled that maintenance m is not a favour but is a recognition of shared parental responsibility, and of the child's right to be supported.
Title: NK v. K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 725
Distinguishing between interim maintenance and ad-interim maintenance, the Delhi High Court has held that the latter can be granted without filing of a specific application by the concerned party and is payable from the date of the order passed by the Court and not from the date of filing of maintenance application or petition.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that Court can grant ad-interim maintenance to alleviate the hardship of the claimant, pending its decision on the grant of interim maintenance and determination of its quantum.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 734
The Delhi High Court has observed that the dignity of a dependent wife and child is denied when the financial support is delayed by the husband, underscoring that even a day's lapse defeats the very purpose of maintenance.
“The very object of maintenance is defeated if its disbursal is left at the convenience of the earning spouse. Financial support delayed is dignity denied, and this Court is conscious of the fact that timely maintenance is integral to safeguarding not only subsistence but the basic dignity of those who are legally entitled to such support,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 798
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Domestic Violence Act does not distinguish between a first or subsequent marriage for the purpose of entitlement to maintenance.
Self-Declared Information On Matrimonial Site Not Admissible Proof Of Income: Delhi High Court
Title: A v. B
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 799
The Delhi High Court has observed that any “self-declared information” made on a matrimonial portal, without verification or corroborative evidence, cannot be treated as reliable or admissible proof of income.
Case title: AS v. NKS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 839
The Delhi High Court has upheld a family court order dissolving the marriage of a couple on the grounds that the wife had subjected the husband to cruelty by making derogatory complaints to his employer.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that marriage requires adjustment and parties may take a long time to adjust with each other but both husband and wife are expected to show due respect to each other.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 846
The Delhi High Court has observed that a highly qualified wife, who is unemployed, has a right to be supported and managed by the husband till the time she is able to get gainful employment or develop the source of income.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected a husband's plea challenging a family court order directing him to pay Rs. 1 lakh ad-interim maintenance monthly to the wife.
Case title: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors v. Mr Siddhartha Mukherjee
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 898
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the role of the Central Information Commission constituted under the Right to Information Act 2005 is to ensure transparency and disclosure of information by a public authority, and not make policy prescriptions.
Case title: PJ v. PJ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 911
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, which bars publication of details of matrimonial disputes, is not absolute.
Case title: NJ v. AJ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 922
Observing that it is not uncommon for husbands to suppress their real income in order to avoid paying maintenance to their wives, the Delhi High Court has held that a wife can seek to summon bank officials as witness to the husband's actual income/ assets.
Case title: YV v. VV
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 936
The Delhi High Court denied interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to a woman, citing her estranged husband's financial incapacity.
“Respondent should not be burdened with the obligation to provide interim maintenance, particularly when his own financial, physical and emotional conditions are visibly strained,” a division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed.
Title: GEETA SHARMA v. KANCHANA RAI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 996
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a daughter-in-law, who becomes a widow after the demise of her father-in-law, is entitled to claim maintenance from the estate derived from his coparcenary property.
Title: A v. B
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1005
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman has no right to residence under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act after the marriage is dissolved by way of a divorce unless a contrary statutory right is shown to exist.
Case title: Ankush Kumar Parashar v. Sapna @ Mona & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1043
The Delhi High Court, while reducing the quantum of maintenance granted to a man's wife and child, took into consideration his financial obligations like home loan and responsibility towards his parents.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1054
The Delhi High Court has ruled that rise in the income of the husband, coupled with the significant increase in his cost of living, constitute a “clear change in circumstances”, warranting enhancement of the amount of maintenance to the wife.
Title: SG v. DG
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1077
The Delhi High Court has said that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she files an application for such a relief only after the husband files a divorce petition.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1078
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the presumption of a valid marriage is not diminished simply because there is no direct or positive proof of the ceremony of Saptapadi having taken place between the parties.
Case title: MV v. DS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1106
The Delhi High Court upheld a family court order taking into account two years old Income Tax Returns of a husband, an advocate by profession, to determine his financial capacity to pay maintenance to his wife.
Title: RAJ KAMAL YADAV & ANR v. SMT. MANJU YADAV & other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1112
The Delhi High Court has quashed a summoning order passed against a husband's distant relatives while rapping the wife for roping them in the matrimonial dispute, without any cogent evidence.
Title: POOJA RASNE @ PUJA RASNE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1131
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is the duty of Courts to prevent harassment of individuals having no substantial involvement in the alleged matrimonial cruelty.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1138
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's “persistent and pressurising conduct” to sever the husband's bonds with his family certainly amounts to cruelty and is a ground for divorce.
Title: AMIT SETHI v. LALIT SETHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1139
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the property of a father who dies intestate devolves on his son in his individual capacity and not as the “Karta” of his own family.
Title: SHELLY MAHAJAN v. MS BHANUSHREE BAHL & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1156
The Delhi High Court has held that a civil suit by a spouse claiming damages from the other spouse's lover for intentionally interfering with the marriage is maintainable. The High Court discussed the novel concept of "Alienation of Affection" to hold that such an action is maintainable.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1171
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a wife's repeated absence from the matrimonial home and subsequent institution of multiple complaints against the husband and his family members amounts to cruelty.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1182
The Delhi High Court has observed that cordial exchanges between a husband and a wife cannot be equated with a bona fide attempt to restore matrimonial life.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1192
The Delhi High Court has ruled that separate petitions by husband and wife seeking dissolution of their marriage cannot be converted to a petition for “mutual consent” divorce under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act.
Title: RAHUL SAHNI v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1200
The Delhi High Court has observed that cruelty in the matrimonial homes robs women of their dignity, underscoring that fight against social evils like dowry and domestic violence is far “from over.”
Title: UMAR HARIS v. YUSRA MERAJ & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1231
The Delhi High Court has observed that a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 or CrPC, it respective of the ground or the manner of divorce.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1301
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a marriage between two individuals cannot be declared as invalid on the ground that it was never solemnized as per Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Case title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1347
The Delhi High Court has held that questioning husband's legitimacy by calling him bastard and making reprehensible allegations against his mother constitute matrimonial cruelty, a ground for divorce.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1397
The Delhi High Court set out the key principles to be followed while determining maintenance to the wife and child, while also calling for reasoned orders by Family and Mahila Courts in the national capital.
Title: ARVIND BHATNAGAR v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1408
The Delhi High Court has observed that a matrimonial FIR cannot be quashed if the settlement agreement between the estranged couple is not executed.
Delhi High Court Allows Couple To Proceed With Surrogacy Despite Husband Crossing Statutory Age Bar
Title: TAPAS KUMAR MALLICK & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1419
The Delhi High Court has permitted an intending couple to move ahead with surrogacy procedure, despite the husband being above the maximum age limit prescribed under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1427
The Delhi High Court has observed that judicial estimation is must where there is no direct proof of income of the parties for the purpose of grant of maintenance in matrimonial cases.
Mere Taunts, Family Friction In Ordinary Marital Life Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court
Title: SHASHI ARORA & ANR v. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1433
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere taunts, casual references and general family friction occurring in ordinary wear and tear of marital life is not sufficient to constitute the offence of cruelty.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1559
The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's belated criminal allegations cannot detract from or outweigh the husband's consistent evidence of sustained cruelty meted out to him.
Woman's Right To Shared Household Not License To Indefinitely Occupy In Laws' Home: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1687
The Delhi High Court has held that a woman's right to shared household under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act is a right of protection and not a right of ownership or a licence to indefinitely occupy premises of the in-laws, especially when such occupation causes demonstrable harm to senior citizens.
Case title: SK v. RR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1692
The Delhi High Court upheld the divorce decree granted by the Family Court in favour of a husband, on finding that the marriage remained unconsummated from inception and that the Appellant-wife's conduct amounted to mental cruelty.
Stridhan, Gifts Not Source Of Income To Defeat Wife's Claim For Maintenance: Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1718
The Delhi High Court has ruled that stridhan, inherited property or gifts received by a wife from her parents or relatives cannot be construed as a source of income so as to defeat her claim for maintenance from the husband.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1729
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the one year separation period required as a pre-requisite for presenting the first motion for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory and can be waived.
Case title: HM v. RM
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1802
The Delhi High Court has “outrightly rejected” the argument that a working mother seeking maintenance for her minor children reflects misuse of maintenance laws or a sense of entitlement, holding that courts must recognise the dual burden borne by custodial mothers and ensure that fathers do not evade their parental responsibilities.
Gauhati High Court
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 9
The Gauhati High Court recently allowed an application seeking condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against a family court's order, after noting that this 21-day delay which was already beyond the prescribed 30-day limitation period as prescribed under the family court's act may not classify as “barred by limitation”.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Kakheto Sema observed that in the instant case, the delay is 21 days beyond the limitation period, which, in the comprehension of the court cannot be termed as an "inordinate one".
Case Title: Mustt. Lozzatan Begum v Shahidul Islam (2025:GAU-AS:7253)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 27
The Gauhati High Court, on Wednesday (June 4), allowed a woman to live separately from her husband, acknowledging her right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The court observed that the wife had sufficient reasons to stay away from her husband, who had unfounded suspicions over their child's fair complexion and subjected her to physical abuse.
The bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saika observed, "The petitioner and the respondent are dark-complexioned people. But their child was fair-complexioned. That is the reason why the dispute between the wife and the husband arose. The husband started to physically harass the wife and drove her out of the matrimonial house along with the child"
Gujarat High Court
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 23
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a wife's revision plea challenging a family court order which rejected her Order VII Rule 11 CPC application for rejection of her husband's 'composite suit' for nullity of marriage and divorce alleging cruelty, after noting that there is no prohibition on filing such a suit or joint petition.
The court further observed that while examining the wife's application for rejection of plaint, the family court was not supposed to elaborately go into the facts but to only check if cause of action was made out. It also said that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is "very clear and the same is that the plaint and documents can only be looked into and not the defence of the defendant". It said that after leading evidence the family court can decide on the grounds seeking nullity of marriage; however the prayer for divorce will always survive.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 57
Quoting Former US Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade Horn who said "Children ought not to be victims of the choices adults make for them", the Gujarat High Court rejected a father's plea for child custody under Guardians and Wards Act noting that the custody was earlier decided by family court with consent of parties to remain with the mother.
In doing so the court however also emphasized that often in custody battles the child becomes the unintended victim of their parents conflict, hence keeping in mind the best interest and the needs of the child, the nature of custody orders must be considered as "temporary orders made in the existing circumstances".
However in the present case the court observed that the father did not move a plea under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act which pertains to custody of children, under which Court may, from time to time, revoke, suspend or vary such orders and the provisions previously made thereunder. Since the no application was made under section 26 HMA, no relief can be granted to the husband in its plea under Section 25(Title of guardian to custody of ward) Guardians and Wards Act, it observed.
Case title: X v/s Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 75
The Gujarat High Court upheld decisions of the trial court and appellate court which denied restitution of conjugal rights to the wife, after noting that she had attempted to commit suicide which amounts to extreme coercive behaviour with an intention to emotionally manipulate and mentally distress the husband.
The court further noted that the wife had also printed "defamatory posters" claiming that the husband was missing observing that this was "public humiliation" which can leave a lasting scar on mental health and emotional stability of the spouse.
Case title: X vs. None
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 132
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that under Muslim law, when a couple mutually decides to dissolve their marriage i.e. Mubaraat, they are at liberty to do so through mutual verbal consent without drawing up a written agreement.
For context, under Muslim law, the process of Mubaraat refers to divorce/dissolution of marriage through mutual consent between the husband and wife. The court was hearing an appeal jointly filed by the husband and wife challenging an April 19 family court order by which the family suit was dismissed, treating it as not maintainable. They claimed that the family court had committed an error in declaring that dissolution of the parties' marriage by way of 'mubaraat' is not maintainable.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 139
The Gujarat High Court has held that a marital dispute between two Hindus whose marriage was conducted in India can be entertained only under the Hindu Marriage Act and foreign family law shall not be applicable even if the couple are domiciled or have citizenship of a foreign country.
The court thus underscored that the applicability of a foreign law to dissolve a marriage which has been performed under the provisions of the HMA is "impermissible".
The high court passed the order in the wife's appeal against family court order rejecting her plea to declare the divorce granted by Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Sydney as null and void. She had also filed an appeal against family court order dismissing her plea for restitution of conjugal rights.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Couple's Divorce Allegedly Triggered By Wife's No Onion-Garlic Diet
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 221
The Gujarat High Court recently upheld a family court order dissolving the marriage of a couple which the husband claimed was triggered by differences caused due to the wife following a diet of consuming no onion and garlic.
A division bench of Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Nisha M Thakore were hearing two cross appeals wherein the wife had challenged the family court's order granting divorce on the husband's plea.
Meanwhile the husband had filed an appeal against direction to pay to wife Rs.8,000 per month for the period between 09.07.2013 to 08.07.2020 and thereafter from 09.07.2020 onwards at the rate of Rs.10,000 per month towards the permanent maintenance/alimony. During the hearing the husband said that he chooses to not press his appeal considering the limited challenge and developments during pendency of the matter.
The husband had claimed that the wife was following Swaminarayan religion strictly and was attending the meetings in the temple twice a week. He said that his mother used to separately cook the food for the wife "without onion and garlic", while the food for other family members, was being cooked with onion and garlic.
"Following of the religion and consumption of onion and garlic was the trigger point of the differences between the parties," the order noted the husband's contention.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Mahesh Ram V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Others.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the second wife of a retired government employee cannot be denied pension after the death of the first wife, even if the marriage was technically invalid under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that: “True it is that in terms of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, marriage of the petitioner with Ms. Jawala Devi i.e. second wife, during subsistence of his first marriage with Ms. Kamlesh Devi can be said to be illegal, but in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case… respondents ought not have rejected the case of the petitioner”
Case Name: Vidya & Ors v/s Vinita & Ors.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the execution of a will in favour of family members who had been caring for the testator and his household could not be termed unnatural.
Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “… the execution of Will by Anokhi Ram in favour of persons, who were taking care of the entire family and in whom he had reasons to establish trust cannot be said to be unnatural. The choice of testator for choosing one of the daughters and son-in-law to inherit the entire property stands duly explained and accordingly the defendants have been able to discharge the burden.”
Case Name : Kamla Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
A Division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that family pension of a deceased employee can be equally shared between the first and second wife through a voluntary and free-will compromise.
Case Name: Prem Lal V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the state to reconsider the application of a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector, holding that pensioners after voluntary retirement are eligible for reemployment under Rule 12.25 of the Punjab Police Rules.
Rejecting the contention of the State, Justice Sandeep Sharma clarified that “…a person concerned can seek re-enrolment in three situations; i) discharge with compensation; ii) discharge with invalid gratuity; or iii) he should be in receipt of pension. In the aforesaid rule, word 'or' has been used… meaning thereby, person having any one of the aforesaid three situations can seek reemployment…”
Case Name: Rishita Kapur and another V/s Vijay Kapur and another
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a father cannot seek a refund of maintenance paid to his children after they attain majority, as he has a moral duty to support them for their education.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “...being a father, even if, he has no legal duty, but has a moral obligation and duty as a father to ensure maintenance to his children, particularly, when they are at the verge of completing their education as any order to refund the amount paid in excess to the children would hamper the future prospects of the petitioners.”
Case Name: Vineet v/s Vishal Sohal, Vineet v/s Dinesh Kapoor
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a landlord can't be compelled to continue running his business from a rented shop when his own premises are available and his need is genuine.
The Court remarked that the landlord's mother's pension is not a permanent source of livelihood, and further observed that the landlord's tenancy somewhere else established his bona fide requirement to reclaim his property for running his shop.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Petitioner cannot bank upon the salary or pension of his mother, which is not a permanent source of livelihood. The fact that the landlord was running a shop in rented premises is more than sufficient to establish his bona fide requirement of the demised premises for running his own shop.”
Caste Assigned At Birth Doesn't Change Due To Marriage: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh v/s Sarojioni
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that caste is assigned at the time of birth and does not change upon marrying a person who belongs to the Scheduled Caste.
It clarified that such a marriage does not preclude the commission of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held: “Therefore, it was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the Caste is assigned to a person at birth and does not change during the lifetime of a person. Therefore, it was wrongly held by the learned Trial Court that the respondent-accused would become a member of the Scheduled Caste after her marriage and she cannot commit an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act.”
Case Name: Tulsi Ram v/s Mustaq Qureshi
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that pension income cannot substitute a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises to settle his son in business.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Income of pension is also not a perpetual income and after death of landlord, his family members including his younger son shall not be entitled for any pension”.
Case Name: Savita v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate appointment, and family income has to be calculated including them as well.
Quoting Rakesh Kumar V/s State of H.P., 2022, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Noted that: “Simply because the daughter is married, this does not means that she loses her identity as member of the family of her father… this Court is of the considered view that the annual family income of the deceased in the present case has to be assessed by considering the strength of the family to be four…”
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Wife Cannot Implicate Husband's Uncle In Cruelty Case To Pressurize Husband's Family To Return 'Stridhan': J&K High Court
Case-title: Sumesh Chadha vs UT of J&K and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 99
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has deprecated the practice of arraying the relatives of the husband as accused in the proceedings under Section 498-A IPC to create pressure on the husband and his family members.
Case Title: Shakeel Ur Reham Vs SHO Womens PS Anantnag
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 350
Examining the interface between multiple matrimonial remedies, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that strict segregation of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, and criminal prosecution under Section 498-A IPC is not always necessary, particularly because allegations of domestic violence, dowry demand, mental cruelty and physical harassment are often interlinked.
Case Title: Tariq Wali Vs Beenish Aijaz
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 198
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a party who enters into a compromise and obtains a Lok Adalat award based on that compromise cannot subsequently seek both to enforce that award and to initiate fresh litigation on the same subject matter.
“Once fresh proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 CrPC are initiated and interim maintenance is granted therein, the prior award becomes non-executable for the same claims. The remedy lies either in executing the award or reviving the original proceedings, not both,” ruled Justice Sanjay Dhar.
Case Title: MUBASHIR AHMAD WANI Vs MEELAZ MUBASHIR & ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 291
Affirming the expansive protective scope of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a woman aggrieved by domestic violence is entitled to seek residence or other reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act in any legal proceeding including enforcement proceedings under Section 488(3) of the J&K CrPC (Pari Materia with Sec 125 CrPC) by invoking Section 26 of the Act.
Case Title: Naveed Bashir Wani Vs Varqa Bashir & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 264
In a pivotal ruling on the rights of women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) is not mandatory for a Magistrate to grant interim or ex parte relief under the statute.
Case Title: MUBASHIR AHMAD WANI Vs MEELAZ MUBASHIR & ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 291
Affirming the expansive protective scope of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a woman aggrieved by domestic violence is entitled to seek residence or other reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act in any legal proceeding including enforcement proceedings under Section 488(3) of the J&K CrPC (Pari Materia with Sec 125 CrPC) by invoking Section 26 of the Act.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Arun Kumar vs Raj Soni Devi
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 44
The Jharkhand High Court has held that desertion as a ground for divorce cannot be established merely through physical separation unless it is proven that the separating spouse intended to permanently sever the marital relationship.
The Court, while upholding the Family Court's decision denying divorce, emphasised that desertion requires both the fact of separation and the intention to end cohabitation for good, and found that the husband in the case failed to discharge this legal burden.
Case Title: Mukund Murari Mahto vs Karishma Singh @ Kumari Mubi
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 21
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an interlocutory order granting interim maintenance, as no appeal can be filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against such orders.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, observed, “In view of above discussions when the provisions of Section 19 of the Family Court's Act are interpreted keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, it is clear that no appeal against an order passed as an interlocutory order can be filed under Section 19 of the Family Court's Act and in view of that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.”
Case Title: X vs. Y
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 53
The Jharkhand High Court enhanced the permanent alimony awarded by the family court a woman to Rs. 90,000 p.m.–including Rs. 40,000 for maintenance of her minor son who suffers from autism, rejecting the husband's argument that she was self sufficient observing that she can't do a permanent job in view of her son's condition.
In doing so the court also took note of the husband's job observing that he earns Rs. 2,31,294 per month while also remarking that autism, which is incurable, requires treatment carrying "huge expenditure on a regular basis".
Case Title: X v/s Y
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 54
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a claim of spouse's mental illness as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 must be backed by "cogent, tangible and reliable evidence."
A division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar observed that in the absence of documentary proof such as a psychiatrist's opinion or records of continuous treatment, mere allegations cannot justify the dissolution of marriage.
Case Title: Surendra Das & Anr. v. Anita Das & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 55
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a widowed daughter-in-law and her minor children are entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law and brother-in-law under Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), provided they are unable to maintain themselves and the in-laws are in possession of coparcenary property.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar thus dismissed the Appeal preferred by the father-in-law and brother-in-law against a family court directing them to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹3000 to the widow, and ₹1000 each to her two minor children.
Case Title: Jyoti v. Sri Raja Nand Chaudhary
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 92
The Jharkhand High Court recently held that Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act must be read in conjunction with Section 13, and that the welfare of the child remains the primary consideration even though the father is designated as the natural guardian. The Court set aside the Family Court's order directing a “shared parenting arrangement” and granting custody to the wife.
A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai was hearing an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act against the judgment of the Family Court, which had dismissed the husband's application under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act seeking custody of the children and had instead permitted a “shared parenting arrangement”.
Case Title: Md. Akil Alam v. Tumpa Chakravarty
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 87
The Jharkhand High Court has held that once parties marry under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the provisions governing restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 apply in full, irrespective of the personal laws they otherwise follow.
The Court rejected the husband's contention that, being a Muslim, he was entitled to marry up to four women and that his wife's departure from the matrimonial home was therefore unjustified.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar observed that restitution of conjugal rights was not merely creature of the statute, and that such a right is inherent in the very institution of marriage itself.
Case Title: X v. State of Jharkhand & Another
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 95
The Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday (December 16) granted anticipatory bail to a Squadron Leader serving in the Indian Air Force accused of receiving dowry and inflicting cruelty upon his wife, noting that the circumstances were exceptional and peculiar where liberty of an officer serving the country was at stake.
In doing so the court also noted that the petitioner was not absconding and was infact participating in the investigation.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: K Lokesh AND THE BANGALORE DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No. 254 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
The Karnataka High Court has held that the right of appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, is only available to senior citizens and parents and no such right is extended to children or third parties.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while partly allowing an appeal filed by K Lokesh. The court said “The only reasonable interpretation of Section 16 of the Act is that the right of appeal is vested exclusively in senior citizens or parents, and not in any other individuals, including children or transferees.”
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: CIVIL PETITION NO. 370 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
The Karnataka High Court has said that there should be a gender-neutral society which aims at preventing separation of duties according to sex or gender and the focus should be on equal treatment of men and women both in domestic affairs and workplaces.
The court disallowed a plea for transfer of a divorce petition filed by the wife and stated that the husband's convenience cannot be overlooked. Only because the transfer petition is moved by a woman, transfer of the case as sought cannot be effected, it said.
Case Title: Vikas C V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2730 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
The Karnataka High Court has held that merely because the deceased had scribed that no one is responsible in the death note, a court, while relying on the same, cannot quash the proceedings initiated against husband and in-laws for charges of cruelty and dowry death.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Vikas C V and others who are charged under Sections 498A (cruelty), 304B (dowry death) r/w Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Case Title: ABC AND State Of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.3809 OF 2024 (GM – RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.28591 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
The Karnataka High Court has held that there cannot be an offence of extortion registered against the wife when she initiates proceedings for maintenance and the concerned Court grants maintenance amount to her.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by a wife seeking to quash the complaint registered by the husband under Sections 420, 406, 403, 109, 384 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench said “In the considered view of the Court, there cannot be an offence of extortion when the wife initiates proceedings for maintenance and the concerned Court grants maintenance. Those are legal proceedings, pursuant to which the husband is legally bound to pay, unless it is altered or modified by the superior Court.”
Case Title: Prafula M Bhat & Others AND Saraswati Shahstri & Others.
Case No: RFA NO.100103 OF 2014
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
The Karnataka High Court has said that daughter who was already born at the time of a partition that took place before 20th December 2004 (Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act), between the father and his sons, cannot be elevated to the status of the daughter born after the partition and cannot claim the share in the property allotted to the father or challenge the alienation made by the father, after 2005 amendment.
A single judge, Justice Anant Ramanathe Hegde held thus while dismissing the appeal filed by Prafulla M Bhat and others. The appellants had challenged the trial court order which had dismissed their suit for partition and seeking equal rights in the ancestral property held by their deceased father Mahadev. Challenge was also raised to the gift deed executed by Mahadev in favour of his second wife.
Case Title: Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas K V AND Government of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a sibling who is asserting exclusive title based on a Will in his favour cannot get his name mutated in the records based on the Will until it has been substantiated and proved.
A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas K V, who had challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and directing Tahsildar to restore the name of the original owner, namely, Kamalamma, mother of the petitioner in the records.
Case Title: Master Adhrith Bhat AND The Registrar of Births And Deaths
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6370 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 59
The Karnataka High Court has suggested to Legislature to consider amending Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, permitting change of name in the birth register after it has been entered.
A single judge, Justice N S Sanjay Gowda said “It is common practice in our country that a person decides to give himself a new name or that a parent decides to change the name though he has already been given a name. In fact, it is a practice in our country that multiple names are given, but one name is entered in the records and this, at times, creates confusion regarding the identity of the person.”
Case Title: Annapurna AND Kavita & Others
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100004 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 67
The Karnataka High Court has held that if a nomination is made during the lifetime of a deceased, it does not amount to divesting of title after the death of the deceased, notwithstanding the legal heirs. It stated that after death, whatever the estate/amount is there, it is devolved to the legal heirs of the deceased as per the governing law of inheritance.
A single judge, Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by one Annapurna who had challenged the order of the trial court rejecting her application to be impleaded in the suit filed by the legal heirs of deceased Kantesh Khandagale seeking issuance of succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act.
Case Title: Nikita Singhania & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 14463/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
The Karnataka High Court on Friday disposed of as withdrawn the petition filed by Nikita Singhania her mother and brother seeking to quash the FIR registered against them for allegedly abetting the suicide of Singhania's husband Atul Subhash, a Bangalore based techie.
A single judge, Justice S R Krishna Kumar took on record the memo filed by the counsel for the petitioner and said “Counsel for petitioner has filed memo seeking for withdrawal of petition, qua the petition no 1 to 3. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
Case Title: Arjun Ranappa Hatgundi AND Sushilabai & Others
Case No: MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202179 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
The Karnataka High Court has held that a suit relating to the declaration of a matrimonial status of any person would be a suit falling within the scope of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act and the family court would have jurisdiction to adjudicate them.
A division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Rajesh Rai K held thus while allowing an appeal filed by Arjun Ranappa Hatgundi who had challenged the order of the family court which returned his plaint seeking a declaration that the respondents are not his wife and children. The court had while doing so observed that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103364 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a subsequent order passed by the trial court sentencing a husband to suffer two more months civil imprisonment after he had already spent one month, on account of non-payment of maintenance to the wife.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by one Chandrashekhar who had challenged the order sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for an additional period of two months for non-payment of arrears of maintenance.
The bench referred to the co-ordinate bench judgment in the case of Shri. Kallappa vs. Smt. Yallaubai, wherein it was held that a wife or person entitled to maintenance may file an application for recovery of arrears of maintenance either for the whole amount due or for each month's allowance separately. If the application is for the whole amount of arrears, the imprisonment may extend to one month, unless the payment is made sooner. Further successive applications can be filed for each month's maintenance; however, where an application is filed for the entire arrears, the imprisonment imposed cannot exceed one month, it had said.
Case Title: Devendra Bhatia AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19567 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash murder proceedings initiated by a man against his father after his mother died by falling from their apartment situated on the 16th floor.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Devendra Bhatia said “When the evidence of both the children as quoted hereinabove would pin the petitioner down albeit, prima facie, it is ununderstandable as to how this Court would exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on an offence under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused and obliterate the trial. If the children have complained against the petitioner narrating vivid details, it becomes a matter for a full-blown trial, where the petitioner has to come out clean.”
Case Title: H Sanna Devanna & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.103553 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a criminal case against the in-laws of a woman who had tortured her.
Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by H Sanna Devanna and Shivagangamma who are charged under sections 504, 506, 498A, 323, 324 R/W 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
He said “There are pointed instances of torture meted out against the complainant. She has been assaulted by pulling her hair by both accused Nos.2 and 3, the petitioners herein. There are eye witnesses to the incident. The charge sheet depicts the screaming of the daughter-in-law, heard by a neighbor, who had come to her rescue. This being the observation in the summary of the charge sheet, merely because the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act is dropped, it would not mean that mother-in-law and father-in-law, who have tortured the daughter-in-law, could walk away scot-free.”
'Country Needs Uniform Civil Code' : Karnataka High Court Urges Union & State Govt To Make UCC
Case Title: Samiulla Khan & Others AND Sirajuddin Macci
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.935 OF 2020 (PAR) C/W RFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.33 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
The Karnataka High Court has made a request to the Parliament and State Legislatures to make every endeavour to enact a statute on Uniform Civil Code, (UCC) to truly achieve the object of the principles enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
A single judge, Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar said, “The enactment of legislation on Uniform Civil Code as enshrined under Article 44 of the Constitution of India will achieve the object and aspirations enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, bringing about a true secular democratic republic, unity, integrity of the nation, securing justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.”
Case Title: X & others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6965 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
While quashing an FIR registered on the complaint of a woman under POCSO Act against her brothers, the Karnataka High Court noted that the siblings were fighting over property and it was in this light the crime was registered as a counter-blast which cannot be accepted.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and quashed the prosecution initiated against the petitioners under Sections 8(Punishment for sexual assault) and 12(Punishment for sexual harassment) POCSO Act and Sections 354(Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 506(criminal intimidation) and 34(common intention) of the IPC.
Case Title: Sandya Anil Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 10453 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
The Karnataka High Court has appointed a wife as a guardian to her husband Dr. Anil Kumar H.V, and permitted her to operate Dr Kumar's bank accounts as if he is operating the account, as he is suffering from a neurological disorder and for nine months is in a comatose state.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Sandya Anil Kumar and said “In the light of the condition of the husband of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner, the wife of Dr. Anil Kumar H.V, to operate the account, as if the husband was operating the account.”
He added “The petitioner is appointed, as a guardian to her husband Dr. Anil Kumar H.V. and a direction issues to respondents No.2 to 4 - Banks to allow the petitioner to draw money for day-to-day treatment of her husband and for the livelihood of the family. Respondents No.2 to 4 (State Bank of India/Indian Overseas Bank) shall not brook any delay and shall permit normal operation of the account at the hands of the petitioner, wife of Dr. Anil Kumar H.V.”
Case Title: Manjunath V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.33819 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
In another matter involving a feline, the Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of cruelty by his wife.
Earlier in its December 2024 interim order the court while staying the probe, had observed that the complaint was a narration of marriage and living together but the crux of the allegation is foundationed upon the squabble regarding the pet cat; it had then said that the allegation i that the husband takes care of the cat more than the wife. The wife after receiving notice moved a plea to vacate the stay and also filed her objections; the matter was thereafter heard.
After hearing the parties, Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order on going through the entire complaint noted that a particular paragraph in the complaint is dedicated to the pet cat in the house "which always used to cause hurt to the wife".
Case Title: Ms Suja Jones Mazurier AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1050 OF 2017.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of the trial court acquitting a father accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter. The complaint was made by the wife of the accused.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice K S Hemalekha while dismissing the appeal filed by Suja Jones Mazurier who was the complainant in the case said “The fact that PW.4 met various NGOs, doctors and legal professionals before the alleged triggering incident on 13.06.2012 raises a serious question about the credibility of the report she filed on 14.06.2012. This timing suggests that she has been preparing to initiate legal action or build a case regardless of any specific incident on that day “
Case Title: Mohamed Umar Seeni Ariff Khan & ANR AND Mrs Tanzia Bano
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2025 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 332 OF 2025 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2025 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
The Karnataka High Court has said that provisions of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, must be interpreted in a purposive and inclusive manner, to not exclude genuine relationships from legal protection, simply due to procedural irregularities.
Justice Ramachandra D Huddar further clarified that “Even if a marriage is not registered under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, it can still be treated as valid marriage under Indian law for interim purposes, particularly when party asserting the marriage supports it with documents such as photos, proof of residence, joint account or correspondence.”
Case Title: M D Devamma AND K V Kalavathi & Others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 253
The Karnataka High Court has said that posthumous registration of the Will is not indicative of fraud. The Registration Act permits such registration and does not prescribe any outer limit for registering it.
Justice Ramachandra D Huddar held thus while allowing the appeals filed by M D Revanna and others.
It said “In the present case, the Will bears the signature of the testator and is a registered document. The fact of a posthumous registration is legally valid, and does not, in itself, render the Will suspicious. The findings of the Trial Court that the Will is "dubious" for having been registered after the death, demonstrate a flawed understanding of statutory provisions and run counter to the established principles of testamentary law”.
Case Title: Ningappa AND PRABHATBHAI & ANR
Case No: MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202819 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
The Karnataka High Court has said that residing together cannot be added as an additional condition which is to be established by a claimant in order to be entitled for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground of loss of dependency
Justice Ravi V Hosmani said this while modifying the order of the tribunal which had refused the claim made by the husband seeking compensation on the grounds of loss of dependency after his wife died in a road accident. The court said, "Residing together cannot be added as additional condition to be established by claimant in order to be entitled for compensation. Burden to establish separation would be on Insurer".
Case Title: X & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Agency & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15957 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
The Karnataka High Court recently drew an inference of the biological father's consent for the adoption of his minor son, after the father did not take a definite stand on whether his former wife can adopt the minor along with her now husband.
The mother (first petitioner) had approached the Central Adoption Resource Authority [CARA] for adoption of the minor. However, the State Adoption Resource Agency issued a communication calling upon her to provide consent of the biological father with whom her marriage had been dissolved.
Case Title: Saroja Kondai AND Managing Director & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106296 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 377
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside decision of the Northwestern Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (NWKSRTC) rejecting a widow's pleas seeking compassionate appointment, on the ground that she had crossed the cut-off age as prescribed in the scheme.
Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition by Saroja Kondai and set aside the endorsements dated 17.01.2025 and 10.05.2025, issued by the corporation which had rejected her request.
Further it remitted the matter back to the Corporation to reconsider the application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds within 8 weeks.
Married Sister Can Be Dependent For Claiming Motor Accident Compensation: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ANd GEORGE MENEZES & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3886 OF 2020 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4216 OF 2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
The Karnataka High Court recently said that in Indian social context, it is not uncommon for daughters and sisters, even after marriage, to maintain a close relationship with their parental family.
The earning member of the family often contributes towards their welfare and social needs, it added. "Therefore, their right to claim compensation cannot be denied merely on the ground of their marital status," said Justice Umesh M Adiga while dismissing an appeal filed by the Insurer against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Case Title: X AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8134 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9412 OF 2021.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
The Karnataka High Court has held that the provisions of Section 498A IPC (cruelty) are attracted even in cases of a void or voidable marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage such as live-in relationships provided the ingredients of the offence are otherwise established.
The petitioner had alleged that the complainant and him were not legally married and thus she could not have lodged a cruelty case against him for allegedly trying to set her ablaze and at most his relationship with her could be called a "live-in" relationship for which cruelty cannot be invoked.
Case Title: SOUMYA W/O. LATE SURESH RAO AND RATNAKUMARI & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.104795 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Assistant Commissioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act can issue an eviction order reiterating that this "jurisdiction is extraordinary" and must be invoked where rights of the elderly need protection.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while dismissing a petition filed by a daughter-in-law who had challenged an order of the Assistant Commissioner which had allowed her mother-in-law Ratnakumari's plea.
The Commissioner had in its order directed the petitioner to vacate within 30 days a house, and handover the vacant possession to her mother-in-law. Against this the petitioner moved the high court.
Case Title: ABC AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23848 OF 2025 (GM-PASS) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 23851 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 423
The Karnataka High Court has said that when an application is made for issuance of a passport to a minor child by one spouse/parent, the declaration required to be made by the parents must be factually correct, and if it is stated that a decree of divorce has been passed with custody, then those documents must be enclosed along with the application.
A single Judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj, observed this while allowing petitions filed by two minors through their mother seeking issuance of a fresh passport and renewal of an existing passport. The petitioners had approached the Court after their applications were not considered on the ground that, since they were minors, the required undertaking from both parents had not been enclosed.
Case Title: Arun Kumar M AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1270 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal and acquitted Arun Kumar M, who had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly murdering his wife after she made an objectionable post on Facebook against his alleged paramour.
A Division Bench of Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T observed, “The chain of events being sought to be projected is laden with deficiency, creating a significant gap, leading to other possible hypotheses. Due to such missing links, the finding of guilt cannot be recorded. The benefit of doubt must be extended to accused No.1 (Kumar).”
Case Title: Mohammed Azeem AND Sabeeha & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 22223 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 443
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Family Court has no power to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) while executing an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which relates to maintenance for wives, children and parents.
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed that maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC create a civil obligation enforced through judicial orders. If a party defaults, the remedy available is execution of the order through attachment of property, issuance of a warrant of arrest, or civil imprisonment. The Court clarified that Look Out Circulars are intended to prevent accused persons or offenders from evading the criminal process, and cannot be issued for recovery of maintenance dues.
Kerala High Court
Case Name: Smt. Ambily Jose V. Sub Registrar And Another.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that in light of the State amendment made to Section 213(2) of the Indian Succession Act, a person nominated as an executor can establish their right over wills made by Muhammadans or Indian Christians without obtaining a probate.
For context, Section 213 states that an executor of a Will can only establish his/her right after probate of the Will is granted by the competent Court. Probate is essentially a legal process declaring the validity of a Will and granting a right to administer the deceased's estate. However, the State amendment to the Act which came into force in 1997 inserted that “this section shall not apply in the case of Wills made by Muhammadans or Indian Christians”.
Justice C.S. Dias pointed out that the deceased died after Section 213 of the Succession Act (Kerala Amendment) Act, 1996, came into force. It also turned down the bank's argument that if the amount is paid to the petitioner then the bank will become answerable if another claimant emerges.
Case Title: X. v Y and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
While hearing a man's plea challenging the amount of maintenance ordered to be given to his ex-wife and four children, the Kerala High Court reiterated that a man/obligant who is capable of earning and has no physical incapacities, cannot take the defence of having "no resources" to maintain the beneficiaries.
A division bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha said:
“Our view which is nothing novel – having been cemented by the Supreme Court through the years – is firmly that, when the maintenance claimed is the most essential for beneficiaries to sustain, the defence of “no resource” is untenable, particularly when the obligant is capable of earning, without any physical incapacitation.”
Case Title: V.Karthyayani v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
The Kerala High Court has held that the allegations against the relatives of the husband cannot be generally viewed as false, as a thumb rule without addressing them.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that general and sweeping allegations of cruelty against the relatives of husband are insufficient to attract an offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC and there must be specific allegations with certainty. The Court stated that allegations must be evaluated on a case to case basis.
Case Title: Haseena v Suhaib
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a Muslim wife who is residing separately from her husband for contracting second marriage is not disentitled from claiming maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code or Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Justice Kauser Edappagath stated that even though Muslim law permits husband to contract second marriage during subsistence of first marriage, the husband is bound to treat both the wives equally.
Case Title: Jayaprakash E P v Sheney P & Connected Case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
The Kerala High Court has held that even if the wife holds a temporary job and earns some income, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband, provided she claims that her income is insufficient for her maintenance.
Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that the wife who has a temporary job and is living in a rented house with a dependent daughter, is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband.
Case Title: Vipin P G v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
The Kerala High Court stated that marriages conducted outside India, where only one of the party is an Indian citizen, can be registered under the Foreign Marriage Act. It further clarified that a marriage between two individuals can be solemnised and/or registered in India under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act (SMA).
Justice C S Dias observed that the petitioners, an Indian citizen and an Indonesian citizen, who have solemnised their marriage under the civil laws of Indonesia, can register their marriage formally under the Foreign Marriage Act and not under the provisions of the SMA.
Case Title: Anilkumar V K v Sunila P
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that while dealing petitions for divorce on ground of cruelty, Courts cannot rely on rigid definitions of cruelty.
Stating that the emotional quotient of every individual is different, it added that Courts must assess whether the conduct of one spouse has made it unreasonable for the other spouse to live with them.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B.Snehalatha stated that cruelty as a ground for divorce varies from case to case and must be assessed on a case by case basis.
Case Title: Uneen v Shoukathali
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
The Kerala High Court recently stated that even if aged father or mother receives financial support from friends or relatives to support themselves, it does not absolve the children of their obligation to provide maintenance.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that filial duty is a fundamental obligation and is embedded in morality, religion and law. The Court stated that children, particularly sons have a greater obligation to support their aged parents as outlined in various religious texts and codified under several laws.
Case Title: Lijo Stephen Chacko v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
The Kerala High Court ruled that prospective adoptive parents must be given child study report and medical examination report to review when they are referred the profiles of children for possible adoption.
Justice C.S. Dias referred to Section 59 (6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015 and Adoption Regulations of 2022 to state that child study report and medical examination report of children who are legally free for adoption must be uploaded on the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System (CARINGS) platform which is the designated portal of the Central Adoption Resource Agency.
Case Title: Fathima v Vappinu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
The Kerala High Court ruled that amending an original petition filed before the Family Court incorporating reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is permissible and that it will not change the nature and character of the original petition.
The Court further stated that reliefs to be claimed under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act can also be granted by the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act to provide protection and justice to the victim.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha allowed the petition for amendment filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act.
Step-Parent Not Permitted To Adopt Child Without Consent Of Biological Parent: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Ammu Ajit v Central Adoption Resource Agency
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
The Kerala High Court has ruled that adoption by step-parent cannot be permitted unless the biological parent of the child gives consent for adoption.
The Court further clarified that CARA (Central Adoption Resource Agency) cannot relax the requirement of obtaining biological parent's consent for adoption under the Adoption Regulations due to the legal implications of an adoption.
Justice C.S. Dias thus observed that the substantive and statutory right of the biological parent over the custody of his child cannot be waived or relaxed by CARA, but such rights could only be determined by a competent Civil Court.
Case Title: X v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 191
The Kerala High Court stated that a wife who leaves her husband and chooses to live separately without any justifiable reason is disentitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
Justice Kauser Edappagath emphasized that right to each other's society, comfort and affection, commonly known as consortium is a fundamental aspect of marriage. It further stated that when either spouse withdraws from society of the other, it constitutes a withdrawal from the marital obligations.
Valid Adoption By Christians Made As Per Civil Law Is Recognized Under Canon Law: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mary Joseph and Another v Thomas Joseph and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 202
The Kerala High Court has held that there is no prohibition under Canon Law for a valid adoption for Christians.
In doing so, the Court referred to the 'Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches', where there is a mention of adopted children. Further Canon 110, which is followed by some sects of Christians, provides that, children, who have been adopted according to the norm of civil law are considered the children of the person or persons who have adopted them
Thus, Justice A. Badharudeen observed that though there is no personal law in India for Christians recognising adoption, a valid adoption as per the civil law is recognised by Canon Law.
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 fulfill his marital duties.
Case Title: XX v YY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
'Taken aback' by the trauma that Court appearances caused to a child involved in custody battle, the Kerala High Court has directed Family Courts to ensure that children are called to Courts only in extraordinary situation and with great caution.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha ordered that children should be called to the Court premises only sparingly even if it is for the purpose of counselling or other statutory proceedings. The Court added that in cases where they are asked to be produced, they should be treated with dignity and privacy. The Court said that the children should not be made to wait infinitely till the court proceedings are over but should be given preference subject to the workload of the Court.
Case Title: x v y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 257
The Kerala High Court recently held that in cases concerning the gold and cash given to a woman during her marriage, the courts have to apply the principle of preponderance of probabilities, as often documentary proof is not available for the transaction and misappropriation of the 'Stridhan'.
The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha emphasized that cash and gold given to a woman at the time of her marriage is her “Sreedhan” and it is her exclusive property.
Wife's Right To Maintenance Cannot Be Waived By Way Of Contract: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Laju Cherian v Tara Laju and State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 261
The Kerala High Court has held that a private contract between a husband and wife, where the wife has waived her right to maintenance has no legal standing.
Justice A. Badharudeen relied on various judgment of the Supreme Court and the High Court and observed thus:
“...the legal position is very clear on the point that when an agreement is entered into between the wife and the husband, as part of a compromise filed in the Court or otherwise, whereby the wife relinquishes or waives the right to claim maintenance in future from the husband, such agreement is opposed to public policy and it does not preclude her from claiming maintenance.”
Case Title: X v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 286
The Kerala High Court directed Family Courts to not involve police stations in custody arrangement of children.
The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha made this order after noticing order of a family Court directing the parents to exchange the child at police custody as the interim custody arrangement.
Case Title: Xx v XX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 324
The Kerala High Court observed that it was not unusual for a wife to close criminal cases filed by her against her husband to save him. The Court said that a wife does so in the expectation that her husband would change.
The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha observed that a woman will forgive to protect her family.
Not Necessary To Assess Applicant's Mental Status In Maintenance Proceedings: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Binsi and another v. Sandeep Chandran
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 326
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that there is no need to assess the mental status of applicants in a proceedings for maintenance.
Justice A. Badharudheen allowed the Original Petition (Criminal) preferred by wife and minor daughter, and set aside the interim orders passed by the Family Court, Thalassery.
Case Title: Sheela George and another v. V.M. Alexander
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
The Kerala High Court recently held that a wife who had voluntarily surrendered her right to maintenance is not barred from seeking it at a later stage, when there is a change in circumstances.
The judgment was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar. The Court was considering a Matrimonial Appeal challenging a Family Court order that rejected an application for maintenance made by the appellants (divorced wife and son) against the respondent (husband/father).
Case Title - N P Rajani v Radha Nambidi Parambath
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
The Kerala High Court has ruled that Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975 are repugnant to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, and hence, cannot prevail.
Justice Easwaran held:
"On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment Act), 2005, daughter of a Hindu who dies after 20.12.2004, in the State of Kerala is entitled to equal share in the ancestral property, subject to the exception provided under sub-Section (5) of Section 6 and the Explanation to sub-Section (5) of Section 6."
Strict Proof Not Needed For Married Woman To Claim Gold Entrusted To In-Laws: Kerala High Court
Case Title: X & Anr v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that courts can't demand strict proof from a woman claiming gold ornaments entrusted to her in-laws at the time of marriage.
The Division bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed,
“In most Indian households, the entrustment of gold ornaments by a bride to her in-laws occurs within the four walls of the matrimonial home. A newly wedded woman would not be in a position to demand receipts or independent witnesses while handing over the jewelry to husband or in-laws. Due to the domestic and informal nature of such transactions, she would not be in a position to produce documents or independent witnesses to prove entrustment.”
Case Title: Rakhi v. Krishnakumar and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 573
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a marriage contracted within the time frame provided for appealing a decree of divorce dissolving previous marriage would not be considered to be illegal if the decree is unchallenged by the former spouse.
The decision was passed by the Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha while considering an original petition by a wife (petitioner) challenging the Family Court's order.
A Beggar Cannot Be Directed to Pay Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC: Kerala High Court Rules
Case Title: Jubairiya v Saidalavi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 586
The Kerala High Court has held that a person who subsists on begging cannot be directed to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), even if his wife seeks sustenance from him.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, while disposing of a revision petition, upheld a Family Court order that had dismissed a claim by the petitioner, who sought ₹10,000 monthly maintenance from her husband, a blind man who survives on alms and occasional assistance from neighbours.
Islam Permits Polygamy Only When A Man Can Do Justice Between Wives : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Jubairiya v Saidalavi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 586
Kerala High Court has observed that Islam permits polygamy only when a man has the ability to give equal justice to his wives.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, made the observations while disposing of a revision petition, which upheld a Family Court order that had dismissed a claim by the petitioner wife , who sought ₹10,000 monthly maintenance from her husband, a blind man who survives on alms and occasional assistance from neighbours.
Case Title: Athul Dini and Anr. v. The District Registrar and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 612
The Kerala High Court recently directed the State to take steps to modify the PEARL software used to generate marriage registration certificates, so as to include the actual date of couples' marriage ceremony in the certificate.
Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen passed the order in a petition filed by a couple, who had solemnized their marriage in accordance with their customary law on 10.07.2022.
The petitioners approached the district registrar (1st respondent) and the marriage officer (2nd respondent) with representations to include the celebration date in the certificate. Their requests were not heeded to, necessitating them to approach the High Court invoking writ jurisdiction.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 613
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a matrimonial appeal against a family court order filed by a wife seeking to back out from a petition for mutual divorce jointly filed by her along with her husband.
The court dismissed the wife's claim who had refused to consent for divorce contending that she was deceived into a condition in the settlement agreement.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha found that the wife had withdrawn the amount deposited by the respondent husband, complying with his part of the conditions in the agreement.
Case Title: Sivananda Prabhu and Ors. v S N Govinda Prabhu & Brothers and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 625
The Kerala High Court has held that the separate property acquired by a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law, who died before 1956, will completely devolve upon his son.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment ) Act, 1929 did not affect the son's absolute right to inherit his father's property.
Case Title: Emilda Varghese @ Rajani v Varghese P Kuriakose and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 630
The Kerala High Court has held that the ill-treatment of children by a spouse constitutes mental cruelty towards the other spouse and can be a valid ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar, dismissed the wife's appeal against a Family Court judgment granting divorce to the husband on the ground of cruelty, while partly allowing her revision petition seeking enhanced maintenance.
Case Title: Dhanya Vijayan v. Rajeshkumar K.R.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 649
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment held that family courts must avert to evaluation of testimonies in the background of normal human behaviour without generalisation or stereotyping when there is hardly any evidence other than oral evidence.
It further held that Family Courts should also weigh the oral evidence and resort to preponderance of probabilities.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal preferred by a wife against the dismissal of her plea for divorce from the respondent husband.
Case Title: Muhammed Ashar K. v. Muhsina P.K.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 682
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that return of 'mahar' (consideration given by husband to wife in marriage) can be ascertained not just from the 'Khula Nama' but also from the statement of parties while considering a Muslim wife's petition for declaration of divorce by 'khula'.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal preferred by the husband challenging the divorce granted by the Family Court.
Case Title: Muhammad Shareef C. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 708
The Kerala High Court recently held that the first wife must be given an opportunity of hearing by the statutory authorities while registering the second marriage of a Muslim man in accordance with the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules 2008.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that even though the Muslim personal allows a second marriage to a man in certain situations, if the marriage is to be registered, the law of the land would prevail. Then, religion becomes secondary to constitutional rights.
Case Title: Varghese Kuruvila @ Sunny Kuruvilla v. Annie Varghese and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 713
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the scheme of the provision under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita does not contemplate maintenance claim by a major daughter unless she is unable to maintain herself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath also noted that unlike in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act [HAMA] and the Muslim personal law, there is no provision in personal law applicable to Christians for maintaining an unmarried daughter who has attained majority.
Case Title: Farookh v Kayyakutty @ Kadeeja
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 731
The Kerala High Court has held that the right of a woman to claim maintenance from her son or daughter under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is independent of her husband's obligation to maintain her.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed,
“The fact that the husband of a woman has sufficient means and provides maintenance to her would not absolve the son of his independent statutory obligation under Section 144(1) (d) of BNSS (Section 125(1)(d) of Cr.P.C.) to support his mother if she needs it.”
Case Title: Sumesh A v Babija Balakrishnan M
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 763
The Kerala High Court has held that payments towards loan, insurance premiums, and other savings contributions cannot be reduced for calculating the net income of the husband for the purpose of quantifying the maintenance to be paid to the wife or children.
Justice A. Badharudeen, observed:
“In fact, the above payments are to be reckoned as personal savings and those items shall not be reduced from the actual income to quantify the amount of maintenance.”
Case Title: Rajeevan M. v. Rantin P. and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 773
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a wife would not be disentitled from claiming maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC/ Section 144 BNSS even if she has a temporary job providing her some income, if she asserts that such income is insufficient.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath was considering petitions filed by a wife against her husband challenging the quantum of maintenance ordered to her two children and the rejection of her claim by the Family Court. The husband had also challenged the quantum awarded to the children.
Case Title: Vappinu v Fathima and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 780
The Kerala High Court has observed that a Muslim husband who has contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage cannot contend that he has no means to maintain his first wife.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, was delivering the judgment in the revision petitions filed by the husband challenging a Family Court order which granted maintenance to the first wife and dismissed the petition for maintenance against the son.
Case Title: Kannada Anwar Salih v Safeekhath and Anr. and connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 781
The Kerala High Court has held that the prolonged pendency of a petition filed under Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 cannot deprive a woman of the benefits that accrued to her on the date of divorce, even if she remarried during the proceedings.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the judgment while dismissing a revision petition and an original petition filed by the former husband, challenging orders directing him to pay maintenance and fair provision to his divorced wife and their minor daughter.
Case Title: Safia P M v State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 786
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to applications filed under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
The division bench comprising Dr. Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian, delivered the order in an Intra-Court Reference initiated after a Single Judge questioned the correctness of the earlier precedent in Hassainar v. Raziya (1993 (2) KLT 805), which had held that a three-year limitation period governs claims for fair and reasonable provision and maintenance under Section 3 of the 1986 Act.
Case Title: X v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 792
The Kerala High Court has held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish the factum of 'living in adultery' to defeat the claim for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, was delivering a judgment in a revision petition filed against the Family Court decision which had granted maintenance to a woman despite evidence produced by the husband alleging that she was “living in adultery.”
Case Title: V.P. Abdurahiman v. C. Safiya
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 825
The Kerala High Court clarified that a presumption under Section 125 CrPC of a valid re-marriage between a Muslim man and his ex-wife can arise only if her subsequent marriage, its consummation and dissolution are proved even though they have been co-habiting for long.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath was considering a revision preferred by a Muslim man challenging the Family Court's award of maintenance to his first wife, who claimed that he remarried her subsequent to the dissolution of her second marriage with another man.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently allowed a major couple to reside together without wedlock considering the fact that both the petitioners were above 18 years of age and thus, their choice needs to be protected.
The court however, expressed concern over the choice of the petitioners to enter into live in relationship at such a tender age.
Case Title: Anjali Kushwah And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 41033 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 1
The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a Naib Nazir cannot decide the maintainability of an application and should leave it to the discretion of the Court. The court thus, directed the Naib Nazir to refrain from making such endorsements on applications filed by the parties.
Naib Nazir is a member of the Nazarat, which is a process serving agency of the district courts.
Case Title: Smt. Yashika Shah and Others versus The Registrar, Writ Petition No. 36223 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 6
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that even though a Muslim man has no way to seek divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, he is not rendered remediless in law and he can seek recourse under Section 7 of the Family Court Act, 1984 to seek divorce from his wife.
Case Title: Mohammad Shah Vs. Smt. Chandani Begum, First Appeal No. 1199 Of 2022
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 10
The Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court directed that the Regional Passport Office, Bhopal to renew the passports of the minor daughters of actor Nitish Bharadwaj while holding that the passport of minor children can be renewed without father's consent if there is no prohibitory order from any competent court.
Case Title: X (Minor) D/O Shri Nitish Janardan Bharadwaj And Smt. Smita Nitish Bharadwaj And Others v/s Union Of India And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 16
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that merely because the wife is in love with someone else is not enough to prove adultery on her part to deny her maintenance. The Court categorically held that for sexual intercourse is necessary for adultery.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Khodake v. Smt. Madhuri @ Anjali
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 38
While granting divorce to a woman, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that compelling the wife to discontinue her studies or putting her in a position not to continue her studies amounts to mental cruelty and constitutes a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
In doing so the court said that the family court ignored the fact that this was not a case where the woman was taking advantage of her own fault, but a case where she was sacrificing her dreams and career in the name of marital obligations.
Case Title: X v/s Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 50
While upholding the verdict passed by the Family Court, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that despite husband's objections, if a wife is involved in vulgar chatting with other men, it would amount to mental cruelty and a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: R Versus S, First Appeal No. 1605 Of 2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 55
While setting aside a Family Court order, the Madhya Pradesh High Court clarified that even though Jain community is recognized as a minority community vide a central government notification, it would be governed by the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act after noting that the marriage rituals are similar.
Case Title: X versus Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 65
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that without filing a formal application–either written or separate–under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), a spouse cannot be directed to pay permanent alimony.
Case Title: X v/s Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 70
The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the order acquitting a man charged in unnatural sex offence.
Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in Navjet Singh Johar v. Union of India Ministry of Law and judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Umang Singhar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a single judge bench of Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed that till date “marital rape” has not been recognized under IPC.
Case Title: JK Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another, Criminal Revision No. 1937 Of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 83
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that husband committing unnatural sex with wife against her wishes and assaulting her for resisting would fall under the definition of cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.
Case title: BJ Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 118
While hearing a matrimonial dispute, the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that private WhatsApp Chat is admissible as evidence under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act even if it was obtained without consent of the partner or is not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Case Title: Smt Anjali Sharma Versus Raman Upadhyay
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 126
Dismissing a husband's appeal for divorce on the ground of cruelty, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently praised the wife's conduct as an 'ideal Indian woman' who, despite being deserted for nearly two decades, remained rooted in her dharma as a wife, continued living with her in-laws, and never gave up symbols of her marriage.
Case Title: H v W
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 173
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that husband challenging the maintenance granted to his wife by family court on the ground he is 'ready and willing to keep' her with him, does not constitute a valid offer.
The husband had claimed that because he ready and willing to keep the respondent wife with him, she is not entitled to the maintenance amount.The husband had moved a revision plea before the high court against the family court's order granting monthly maintenance of Rs 3000 in favour of the wife.
Case Title: A v B (CRR-6279-2024)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 175
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that a wife's occasional refusal to cohabit with her husband does not amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, unless there is a persistent denial of conjugal relations.
Case title - JITENDRA JANI VS. SMT. BHUMI JANI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 177
Law Does Not Prevent An Adult Woman From Living With A Married Man: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that there is no law which prevents an adult woman to live with married man adding that she has the right to choose with whom she wishes to live with.
Case Title: N v State of MP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 178
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted divorce to a man sought on the grounds of cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act(HMA), observing that his wife had "in a moment of despair" set herself ablaze and later blamed his relatives for the same without being able to provide any reliable evidence.
Case Title: HM v R (FA-133-2007)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 185
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (September 22) dismissed a man's plea challenging a family court's maintenance order in favour of his wife and kids, noting that the husband was trying to shirk away from his liability while enjoying his life with expensive bikes.
Case Title: LSB v SK (2025:MPHC-IND:27741)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 195
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that making baseless and false allegations of moral turpitude against one's spouse amounts to cruelty and can be a ground for divorce.
The court also said that wife's anger does not entitle her to tarnish her husband's image by making baseless allegations and thus granted divorce to the husband, setting aside trial court decree which had granted judicial separation but not divorce.
Case Title: X v Y [FA-930-2024]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 219
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday (October 15), granted maintenance to a woman living separately from her husband and pursuing her MD in Homoeopathy, observing that a husband also has a duty to help complete the course that would enhance his wife's capabilities and empower her.
Case Title: V v SS [2025:MPHC-IND:30316]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 224
MP High Court Grants Divorce To Husband After Wife Makes False Allegations Of Alcohol Addiction
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted a decree of divorce to a man on the grounds of cruelty, observing that the wife made false allegations of alcohol addiction against him.
In doing so, the court set aside the judgment and decree of the Family Court of Mandla, which rejected the husband's divorce petition on grounds of desertion and cruelty.
Case Title: MK v MA [2025:MPHC-JBP:52433]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 228
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted a divorce to a husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, observing that mutual trust in a marital relationship is like a golden thread that gets impaired when one spouse makes unfounded and defamatory allegations against another.
Case Title: AS v DK [FA-58-2020]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 235
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has expressed surprise and shock at a Family Court order declaring divorce of a Muslim woman from her husband without framing issues and recording the evidence.
Case Title: I v HK [FA-1389-2023]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 236
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Tuesday (November 18), dismissed a habeas corpus petition by maternal uncle of a Hindu woman, observing that she was a major, was not in wrongful confinement and was living with respondent no 4 (a muslim man) out of her own free will.
Case Title: SC v State [WP-43434-2025]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 257
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in an appeal filed by a husband challenging the Family Court's dismissal of his divorce petition on grounds of cruelty and desertion, has observed that for the ground of desertion to apply, the intention to permanently abandon the marital relationship must be established.
Case Title: AD v PS [FA-1360-2024]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 259
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in an appeal filed by a wife challenging the Family Court's order denying her divorce, observed that if one spouse opposes divorce despite there being no possibility of cohabitation, such conduct of deriving satisfaction from the continued distress and tension of the other party can itself amount to cruelty.
Case Title: PS v OS [FA-789-2022]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 261
While upholding family court's divorce decree granted in favour of a husband based on photographs of the wife committing adultery, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the Indian Evidence Act was not strictly applicable in matrimonial cases.
Rejecting the wife's argument that the Family Court erred in relying on photographs submitted without a Section 65B Certificate under Indian Evidence Act, the division bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice BP Sharma held that the courts in matrimonial matters have been given authority to receive any report, statement, or document in evidence to find out the truth.
Case Title: L v RD [FA-866-2021]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 272
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a Family Court order declaring a woman as the legally wedded wife of a man, noting that the marriage cannot be recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act if essential ceremonies including sacred fire, pheras or saptpadi, were not performed.
In doing so, the division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh observed that the Family Court erred in treating the Arya Samaj certificate and register entry as conclusive proof of the existence of a valid marriage.
Case Title: BS v KS [FA-1998-2024]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 277
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed a Family Court order granting divorce to a husband after it was established that his wife was engaged in an illicit relationship with another man.
Case Title: X v Y [FA-101-2017]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 279
Madras High Court
Compelling Spouse To Convert InInter-Religious Marriage Amounts To Mental Cruelty, Violates Right To Life: Madras High Court
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court while upholding special court's order dissolving an inter-faith marriage, has held that in inter-religious marriages, persistently compelling a spouse to convert himself or herself to another religion to which the other spouse belongs to, amounts to cruelty.
A division bench of Justice N Seshasayee (now retired) and Justice Victoria Gowri further held that when a husband or a wife in a matrimonial life was subjected to persistent and consistent cruelty compelling them to convert to another religion, the same would also amount to curtailment of life and liberty ensured in Article 21 of the constitution. The bench further held that such cruelty would also amount to the denial of the fundamental right to profess religion enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution.
The court observed that when a person is not allowed to profess and practice their religion, it would miserably affect the quality of their life and would result in a lifeless life without dignity. The court also held that when a man or woman in marriage is compelled to convert in the name of god and in the name of religion for the sake of securing matrimony, it would shatter the foundation of the matrimony itself.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
The Madras High Court recently observed that the procedure adopted by the Family Courts in the State insisting on the personal appearance of the parties in a family case for every hearing resulted in procedural delays and inefficiency. The court noted that such insistence often lead to significant delays and affected the performance of the court.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan also pointed out that it was inhuman to expect that the litigant was available at every beck and call of the court. The court emphasized that Family Courts were expected to approach family matters in a humane and reasonable manner. The court added that the courts had to be more empathetic to the physical, emotional, and financial distress of the litigants.
The court further added that Section 13 of the Family Courts Act and Rule 41 of the Family Court Rules do not prevent the litigants from being represented by advocates but only state that the parties are not entitled to be represented as a right. The court added that the intention behind bringing such provisions was to ensure that the procedure does not become adversarial. The court added that the legal provisions did not intent to affect the rights of the parties.
Case Title: Jeyakumari v Stephen
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
The Madras High Court has observed that a marriage between a Hindu and a person belonging to any other religion cannot be celebrated under the Hindu Marriage Act as the Act requires both the parties to the marriage to belong to the Hindu faith.
The bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice N Senthilkumar also noted that often a Hindu person was marrying a foreigner, a non-Hindu belonging to a different faith as per Hindu customs. The court noted that while choosing a life partner was a personal choice, the legality of the marriage, performed as per Hindu customs would be under cloud. Thus, the court held that if a Hindu person wished to marry a non-Hindu, the marriage should be registered as per the Special Marriage Act to avoid any illegality and challenge to the subsequent legal marital status. The court also added that there must be an awareness in this regard, among prospective brides and grooms.
Case Title: XYZ v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
The Madras High Court recently asked the Ministry of External Affairs and the Consulate General of India in Houston, USA to renew the passport of a 10th-grade minor girl living in the USA with her father. The application for renewal was rejected by the consulate for want of the mother's signature.
Justice S Sounthar noted that the relationship between the father and the mother had become strained and they had been living separately since 2021. The court remarked that the misunderstanding between the parents should not affect the education of the child.
The court noted that if the passport of the child was allowed to expire without renewal, there was a danger that the child may acquire illegal migrant status and the same may adversely affect the child's education. The court observed that merely because the passport manual prescribed consent of both parents at the time of renewal, the right of the child to pursue education could not be denied on technical grounds.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
The Madras High Court has recently held that when divorce is sought on the grounds of adultery, the alleged adulterer should be made a co-respondent if the details are known. The court also observed that if the details of the alleged adulterer is not known, the petitioner could be excused from the requirement of impleading the alleged adulterer.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima observed that in Indian culture, being branded as an adulterer was not a badge of honor and the alleged adulterer should be given an opportunity to disprove the allegations made against him/her. The court added that if an opportunity was not given, the person would be condemned behind his back.
The court also noted that giving an opportunity to the alleged adulterer would discourage one from making reckless allegations as one would think twice before putting forth baseless allegations.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
While granting divorce to a police constable, the Madras High Court recently observed that the wife's complaint against him alleging that he had an extra-marital affair and that he had a connection with terrorist organizations could not be ignored as the same would cause severe mental torture and would amount to mental cruelty.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima also noted that the wife had left the minor child with the husband without taking care of the child, which would show that she was not interested in saving the matrimonial relationship.
Case Title: Vijay Vaishnavi Sriram v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act. Section 13 states that no party to a suit or proceeding shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner as a right.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran dismissed the plea noting that no further adjudication was required in the matter as the legal position was already settled.
The petitioner had argued that the section infringed the advocate's right to practice in court as provided under the Advocates Act 1961. It was argued that a legal practitioner's right was absolute under the Advocates Act and thus any prohibition on the same was unsustainable. It was also submitted that when advocates were not allowed to represent, the litigants would find it difficult to defend their cases.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
The Madras High Court has observed that a wife watching pornography or engaging in self pleasure by itself was not cruelty upon the husband unless it was proved that the same affected the matrimonial relationship.
The Madurai bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held that the fundamental right of privacy included spousal privacy also and the contours of spousal privacy included a woman's sexual autonomy. Highlighting that self pleasure was not a forbidden fruit, the court noted that even after marriage, the woman continued to retain her individuality and her fundamental identity could not be subsumed by spousal status.
The court also remarked that when self-pleasure among men was acknowledged universally, the same among women could not be stigmatized. From a biological perspective, the court also noted that while men could not establish conjugal relationships after self-pleasure, it was not the case with women. The court thus highlighted that unless it was shown that the spouse was treated with cruelty, the conduct of the wife, in watching porn or indulging in self-pleasure could not attract Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Case Title: V Iyyappan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
The Madras High Court recently held that when a person voluntarily submits himself/herself for conducting marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, the person would be considered Christian thereafter and their native religion is renounced automatically.
Justice L Victoria Gowri thus held that the incumbent Chairman of the Theroor Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari was disqualified from holding the post reserved for SC community— as she had solemnized marriage as per Christian rites and was thus deemed to have renounced her original social identity of Hindu Scheduled Caste Pallan.
The court added that to retain the socio-religious identity after inter-religious marriage, the only possible way was to have a civil marriage under the Special Marriage Act.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
The Madras High Court recently observed that a wife prioritizing her career and academics and refusing to go to husband's place of work would not be cruelty.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Sakthivel observed as under,
“The petitioner is not ready to sacrifice his career, and wants the respondent / his wife to come and live with him. Similarly, the respondent wants to focus on her academics and career as well. Both are not ready to compromise on each other's priorities and consequently, have some spousal conflicts. Since both are equally qualified and educated and pursuing their careers as they desire, this Court cannot find fault with act of the respondent in prioritizing her academics or career. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the ground of cruelty for dissolution of marriage has not been made out in this case.”
Case Title: ABC v XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Family Courts do not have the inherent power to grant a decree of judicial separation in a plea seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice AD Maria Clete noted that while Hindu Marriage Cat empowers the family court to grant a decree of judicial separation in a plea for divorce, no such power existed in a plea seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
While granting divorce to a husband, the Madras High Court recently observed that making unsubstantiated sexual allegations against husband and father-in-law amounts to defamation which in turn constitutes mental cruelty.
The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Sakthivel held as under,
“As elaborated above, the unestablished sexual allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner and his father, amounts to cruelty and thus, the petitioner has made out a case under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of H.M. Act. Points for consideration arising in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are answered accordingly. The petitioner is thus entitled to a Decree of divorce,” the court said.
The court thus noted that though the wife was willing to resume the marital life, considering the mental cruelty that was inflicted by her upon the husband, the husband's unwillingness to reunite was justified. Noting that the parties could not reach a consensus even during mediation, the court was inclined to allow the husband's appeal and dissolve the marriage.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of a Family Court asking a husband to pay Rs. 30,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife till the pendency of a divorce petition filed by him.
Justice PB Balaji noted that the object of awarding interim maintenance, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was to ensure that the wife had sufficient income to enable her to maintain herself and the said sustenance is not merely survival but also allows her to lead a comfortable lifestyle that she would have otherwise had at the matrimonial home.
In the present case, the court noted that the wife had immovable properties in her name, and had substantial income through dividends. Thus, the court opined that the wife did not require any further interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
The Madras High Court has recently quashed a Government Order by which the State had granted permission for the construction of marriage halls by utilising the temple funds belonging to five different temples situated at different places.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the State's decision was violative of provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 and the Rules and did not fall within the definition of “religious purpose”.
The court noted that as per Section 66 of the HR & CE Act, surplus funds could not be diverted for commercial or profit making ventures but must be confined to religious or charitable purpose. The court also noted that Hindu marriages, though considered sacrament, was a union bound by contractual terms and hence could not be considered a religious purpose.
Case Title: Ulpath Nisha v. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
The Madras High Court has observed that the jurisdictional Jamath is obliged to issue a No-Objection Certificate to an applicant for conducting Nikha, if the applicant is not otherwise disqualified.
Justice GR Swaminathan held that the non-issuance of an NOC to an eligible applicant would violate the applicant's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that, as per the Islamic tradition, an NOC had to be obtained by the jurisdictional Jamath for the solemnisation of the Nikkah. Thus, the court said that when the custom stood thus, the Jamath had a duty to issue NOC unless the applicant was otherwise disqualified.
Case Title: VP v. M
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Family Court at Dindigul, which had directed a man to pay monthly maintenance to his wife, after noting that there was no evidence to prove the marriage between the parties.
The Madurai bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the trial judge had only relied on the evidence of the witness on the plaintiff's side without considering the evidence of the defendant's witness, which gave an undue advantage to the plaintiff. The court noted that in the absence of any evidence, the court should not have placed complete reliance on the unreliable witness, and thus opined that the trial court's order was unsustainable.
Case Title: SGS and another v. NIL
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
The Madras High Court recently observed that when parties to a mutual divorce have affirmed their decision to go their separate ways, the court should not insist on them waiting for the mandatory cooling-off period, as the same would only increase their agony.
Justice PB Balaji, after considering the decision of the Supreme Court and other High Courts regarding the issue, held as under,
“Independently, I also find that both the petitioners have filed separate affidavits even in this revision, affirming their decision to go separate ways. The interest of any children is also not involved in the present case, since the parties were not blessed with any issues and both the petitioners have categorically asserted that the relationship has become irreconcilable and distressing. In such circumstances, compelling the petitioners to wait for the mandatory period to expire would only further increase their agony. The petitioners have also stated that their decision is voluntary and only based on their free will and there is no fraud, collusion or undue influence brought upon them to file the mutual consent divorce petition,” the court said.
Case Title: K v. M
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 340
The Madras High Court recently refused a man's application seeking a DNA test of his child, alleging that the child born to the couple during their marriage was not his.
While doing so, Justice Shamim Ahmed made it clear that DNA tests could not be used as shortcuts to prove alleged infidelity that may have taken place decades ago. The court added that the necessity of DNA tests should be determined through the prism of the child and not that of the parents.
The court further held that the child should not be used as a pawn to show that the child's mother was living in adultery. The court also observed that the husband can always bring in other evidence to establish the adultery of the wife, and the child's identity should not be sacrificed for such claims.
Visitation Right Of Parents Should Not Affect Development Child: Madras High Court
Case Title: P v. S
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
The Madras High Court has stressed that while deciding the visitation rights of the parents, it should be noted that the child's schooling and the child's physical, moral and emotional development should not be affected.
Justice M Jothiraman reiterated that while dealing with cases pertaining to visitation rights, the court's paramount consideration should be the welfare of the child. The court added that though the parents had a visitation right, it should not disrupt the child's development.
Case Title: M v. M
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
The Madras High Court recently refused to order maintenance to a woman noting that her husband, who was a senior citizen could not be burdened with the additional responsibility of paying maintenance.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the husband had been neglected by his family despite his medical needs. The court noted that the husband also had a right to be protected under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court held that it had to strike a balance between the rights of both parties to be maintained.
Case Title: K Heerajohn v. The District Registrar and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
The Madras High Court recently said that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act would prevail over the muslim personal laws, and an adopted child will have the same status as that of a biological child.
Justice GR Swaminathan also highlighted administrative delays in adoption procedures and said that such delays deprive the child of the formative experiences and opportunities that could alter their life's trajectory. The court thus highlighted that the authorities under the Juvenile Justice Act are obliged to speed up the adoption process.
Case Title: A Kannan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
The Madras High Court recently held that in case of adoption of an unmarried woman's child, an adoption deed executed by the grandparents would be valid, when it is shown that the mother had concurred to such adoption.
Justice Dhandapani highlighted that the concept of adoption is to facilitate the permanent care and protection of the child. The court added that so long as the interests of the child are met, the authorities should not focus on the intricacies of the process, hampering the welfare of the child.
Case Title: Minor v. P
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 419
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a revision petition filed by a father-in-law seeking maintenance for his minor grandson from his former daughter-in-law.
Justice Victoria Gowri said that the father-in-law had made a misconceived attempt to disturb the life of his former daughter-in-law, who was now remarried and living a peaceful life. The court added that parents, who have lawfully chosen new paths, must be permitted to live in peace.
The court also took note of the vulnerabilities being faced by women in the country, who, even after remarriage, were dragged into marital disputes. The court underlined that it was vigilant to uphold the dignity, autonomy, and peace of womanhood, which was essential to protect the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: AK
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 425
The Madras High Court recently observed that when the parties have solemnised marriage in a Hindu temple as per the Hindu rites, the mutual divorce petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act would be maintainable even though one of the parties had not converted to the Hindu religion.
Justice PB Balaji held that when the parties have, by their conduct, shown that they had converted to the Hindu religion and had also specifically stated in the mutual divorce petition that they are Hindu, it would be sufficient to establish conversion.
The court noted that the marriage between the parties was solemnised as per Hindu rites and customs. The court noted that the parties had invoked the provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act conscious of the fact that they are professing Hindu religion. The court observed that there was no necessity for the court to conduct any roving enquiry merely because the wife's name continued to be her original Muslim name.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Doyel Dey v. The Judge, Family Court, Balasore & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 2
The Court held that consent for divorce can be unilaterally withdrawn by a spouse any time before the passing of decree granting divorce on the basis of mutual consent, even after conclusion of arguments. Reiterating the significance of 'mutual consent' of spouses for grant of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“…the law as has been explained by the Apex Court reveals that any of the spouse can withdraw consent unilaterally and consent being the essence of grant of decree of divorce U/S. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, no decree of divorce can be passed U/S.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, if any of the parties withdraws such consent just passing of decree.”
Case Title: IM v. MM
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 7
The Court held that if husband indulges in character assassination of wife without producing proof regarding infidelity, it is a sufficient ground for her to live separately and she shall not be debarred from claiming maintenance as per Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While upholding the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“It is quite natural for a wife to refuse to live with her husband who doubted her chastity, inasmuch as the chastity of a woman is not only dearest to her, but also is a priceless possession in her. Thus, when the character of wife being doubted by her husband without any proof, she has enough reason to live separately from her husband.”
Case Title: Madan Kumar Satpathy v. Priyadarshini Pati
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 21
The High Court held that law does not favour a well-educated woman to sit idle without trying to pursue any work merely to incumber the liability of paying maintenance upon the husband for her sustenance. While lessening the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“Law never appreciates those wives, who remain idle only to saddle the liability of paying maintenance on the husband by not working or not trying to work despite having proper and high qualification.”
Case Title: Nabaghana Sahoo v. Smruti Prava Sahoo & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 22
The High Court expressed displeasure over the recalcitrance of a Family Court in following guidelines issued by the Supreme Court which mandated a person to file an affidavit disclosing his/her assets while making a maintenance application and the respondent to submit his reply along with a similar asset affidavit, only after which a maintenance case can be decided. While remitting the case back to the Court below for fresh disposal in strict accordance with the aforesaid guidelines, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“When the principle culled out in a decision is directed to be followed mandatorily, the Court concerned is under obligation to follow such guidelines, but in this case, the learned trial Court having not followed the provisions of the guidelines issued in Rajnesh (supra), the matter is required to be remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with law by complying the guidelines of the Rajnesh (supra)”
Case Title: Ravi Kumar Kukreja v. Collector-cum-Appellate Authority, Rayagada & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 24
The Court held that simply being a 'senior citizen' does not automatically entitle a person to receive maintenance from children unless shown that he/she is unable to maintain himself/herself from own earnings or out of owned property. While clarifying the position of law under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed that an order of maintenance can be passed on the finding that the children or the relatives, as the case may be, have neglected or refused to maintain a senior citizen being unable to maintain himself.
Case Title: Nirmal Karnakar v. Parbati @ Parbati Karnakar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 39
The Orissa High Court ruled that a competent Court, considering facts and circumstances of the case as well as to provide just and fair means, can grant maintenance to wife exceeding the amount which she claimed in her application under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act'). Clarifying the disputed question concerning jurisdiction of Courts to grant enhanced maintenance, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed that the judicial discretion must be exercised to provide a fair and just maintenance amount, considering the dependent's actual needs and the payer's financial capability, even if the claim was initially understated.
Case Title: Bhupendra Singh Notey v. Gagandeep Kaur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 40
The High Court remarked that a well-qualified husband, who quits his job to sit idle and remains unemployed in order to deprive his wife of maintenance, cannot be appreciated in a civilised society. While deciding a maintenance dispute, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy further observed –
“Remaining unemployed is one thing and sitting idle having qualification and prospect to earn is other thing and if a husband being well qualified sufficient enough to earn sits idle only to shift the burden on the wife and expects 'dole' by remaining entangled in litigation should not only be deprecated, but also be discouraged inasmuch as law never helps indolent, so also idles and does not intend to create an army of self made lazy idles.”
Case Title: Tarun Kumar Gadabad v. Subhalaxmi Lenka & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 41
The Court remarked that an able-bodied husband having government service is statutorily required to maintain his wife and children notwithstanding any marital or other dissention between them. While deciding the challenge to a maintenance order, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“…fact remains that once a relationship of marriage is found to be admitted and not dissolved by any competent Court of law, the husband being an abled body person and working in a Government employment is statutorily required to maintain his wife and children, even there is a dissention between the parties.”
Dispute Regarding Marital Status Is Within Exclusive Jurisdiction Of Family Court: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Kshirbati @ Kharabati Naik v. Premsila Naik & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 44
The Orissa High Court held that dispute as to marital status of parties comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court established under the Family Courts Act, 1984 ('the Act') and the same cannot be decided by any other civil court. While nullifying the order passed by a Civil Judge (Senior Division), being altered by the order of the District Judge, the Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed –
“It is surprising that even after establishment and functioning of the Family Court, the trial Court not only proceeded with the suit but also decided it finally. Even more surprisingly, the First Appellate Court entertained the appeal arising out of the judgment and the decree of the trial Court and reversed the same.”
Case Title: BRP v. SP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 51
The Orissa High Court granted divorce to a couple on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, further observing that the couple have indulged in levelling bitter allegations against each other portraying hatred and a complete breakdown of marriage for more than last one decade. Highlighting severe marital dissensions between the husband and wife, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash noted –
“…during last 12 years no effort has been made by either party for restitution of conjugal rights. So, in the circumstances keeping in view the fact as noted above, coupled with the allegations leveled against each other embedded with hatredness we find to be a case of complete breakdown of marriage for last one decade and as such we feel it appropriate to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage on the ground of desertion U/s. 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
However, having consideration for the income of the husband, standard of living of both the parties as well as financial security of the wife, the Court granted a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs as permanent alimony to the wife.
Case Title: MS v. RS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 56
The Orissa High Court granted divorce to a couple on the ground of cruelty while noting the conduct of the wife in filing numerous frivolous criminal cases against the husband, attempting to oust his elderly parents from her matrimonial home and repeatedly threatening to commit suicide, which caused grave emotional and psychological distress to the husband. The Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash remarked that repeated threats given by wife to commit suicide is indeed a form of cruelty and held –
“Repeated threats to commit suicide, or worse, to harm the spouse and their family members, transcend mere emotional outbursts, they represent a gross misuse of emotional vulnerability and a blatant form of psychological warfare. The effect of such behaviour is not just confined to the four walls of the matrimonial home but leaves a lasting scar on the mental health and emotional stability of the aggrieved spouse.”
While dissolving the marriage, the Court upheld the order of permanent alimony of Rs. 63 lakhs granted by the Family Court in favour of the wife, which was determined by taking into account the societal, educational and financial backgrounds of both the parties.
Case Title: Smt. Sandhya Rani Sahoo @ Mohanty v. Smt. Anusaya Mohanty
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 61
The Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that children born out of second/void marriage are also entitled to inherit not only the self-acquired but also the ancestral properties of their father since Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('HMA') confers legitimacy on children born out of void marriage and the Hindu Successions Act, 1956 ('HSA') gives right to legitimised children to inherit self-acquired properties of parents as Class-I heirs.
Case Title: Debabrata Debadarsan Palei v. Subhakanti Patra & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 63
The Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that since Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the HMA') bars presentation of petition for divorce within one year of marriage, the petitioner must file a separate application canvassing 'exceptional hardship' or 'exceptional depravity' by the respondent, in order to waive the mandatory waiting period of one year as per the proviso to Section 14(1).
'No One More Suited Than Her': Orissa High Court Appoints Wife As Legal Guardian Of Comatose Husband
Case Title: Epari Sushma v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 72
Filling a legislative void by judicial intervention, the Orissa High Court appointed the wife of a person lying in 'comatose'/ 'vegetative state' to manage his personal, financial, legal, medical and business matters as his 'legal guardian'. Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi not only called attention to the vacuum in the existing statutory regime regarding appointment of guardian of people in vegetative state but also emphasised the role of a wife in managing the personal and financial affairs of her husband.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 74
While upholding a father's visitation rights, the Orissa High Court underscored a child of tender age requires love and affection of both of his parents, and cannot be treated as an 'inanimate object' to satisfy the egos and acrimonies between his parents. It also reiterated that the visitation right of either of the parents can only be decided considering the welfare of the child and not on the basis of individual views of his parents. Justice Gourishankar Satapathy in his order also highlighted that the children are the worst sufferer in spousal litigations and custody battles and observed –
“The child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to other. This Court is of the considered opinion that excepting the extreme circumstance, one parent should not be denied to contact or visit his/her child and the cogent reasons must be assigned while refusing visitation right of either of the spouses to their child.”
Case Title: X v. Y.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 76
The Orissa High Court held that a wife ridiculing and passing disparaging comments about physical disability/infirmity of her husband and using derogatory words over his condition like 'Nikhatu' or 'Kempa' is a form of mental cruelty, which is a sufficient ground for grant of divorce. While upholding the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed –
“A person is expected to give respect to another person in general and where it comes to relationship of Husband and Wife, it is expected that the Wife should support the Husband despite his physical infirmity, if any. Here it is a case where the Wife made aspersions to Husband towards his physical infirmity and passed comments regarding the same. This definitely in our opinion amounts to mental cruelty leading to draw an inference against the Wife that she treated her Husband with cruelty owing to his physical deformity.”
Case Title: CP & Ors. v. JD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 91
The High Court asked the parties in a matrimonial dispute to appear before the trial Courts through virtual mode instead of seeking transfer of cases from one territorial jurisdiction to another. Turning down the request of a husband to transfer cases from the place of residence of his wife, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra observed –
“...this Court is of the view that interest of justice will be best served, if the parties, who are either stationed or serving at different places, are permitted to appear through virtual mode before the concerned Courts.”
Case Title: VKB v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 92
In a strongly-worded order, the Orissa High Court criticised a man for filing a frivolous habeas corpus plea to secure the custody of his wife and child, knowing well that the wife had left his company out of her own volition due to some matrimonial disputes. To discourage such vexatious litigation in the future, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman imposed rupees twenty five thousand as costs on the petitioner and observed –
“The husband cannot compel the wife to act as per his dictum nor can he treat the wife as his commodity. The fundamental right which is conferred upon every individual irrespective of the gender cannot be treated as one way traffic by a particular gender. The wife has a right to take an independent decision of her life and if she has chosen to dissociate her company from the husband, the husband cannot be permitted to abuse or misuse the power of the Court in issuing the writ of habeas corpus.”
Case Title: G. Debendra Rao v. G. Puspa Prabha Rao & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 122
The Orissa High Court observed that unless there is clear material evidence of income or actual prospects of earning, it would be 'unfair' to generalize that educated wives intentionally avoid working only to saddle their husbands with liability to pay maintenance A Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy, while dismissing a revision petition filed by a husband against a maintenance order passed against him, observed thus:
"Besides, it cannot have any universal application in all the cases that wife having high qualification is intentionally avoiding to work only to harass the husband with a intention to saddle the liability to pay maintenance to her, unless there is material evidence to that effect, inasmuch as in absence of any evidence of income and/or prospect to earn, it would be unfair to say that the wives are breeding a class of idle women to burden their husband".
Case Title: Priyadarsini Das v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 125
The Orissa High Court ordered the Post Bank to allow a woman to prematurely withdraw/encash a sum of money, which she had invested in fixed deposits, in order to bear the expenses of a marriage in the family. Refuting the stance of the bank that no such premature withdrawal is permissible, the Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad was of the opinion that marriage is recognised as a traditional necessity in Hindu Law and thus, one cannot be denied her own wealth for such purpose merely because of existence of a rule to the contrary.
Case Title: Sanjay Sharma v. Dolly @ Sakhi Sharma & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 137
The High Court set aside an order passed by a Family Court whereby the biological father was denied visitation rights to meet his son while the custody case is pending for consideration. A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra gave much emphasis to the visitation rights of parents and underlined that such rights should be determined keeping in view the best interest of the child. In the words of the Court –
“Since visitation right is an important right of either of the parents to see the children born out of their wedlock and while deciding the welfare of the child, it is not the view of one spouse alone, which has to be taken into consideration, this Court is of the view that the Court is required to decide the issue of visitation on the basis of what is in the best interest of the child.”
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 148
The Orissa High Court granted visitation rights to the father and the grandparents of a two-year-old toddler, who was allegedly taken away from their custody by his mother when he was merely three-week-old. A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra stressed on the importance of an affectionate bond between grand-child and grand-parents for overall development of the child. It also observed –
“In the Indian society, the grandparents form an integral part for upbringing of children and that part of affection and contribution cannot be ignored or shelved and it is the welfare of the children which this Court is concerned. The grandparents, being ancillary part and parcel of the family, would hold the way for welfare of the child. Therefore, meeting of the grandparents with the children would also be a necessary part for upbringing, before their mind is polluted by unilateral act of any of the single parents.”
Case Title: Ramakanta Majhi v. Santan Majhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 161
The Orissa High Court held that a father cannot be denied the custody of his minor child merely because of his failure to produce 'birth certificate' in order to prove his paternity. While setting aside an order passed by a Family Court denying custody of a minor boy to his father, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra observed –
“Keeping in view the legal provisions under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the welfare of the child, the right of the father to have his custody and after consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case detailed above, this Court finds that the learned Court below was not justified to reject such prayer for custody of the child on technical ground for not producing and proving the death certificate of Appellant's wife as well as birth certificate of the Respondent No.2.”
Patna High Court
Title: Company Ram @ Tiran Ram and Ors v. The State of Bihar and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 13
The Patna High Court has held that under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) a father-in-law is not automatically liable to pay maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law unless he has sufficient income from the co-parcenary property.
Consequently, the High Court bench comprising Justice Jitendra Kumar set aside the maintenance order and remanded the matter to the ACJM, Munger, for reconsideration based on evidence regarding the widow's entitlement to maintenance. However, the protection and residence orders in favour of the complainant were left undisturbed, ensuring her right to reside in the joint family home.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 23
The Patna High Court in a ruling has reaffirmed that a Muslim woman, even after being divorced, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) if her former husband has not made sufficient provision for her livelihood during the iddat period or thereafter.
Justice Jitendra Kumar observed that the existence of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, does not negate the remedies available under Section 125 Cr.PC.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 24
The Patna High Court rejected a father's plea for custody over his minor daughter, after noting that the girl who has been living with her maternal grandfathers since she was an infant, would feel more warmth, affection and sense of security in their company today as compared to living in her father's company.
Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra however made it clear that it has not observed that the father is unfit to be his minor daughter's legal guardian, who is now 10 years old.
Title: Sanjay Kumar Shaw v. Smt. Anjali Kumari Shaw
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 26
The Patna High Court has held that mere allegations of a mental disorder such as schizophrenia cannot justify a plea for divorce unless it is proved that the disorder is of such a kind and degree that the partner cannot reasonably be expected to live together.
The Division Bench of Justices Sunil Dutta Mishra and P. B. Bajanthri emphasised that vague or unsubstantiated claims regarding mental illness or cruelty are insufficient to attract the grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia), (ib), or (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Title: Awadh Kishore Sah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 50
The Patna High Court has recently observed that isolated lapses or moral failings on the part of a wife do not automatically disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).
Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, clarified that there is a difference between acts of adultery and “living in adultery.” He stated, “any physical relationship of a lady with any person prior to her marriage does not come within the definition of “adultery” because adultery is an offence against one's spouse. However, adulterous life of any wife subsequent to her marriage is undoubtedly a disqualification for any married wife to get maintenance from her husband. However, “Living in adultery” denotes a continuous course of conduct and not isolated acts of immorality.”
Title: Babul Khatoon & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 59
The Patna High Court has drawn a distinction between a wife 'committing adultery' from her 'living in adultery', for deciding her entitlement to maintenance.
Justice Jitendra Kumar observed, “Living in adultery” denotes a continuous course of conduct and not isolated acts of immorality. One or two lapses from virtues would be acts of adultery but would be quite insufficient to show that the woman was “living in adultery”. A mere lapse, whether it is one or two, and a return back to a normal life can not be said to be living in adultery. If the lapse is continued and followed up by a further adulterous life, the woman can be said to be “living in adultery.”
Title - Sangeeta Devi v. Pawan Kumar Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 60
The Patna High Court has observed that a marriage, when validated by custom, cohabitation, social acceptance, and the birth of children, must be treated as legally valid for the purposes of seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
A bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri noted that disregarding such a union would not only be legally untenable but would also send a regressive message to society, undermining the dignity of women and the security of children born from such relationships.
Title: Abdul Rehan Khan @ Abdul Raihan Khan v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 61
The Patna High Court has held that non-appointment of Counsellors in the Family Courts resulting in cases not being sent in conciliation amounts to violation of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and the Rules framed thereunder.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri said that where there is a violation of the Family Courts (Patna High Court) Rules, 2000, an adversarial justice process cannot be adopted.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 67
The Patna High Court recently upheld a Family Court order directing a fruit seller husband to pay his wife ₹7,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as it noted that the said amount is 'absolutely a meagre' sum in today's time.
A bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri thus dismissed the husband's criminal revision petition while observing that it is not the actual income but the capacity of the husband to earn is the prime consideration while granting maintenance allowance in favour of the wife.
Title: Md Murshid Alam v. State of Bihar and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 75
The Patna High Court has ruled that a Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) even after divorce, if her husband has not made a “reasonable and fair provision” for her future during the iddat period.
Justice Jitendra Kumar upheld a Family Court order directing a Muslim man to pay his wife ₹7,000 per month, dismissing his plea that their marriage had ended by mutual consent.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 81
Observing that while wife's living need not be luxurious but she should not be left in 'discomfort', the Patna High Court on Tuesday dissolved a 15-year-old marriage between a Merchant Navy officer and his wife while directing the husband to pay ₹90 lakh as permanent alimony.
A Bench of Chief Justice PB Bajanthri and Justice SB PD Singh added that it is the duty of the Court to see that the wife lives with dignity and comfort and not in 'penury'.
Title: Vivek Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 90
The Patna High Court reaffirmed that allegations of desertion cannot defeat a wife's claim of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC unless the allegations are conclusively established in matrimonial proceedings.
Justice Arun Kumar Jha, while dismissing the husband's plea, held that allegations of desertion cannot defeat a claim under Section 125 CrPC unless conclusively established in matrimonial proceedings.
Specific Relief Act Has No Application To Proceedings Under Family Courts Act: Patna High Court
Title: Anjani Kumar @ Pappu Kumar v. Mamta Bharti and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 99
The Patna High Court held that the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has no application to proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1984, in view of the overriding effect of Section 20 of the latter statute.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr. Justice Anshuman made these observations while hearing an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, in which the Family Court had declared the marriage between the parties null and void.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 472
While refusing to enhance maintenance granted to a wife, the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed her to use 10% of the maintenance being received by her for skill development. The bench reasoned that object of maintenance is not limited to mere subsistence but extends to enabling long-term dignity and self-reliance.
Justice Alok Jain said, "the petitioner is required to enhance her capabilities and stature in life so as to become self-reliant, only then it would reflect that the true intent of the maintenance legislation has been fulfilled and the maintenance awarded is being utilized in its correct perspective. Therefore, this Court considered it appropriate to direct the petitioner, that out of the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded to her, she must utilize at least 10% thereof, for improving her vocational skills."
Case Title: X v/s Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 07
The Punjab & Haryana High has said that the "ordinary residence of a child" or a ward would determine which court would have jurisdiction to decide the child's custody under the Guardianship & Wards Act.
It further underscored that the "ordinary residence" of the child would determine the court's jurisdiction which can hear the custody case, and the "natural guardianship" of the child will not determine this jurisdiction. The court further emphasized that the two concepts cannot be superimposed.
Title: XXX v. FORTIS HOSPITAL MOHALI AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 13
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a woman living separately from her husband without obtaining divorce can terminate pregnancy without taking consent from the husband under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari referring to X Vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and Anr and, Rule 3(B)(c) of the The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 said, "giving a purposive interpretation to the expression “change of marital status”, this Court can safely conclude that although the petitioner does not fall within the purview of “widow or divorcee”, however, since she has decided to live separately from the company of her husband without legally obtaining divorce, hence she is eligible for termination of pregnancy."
Title: Union of India and another v. Sukhpreet Kaur and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 74
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Thursday observed that the adoption of a Hindu child in Hindu family under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act can be done even without registered deed. The case pertains to compassionate appointment in Railways, of an adoptive daughter whose appointment was denied because in Class 10th certificate names of her biological parents were reflected instead of adoptive one.
Title: XXX v. XXX Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 88
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted divorce on ground of "cruelty" under the Hindu Marriage Act to a man whose wife was convicted for murdering their children. Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Harsh Bunger said, "the conviction of the respondent and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder has caused mental pain, agony and apprehension in the mind of the appellant that it is not safe to live with the respondent and it clearly amounts to “cruelty”.
Title: XXXX v. XXXXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 263
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that if the husband is not able to earn the maintenance amount, it is his duty to earn more to pay the maintenance amount to wife and children.
The Court dismissed the husband's plea challenging the Family Court's maintenance order of ₹24,700 for his wife and two minor children, on the ground that he had other liabilities which made him unable to afford it.
Title: KULWINDER KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 270
The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed a regular bail plea of a wife accused of abetting suicide of her husband, observing that marital discord alone are not sufficient to constitute the offence.
It was alleged that the husband used to remain upset with his wife because she was allegedly involved with another man.
'Trivial Irritation' In Marriage Does Not Amount To Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 364
Dismissing a divorce plea, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that ordinary marital disagreements, trivial irritations, or routine quarrels do not constitute "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa said, "Cruelty, within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act, must be of such a nature as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the aggrieved spouse that it is harmful or injurious to live with each other. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels or normal wear and tear does not amount to cruelty. In the present case, no such conduct on the part of the respondent-husband has been established that would amount to mental or physical cruelty under the law."
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 367
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that when either of spouses have chosen to live "apart for over three decades without even a show of reconciliation or cohabitation, the very essence of marriage stands eroded.
Rajasthan High Court
Title: Amrit Pal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 19
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside order rejecting candidature of the petitioner based on pending cruelty case under Section 498A IPC, ruling that at best the petitioner was "merely an under trial" and his fate is yet to be determined based on the trial's outcome.
Furthermore, the court noted that a mere break down of marriage could not be treated as if the husband was the "sole erring party" just because his wife pressed criminal charges against him which were yet to be proved.
Perusing the order rejecting the petitioner's candidature, Justice Arun Monga said, "Prima facie, having seen the impugned order dated 08.03.2024 which is being termed as a speaking order, it is anything but speaking. It does not clarify as to how the nature of pending criminal trial in any manner impeached the duties to be performed by the petitioner and/or how does it amount to a moral turpitude without there being any finding of facts and or criminal culpability. At best, the petitioner is merely an under trial and his fate is yet to be governed depending on the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, possibility of a compromise between husband and wife cannot be ruled out at subsequent stage. Be that as it may, mere break down of a marriage cannot be treated as if the husband is the sole erring party just because his wife has chosen to press criminal charges against him, which are yet to be proved".
Title: X v/s State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 23
While disposing of a habeas corpus petition filed by a father, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere with the mother's custody over the two minor children, in view of the court's interaction with the children and their wish to not stay with their father.
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta in its order observed,"Coming to the wish of the children, from interaction with the children, it is revealed that both the children do not wish to stay with petitioner-their father. Children are aged 11 and 12 years and even after they have remained in custody of petitioner, their wish is to stay with their mother-respondent No.5".
Title: Sunita Dhawan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 37
While exercising its inherent powers, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to grant employment to a widow and a mother of four belonging to the SC category, who stood meritorious in the recruitment process to the post of school lecturer, but was denied employment for having more than two surviving children.
Justice Sameer Jain held that it was imperative to depart from the rigid procedural adherence in the interest of justice since the petitioner's exclusion merely on the ground of having more than 2 children, despite her socio-economic challenges, would violate constitutional guarantees provided under Articles 14 and 16.
Title: X and Y v/s State of Rajasthan and Others
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday referred to a large bench to decide whether married persons who choose to be in live-in relationships with other individuals without first dissolving their marriage are entitled to seek protection orders from the court.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand passed the order after taking note of various judgments of the high court where conflicting views had been taken by single benches, observing that in such a situation the question has to be referred to a Special/Larger Bench so that the controversy is put to rest in accordance with law.
The question referred to special/larger bench is : "Whether a married person living with an unmarried person, without dissolution of his/her marriage or/and whether two married persons with two different marriages living in live-in-relationship, without dissolution of their marriages, are entitled to get protection order from the Court ?"
Title: X and Y v/s State of Rajasthan and Others
Emphasizing that the need of the hour was for the Centre and State government to enact a legislation governing live-in relationships, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday directed, that till such a law is enacted, live-in-relationship must be registered by a government established authority or tribunal.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said, "The live-in-relationship agreement is liable to be registered by the Competent authority/ Tribunal, which is required to be established by the Government. Till enactment of the appropriate legislation by the Government, let competent Authority be established in each district of the State to look into the matter of registration of such live-in-relationships, who will address and redress the grievances of such partners/couples who have entered in such relationship and the children being born out therefrom. Let a Website or Webportal be launched in this regard for redressal of the issue arising out of such relationship".
The court further directed that until a legislation is framed by the Centre as well as the State Government, a scheme of statutory nature is required to be formulated in legal format.
Title: Anita Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 53
In relation to eligibility of an EWS certificate issued by the government of Haryana to a woman who got married in Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that change of location from Haryana to Rajasthan did not render the petitioner ineligible to seek benefit of the certificate issued by the competent authority.
Justice Arun Monga in his order said, "As for the change of location from Haryana to Rajasthan, it does not render the petitioner ineligible to seek the benefit of the EWS certificate issued by the competent authority".
The court also referred to a coordinate bench's decision in Aman Kumari v State of Rajasthan where the court had observed that a stipulation made by an advertisement that those married into the State would not be entitled to the benefit of OBC, SC, ST & EWS category, was "ex facie contrary" to the very scheme of EWS reservation.
Title: Bharti Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 63
Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR against a daughter (“Petitioner”) who was charged in a case of cheating, on account of the fact that she received some money from her father that was alleged to be received by him under dishonest inducement from the complainant with whom he had entered into an agreement to sale.
The bench of JusticeFarjand Ali held that the rule of vicarious liability did not apply here. Neither there was any allegation of criminal conspiracy by the Petitioner with her father. She was not even alleged in the FIR or the statement of the complainant.
Title: Suman Bishnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 66
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that child care leave is akin to a privileged leave, and hence just like the latter, it could not be claimed as a matter of unfettered right. It could be sanctioned for upto 120 days if the administrative discretion warranted, but there was no mandate to grant it for such a period of time.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga held that,
“I am of the opinion that child care leave is since akin to privileged leave, similar parameters will thus apply. Be it privileged or child care leave, as the case maybe, it cannot be claimed as a matter of unfettered right…It is thus the administrative discretion of the competent authority to look into the circumstances and, if the same so warrant, then child care leave “can be” sanctioned up to 120 days and the right to grant of the same is not to be treated and read as if the leave “has to be” granted for 120 days.”
Title: Abhishek Agrawal v Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 73
In a case concerning LPG distributorship and its registration, the Rajasthan High Court said that it is settled law that the section on when the time from which a registered document operates under Registration Act (Section 47) operates between the concerned parties but it cannot be "stretched to obliterate" the mandate of submitting a registered lease deed on/or before the stipulated cut off date.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur in its order said, "The provisions under the Indian Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act clearly indicate that a lease deed may not be valid so long as it remains unregistered but as soon as it has been registered it takes effect from the date of its execution. This is quite a settled law that section 47 of the Registration Act operates between the parties to the deed and may also affect the rights of third parties. However, the effect of section 47 of the Registration Act cannot be stretched to obliterate the requirement of submitting a registered lease deed/rent deed on or before 24th May 2023".
The Court opined that it was in public interest that the employer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL”) adhered to the stipulations made in the advertisements as well as the Manual, and such adherence could not be faulted.
Title: GR v State of the Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 85
The Rajasthan High Court refused to issued a writ of habeas corpus on a man's plea alleging that his live-in partner, who appeared to be his real sister and was married to another man, had been illegally detained.
In doing so the court ruled that there was no fundamental right of a person to be in a live-in relationship with a woman legally married to another man, especially when she appeared to be his own sister.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas further emphasized that the Constitution of India does not "sanctify an immoral act" adding that a writ court cannot exercise its extraordinary discretionary powers in a matter which would only sanctify immorality in the society. The court further imposed cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner.
Title: Union of India & Ors. v Smt. Rinky Sharma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 89
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a challenge against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that directed the State to grant compassionate appointment to the respondent, who was the married daughter of the deceased employee, whose husband was also employed and earning.
The division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur affirmed CAT's reliance on the full bench decision of the Court in Smt. Heena Sheikh v State of Rajasthan (“Heena Sheikh Case”) in which it was decided that married daughter of a deceased employee was entitled to compassionate appointment.
Title: Smt. Basanti Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 104
While reiterating that discriminating between regular females employees and those on contractual basis, by denying complete 180 days of maternity leaves to the latter was violative of Article 14 and 21, Rajasthan High Court directed the State to pay additional salary (with interest @ 9% p.a.) of remaining period to the petitioner who was granted only 2 months' maternity leave when applied for in 2008.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that a mother is a mother irrespective of being employed on a regular basis or on contractual basis and newborn babies of contractual workers also had the same right to life as those of regular employees.
Title: Ramniwas v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 105
While granting bail to the husband-accused in wife's suicide case, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that even though as per the prosecution the husband used to beat the wife, and misbehaved with her, there was no direct evidence to show that he did any act to instigate or aid his wife's suicide.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that it was a settled law that abetment to suicide involved a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding someone in doing that act. Without there being a positive act on the husband's part reflecting such instigation or aid towards his wife's suicide, the charge of abetment to suicide could not sustain.
Title: Maa Sai School v Shanti Lal & Ors, and other connected Cross Objection
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 112
The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that in case of death of an individual in an accident, the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 towards the head Consortium is not limited to the deceased's parents but also payable to their siblings.
The court thus observed that while no amount of money can compensate parents and siblings of the deceased however it is the court's duty to award just compensation.
Referring to various Supreme Court decisions Justice Dr. Nupur Bhati in her order underscored, "This Court is also of the view that losing a child in an accident is an unfathomable tragedy for the parents as well as his/ her siblings. The anguish and grief that accompany such a loss are profound and enduring leaving the parents and the siblings grappling with emotions that often defy description. In a case of death of a child, no amount of money can compensate the parents as well as siblings of the deceased child however, it is the duty of the Court to award just compensation".
Title: Bhaka Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 115
Noting multiple “social evils” particularly in the western part of Rajasthan which is stated to include social boycotts, alleged illegal activities by Khap Panchayats, caste discrimination, honour killings, taboo against love marriages, exorcisms etc., the high court constituted a 5-member commission to conduct a ground study of various villages.
Justice Farjand Ali opined that the issue shall be dealt with in two phases wherein in the first phase, there would be an endeavour to identity the malady, and the in next phase, work shall be done towards eliminating or curbing those evil practices.
“These social evils continue to plague communities, causing immense harm to individuals and hindering social progress. Addressing these issues is imperative for fostering a just and equitable society...It is felt apt to appoint Court Commissioners to thoroughly investigate the ground reality of the situation and this commission shall visit different villages to identify the concerns associated with this issue," it said.
Title: Neeraj Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 149
The Rajasthan High Court grants relief to a widow candidate who had successfully cleared the interview of the Rajasthan Administrative Services (RAS), but was denied appointment on the ground of pending criminal cases arising out of matrimonial discord.
Justice Arun Monga held that despite pending criminal proceedings being a condition for ineligibility prescribed in a circular, the administrative discretion had to operate in harmony with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v Union of India.
"As stated above, the FIR had emanated from the matrimonial discord between the petitioner and her husband (since deceased). The offences in the FIR do not involve moral turpitude. The role attributed to the petitioner is not of such a nature so as to impinge on the nature of duties to be performed by her upon appointment...Even otherwise, one ought to be mindful that the youth need a reformative approach to the indiscretions committed in heat of the moment, which may or may not be intentional. Societal and so should the legal perspective be, of course depending upon the nature of delinquency, that youthful indiscretions should not permanently tarnish an individual's future. A compassionate and reformative approach ought to be adopted when dealing with young individuals who may have committed minor transgressions. Young people are still in the process of emotional and intellectual development. A punitive approach that permanently brands young individuals as criminals for relatively minor mistakes contradicts the principles of justice/fairness, recidivism and reformation and reintegration into society," the court said.
Title: J v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 152
While quashing a rape case based on marriage between the complainant and the accused, Rajasthan High Court remarked that marriage is a sacred and divine institution, transcending earthly matters and holding unique significance in culture.
“Marriage is considered as sacred union between two individuals – transcending beyond physical, emotional and spiritual bonds. According to the ancient Hindu laws, marriage and its rituals are performed to pursue Dharma (duty), Artha (possessions), and Kama (physical desire). With such sanctity, marriage is more than a ritual, which cannot be allowed to be destroyed by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further clarified that the decision was given only based on the peculiarity of marriage between the complainant and the accused, and the same should not be seen as a precedent for quashing an offence of rape based on the fact that the victim and the accused reached a compromise.
Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 163
Rajasthan High Court has granted permission to the Superintendent, Government Balika Grah, to admit a 11 year old rape victim, in any Government School situated near the vicinity of the Balika Grah, and to bear expenses of her studies till she attained the age of majority.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also directed the Superintendent, Balika Grah, to submit report along with documentary proof of the victim's admission in the School, and also yearly report in July, till she attained majority.
The Court observed that Right to Education was fundamental right of every child as per Article 21A of the Constitution which was further represented by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009
Title: Chirag Naruka v the Chairman, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
Quoting playwright William Shakespeare quote “What's in a name?” from “Romeo and Juliet”, Rajasthan High Court while underscoring that a name is everything said that it was the foundation of one's legal, social and emotional identity and hence a mother being 'birth giver' has every right to get her name recorded in her children's academic records.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that prior to 2001, there was no concept of adding mother's name in children's educational records, which was not only unjustifiable but also clearly retrogressive. Hence, with the passage of time, it became mandatory to include the names of both the parents in their children's educational certificates and degrees.
Title: Sakshi Choudhary v Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the petitioner who was denied admission in B.Sc (Nursing) under Armed Forces Medical Services despite being eligible, after being assessed as “unfit” when her hemoglobin was found to be low owing to heavy menstrual blood flow at the relevant time.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that,
“A girl's health condition like the petitioner, should not hinder her access to education merely because that of her hemoglobin was found to be below the prescribed level because of heavy menstrual bleeding. Menstrual cycle should not be treated as a barrier to the education of any girl child like the petitioner. Denying education on the basis of health concerns, arising due to menstruation is unacceptable.”
The Court stated that menstrual cycle should not be treated as a barrier to girl child's education, and denying education on the basis of health concerns arising due to menstruation was unacceptable.
Title: X v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 219
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed by a mother seeking termination of pregnancy of her minor daughter (17 years, 5 months old) in light of the daughter's unwillingness to abort the pregnancy, upholding the right of a pregnant minor victim to retain her pregnancy.
Highlighting that the minor victim had sufficient level of understanding about the consequences of her actions, the bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali observed that pregnant woman had the autonomy over her body and it was only she who had the right to choose whether to terminate the pregnancy or not.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Suchita Srivastava & Anr. Vs. Chandigarh Administration wherein it was held that right to make reproductive choices was a facet of Art. 21, and the consent of the pregnant women in the matter of such choices was paramount. No entity, even the state, could speak on behalf of the pregnant person and usurp her consent.
Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Munni & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 247
While rejecting an insurance company's plea challenging Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal's award granting over Rs. 66 Lakh compensation to a 58-year-old deceased government servant's kin, the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that adoption of the split multiplier method for calculating compensation was impermissible in law.
The court further reiterated that major dependant children are entitled to compensation while married children's dependancy has to be evaluated carefully.
Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Maya Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025), Justice Ganesh Ram Meena reiterated that adoption of the split-multiplier method "is now impermissible in law" for being arbitrary and speculative.
Title: Mohammad Muslim v The Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 256
Rajasthan High Court allowed an application by an accused charged under Section 498A, IPC, to travel to Mecca-Madina for performing the religious rituals of Haj, for a period of two months, opining that denying permission to travel abroad for religious purposes, owing to pendency of criminal case under the provision amounted to violation of right under Article 21.
While issuing a judicial direction to all subordinate courts, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that whenever an application was submitted by an accused to travel abroad, clear order of granting/not granting the permission shall be passed, to aid the Passport Authority to take appropriate decisions.
“It is observed by this Court on many occasions that because of non-passing of clear and specific orders, the Passport Authority is not in a position to take appropriate decision. Henceforth, it is expected from all the subordinate courts to pass clear and specific orders whenever such application is submitted by the accused seeking permission to go abroad to avoid any kind of confusion in the mind of the Passport Authority,” said the Court.
Title: Manni Devi v Rama Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 258
The Rajasthan High Court has opined that when daughters belonging to non-Scheduled Tribe (“ST”) communities were entitled to equal share in father's property, there was no reason to deny the same right to the daughters of the ST community.
Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act lays down the scope of application of the Act, and Section 2(2) gives states that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.
Noting that Section 2(2) of the Act was operates as "barrier in the way of female tribal asserting their rights in their father's property", Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said that it was "right and high time" for the Union Government to revisit the provision and if deemed fit to "amend the same" to safeguard and promote the rights of Female Members of the Scheduled Tribe community.
Title: Smt. Mariya v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 265
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a 32-year old woman, accused in a dual murder case, opining that her situation was inherently vulnerable since she had a five year old son and no familial support to look after him.
“This innocent child, in the crucial formative years of his development, is deprived of the essential care, guidance, and emotional sustenance that only a mother can provide…Such involuntary deprivation not only inflicts severe emotional and psychological distress upon the petitioner but also undermines the child's welfare and well-being…This separation, therefore, transcends mere physical distance, amounting to a profound denial of the petitioner's elemental right to motherhood and care giving, thereby compounding her already precarious and vulnerable predicament,” said the bench of Justice Farjand Ali.
Title: Seher Gogia v The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 267
Stating that children born to Indian citizens outside India often face great challenges relating to citizenship, the Rajasthan High Court has urged the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to revisit the provisions of laws related to the issue, and if deemed necessary, make necessary amendments.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was dealing with a petition filed by a 5 year old girl. She was born to Indian citizens in Australia and thus acquired citizenship of that country. She moved the Court seeking visa extension, which was in astray amid matrimonial dispute between her parents.
The Court directed the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (“FRRO”) to extend her visa for maximum period without insisting on mother's NOC, and also to consider her application for issuance of Overseas Citizenship of India Card (“OCI Card”),“sympathetically” within 3 months.
Title: Nisha Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 275
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a woman claiming to be the widow of a man, to complete her Diploma Course in Elementary Education under ST (Widow) Category, despite challenge to her status of “widow” by the subsequent wife of the deceased.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the status of the petitioner as “widow” or “divorced wife” of the deceased could not be adjudicated by it as it is a disputed question of fact. It however said that since she was allowed to continue the course based on an interim order, she could not be deprived of the benefit now.
"It is for the petitioner and the respondent No.8 (subsequent wife) to approach the appropriate forum of law for declaration of their status. But looking to the fact that by way of passing an interim order dated 21.10.2024 passed by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to undergo her studies of Diploma Course in Elementary Education and she has completed the same, now, at the verge of completion of the aforesaid course, she cannot be deprived from the benefit of studies, which she has underwent under the protection of the interim order passed by this Court".
Title: Kanchan Patil (Mirasi) Samaj v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 295
The Rajasthan High Court has said that "dignity of an individual" after death is hampered due to demarcation of cremation places based on "caste" or other grounds, remarking that it was high time that the State formulated a uniform policy equally applicable to all citizens for a public place to perform post-death rituals.
While hearing a petition filed by the Kanchan Patil (Mirasi) Samaj on not being allowed to use a public land by State for conducting last rites, the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta, held that despite fraternity being one of the foundational principles of the nation, the present case was a stark reminder of how far the social reality was from this constitutional vision.
“…public lands earmarked for cremation or burial cannot be segregated or monopolized by any community. Any such practice of exclusion or reservation of common land for the benefit of a particular caste, creed, or community is antithetical to the constitutional vision of equality, fraternity, and dignity…this Court is of the firm opinion that discrimination, which is proscribed under the Constitution of India, cannot be permitted to exist in any form, and certainly cannot be allowed to extend beyond death.”
Title: Sunita Devi v Sumit Bishnoi, and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 304
While hearing a petition for enhancement of maintenance, Rajasthan High Court took into account the earning capacity of the respondent-husband, and observed that an able-bodied husband was presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife, and could not take the stand that he was not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family.
“Thus, the capacity of the respondent to earn and his actual earning being Rs.10,000/- (while working as a Conductor) and Rs.10,000/- further from joint agricultural property, cannot be disputed. An able-bodied husband must further be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and he cannot take the stand that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family. This fact, coupled with the respondent's own admission that the petitioner was not having any income or any property whatsoever, is a relevant consideration while determining the maintenance to be paid.”
Title: Smt. Mishri Devi v Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department Pension Bhawan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 324
The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief in a petition seeking family pension and other post-retirement benefits, filed after 24 years of the death of the petitioner's husband, opining that the question of limitation or delay could not be raised by the State to deny legitimate benefits to a government servant or his/her dependents.
Further, the bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that in case the procedure adopted to appoint the concerned government servant was similar to that of a substantive employee, benefits could not be denied to him/her or family, on the ground that the appointment letter mentioned “purely on temporary basis”.
Title: Lrs of Purakh Singh & Anr. v Narendra Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 331
The bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati at the Rajasthan High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in relation to death of a homemaker, taking into account the “significant and invaluable contribution of homemakers”.
After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that, “The Hon'ble Apex Court in the catena of judgments has consistently recognized the significant and invaluable contribution of homemakers and has time and again, held that services of homemakers must be given pecuniary value while awarding compensation in motor accident and similar claims”.
Title: X v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 334
Rajasthan High Court held that refusal of service of notice by any person other than the noticee themselves or their agent cannot be considered refusal in the eye of law.
The court held thus while quashing an ex-parte divorce decree granted by family court in the wife's favour after noting that the court notice was refused by the husband's mother in his absence.
The high court said:
"A refusal for the purpose of service of notice should be taken to be a sufficient service, if such refusal is by the addressee or by the noticee himself/herself. A denial by any other person other than the noticee or his agent, including the mother to receive or accept the notice on someone else's behalf cannot be said to be a refusal in the eye of law".
Title: Laxman Das v State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 342
Rajasthan High Court converted a father's murder conviction for fatally hitting his son's neck with a sharp edged tool, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reduced sentence from life imprisonment to 7 years.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi took into consideration the testimonies of prosecution witnesses including appellant's wife and daughter, claiming him to be a short-tempered person, lacking mental balance. It was claimed that the appellant often lost control and used to beat his children for their mistakes.
The Court observed that ordinarily, no parent would injure their children fatally, irrespective of how much frustrated they were, such that the child losses his/her life.
Title: Bhagwan Singh v Suptd Engineer Pawas & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 364
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to deduct a part of a widow's salary who was appointed on compassionate grounds after her husband's death, and deposit it in the account of her dependent father-in-law, upon finding the fact of her leaving the matrimonial house and deserting the in-laws soon after the husband's death.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that compassionate appointment was not conferred upon an individual in individual capacity, but as a representative of the entire family who was dependent on the deceased. Hence, it carried a corresponding moral and legal obligation to protect the interests of other surviving dependents.
“In this benevolent framework, the expression “family” cannot be interpreted in a narrow or compartmentalized manner so as to mean the widow alone. It necessarily includes all those who were dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of his death namely, the parents, spouse, and children; for they together constitute a composite family unit bound by mutual dependency and shared vulnerability.”
Title: Manoj Kumar Meena v Smt. Preeti Meena and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 371
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the accused-petitioner by directing transfer of his matrimonial and maintenance cases from Sawai Madhopur to Jaipur after finding out that owing to his advocate wife's influence on the Bar Association, no lawyer was ready to represent him before the courts situated at Sawai Madhopur.
While underscoring the significance of the fundamental right to get legal assistance, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the inability of a litigant to secure effective legal assistance due to reluctance caused by Bar Association under the influence or creation of hostile environment by the respondent compromised the fundamental principle of fair trial.
“Courts are temple of justice and they should remain open for all litigants. Every litigant is constitutionally and legally entitled to a fair and impartial hearing. The litigants cannot be arbitrarily denied their right to seek justice and present their case before the Court of law.”
Title: Ritesh Khatri v Shyam Sundar Khatri
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 375
The Rajasthan High Court imposed exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh on a son, litigating against his father for legal rights of a coparcener in a property— which he very well knew was not part of the Hindu United Family or co-parcenery, but was purchased by the father in his own name.
The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal opined that a child resides on his father's property during his childhood by the virtue of love, affection and parental duty of the father.
However, it emphasized that after attaining majority and getting married, if the father allows the son/daughter to possess his house/property, it does not by itself create any legal right in the child's favour to claim that property as his own, unless the property was ancestral or of HUF.
“…defendant's plea for protection of his possession is not backed by his absolute legal right, vested in him, and his possession over the property of his father since childhood is because of love and affection. The moment father is dissatisfied with the behaviour and conduct of his son and no longer wishes that his son or his family should continue to reside in his property, the defendant's possession, being the son, is not liable to be protected”.
Title: Anuj Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 377
The Rajasthan High Court held that the decriminalization of adultery by the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v Union of India shall not just apply prospectively but, it will apply retrospectively to all pending and ongoing cases, which is necessary to uphold the constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and privacy.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that when Section 497 IPC (Adultery) was struck down for being unconstitutional, there was no qualification restricting its operation prospectively. Once a provision was declared unconstitutional, it became void ab initio and could not be the basis of any prosecution thereafter or even in respect of any pending matters.
“…declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 497 IPC by the Hon'ble Supreme Court operates retrospectively, nullifying all pending prosecutions based solely on that provision. However, the proceedings already culminated in the cases by concluding the trials prior to the judgment in the case of Joseph Shine (supra) cannot be reopened.”
Title: Shanti Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 378
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the State's order rejecting ex-gratia amount to an employee's illiterate widow, who was unaware of the welfare scheme and thus got delayed in applying for the same, opining that such rejection on technical grounds, despite admitted administrative delay, was a hyper-technical and insensitive approach.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further observed that in cases of death during service, authorities must act with sensitivity and promptness, ensuring no unnecessary hardship to bereaving families on account of procedural rigidity.
Title: F v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 384
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that law of any civilized society is not definite, and it must change according to the demands and circumstances of the society.
“Law and transformation is a unique concept which highlights the changes in social problems and their solutions through legal…Law not only lays down the norms that are acceptable to a given society, but it also lays down the norms regarding when the society should adapt and act in the interest of its own welfare.”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a quashing petition filed by a rape accused under IPC and POCSO, in light of his marriage with the now-major victim.
It opined that crime of rape is the highest form of torture inflicted upon womanhood, and such cases should be handled by the Court with utmost sensitivity and high responsibility. However, at the same time, it also highlighted the victim's will and clear intention to lead a happy married life with the accused.
Title: Alok Kumar Chaturvedi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 388
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a "retaliatory" cruelty FIR lodged against a man, underscoring that the case was instituted by the wife 20 months after living separately, only to revenge the divorce proceedings instituted by him.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma further took into account that her response to the divorce plea, which was filed before the Court after lodging Section 498A FIR, was silent on the alleged cruelty which was described by her in the FIR.
Moreover, on one hand the wife had contested the divorce petition filed by the husband and on the other, during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, she expressed “no objection”, and as soon as divorce decree was passed, she remarried another person.
The Court held that these facts were sufficient to infer that the 498A proceedings were malicious in nature, and filed due to ulterior motive to “wreck vengeance”.
Title: Harjeet Singh v Oriental Bank of Commerce and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 393
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the technical definition of “indigent” under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of CPC, could not be transposed mechanically into the domain of compassionate appointment as that would reduce the scheme illusory,by imposing a threshold that no eligible family could practically meet.
“Indigent Person” under CPC meant that a person who did not possess sufficient means to pay the requisite court fees and was not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees.
“…no person engaged in public or private employment, who receives a regular salary, allowances, statutory benefits or retiral dues can ever fall within such an extreme definition of indigence that equates to beggary or absolute pauperism. Extending this standard posthumously to the dependents of a deceased government employee is wholly unrealistic, for no class of salaried employees could ever satisfy such a test,” Justice Farjand Ali said.
Title: Priya Suman & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 408
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Nodal Officer of a Police Station to promptly decide the representations seeking protection, filed by an 18 year old woman and a 19 year old man, fearing threats from their family members owing to their decision to stay in a live-in relationship.
While underscoring the rulings made of the Supreme Court, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that both the petitioners were major and could not be left at the mercy of the respondents who were against their decision, especially when staying in a live-in relationship by two major consenting individuals was not considered an offence.
Title: Smt. Anand Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 414
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 may require appropriate amendments so that provisions relating to nomination, dissolution of marriage, and entitlement are transparent and unambiguous, leaving no room for interpretational confusion, and
Justice Farjand Ali directed the Advocate General to put this in the notice of the State.
The development comes in a dispute between two women, each claiming to be the legally wedded wife of a deceased government employee, and claiming the family pension as his widow.
However, in this background, the Court clarified, “As regards to both sets of children irrespective of the marital disputes inter se their mothers are children of the deceased employee. Their entitlement to the family pension of their father cannot be extinguished whereas the share of the wife shall remain subject to the outcome of the civil proceedings.”
Title: Sushila v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 425
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to “sympathetically” grant another opportunity to a woman candidate to appear in the Physical Efficiency Test (“PET”) for the post of constable-driver, who was disqualified from the PET in the selection process after she could not qualify in the running test since she had given birth just 15 days back.
The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman highlighted that the recruitment rules as well as the advertisement conditions took into account the medical condition of pregnant or post-partum women, and discouraged them from participating in physical tests requiring strength.
“Considering the medical and physical condition of the petitioner, the delivery date and the scheduled date for Physical Efficiency Test, this Court is of the view that the present petitioner shall be given one more opportunity to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test keeping in mind the relaxation as provided in terms of the conditions of the advertisement.”
Telangana High Court
X v/s Y
2025 LiveLaw (TG) 10
The Telangana high court on Wednesday (January 8) reiterated that if a parent who is lawful guardian of the child, takes a child away from the custody of the other parent, it would not amount to kidnapping and does not call for registering an FIR under 137(2) of the BNS.
Section 137(2) BNS states that whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Maloth Ravi, S/o. Chandru vs. The State of Telangana.
2025 LiveLaw (TG) 22
While setting aside a man's conviction for murder of his wife, cruelty and for demanding dowry the Telangana High Court directed a "fresh de novo trial" after noting that the accused was not properly represented by a counsel before the trial court underscoring that he was "deprived of an effective defence".
A division bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao passed the order in a criminal appeal challenging the order of conviction for offences under IPC Sections 302(murder), 498A (cruelty) and demand of dowry under the Dowry Prohibition Act. He was sentenced to life imprisonment as well.
2025 LiveLaw (TG) 24
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that the remedy of Habeas Corpus is an extraordinary remedy available to safeguard against disappearances or illegal detention. That, it should not be used as a weapon to settle marital scores or to win a custody battle.
"A Writ of Habeas Corpus can only be issued when a detention or imprisonment is without authority of law i.e., when the person is under illegal detention. With the expansion of the scope of Habeas Corpus, the Writ is often used against a spouse who has been illegally detained by his/her parents or in cases of custody of a child. In such cases, the Court must come to the conclusion that the person is under detention without authority of law."
XXX vs. XXX
2025 LiveLaw (TG) 89
The Telangana High Court has recently held that the right of a Muslim woman to demand Khula i.e. divorce is an absolute right and is not predicated on the husband's acceptance of this demand.
A division bench of Justice Moshumi Bhattacharya and Justice BR Madhusudhan Rao in its order said:
"Since the wife's right to demand Khula is absolute and does not have to be predicated on a cause or acceptance of the demand by the husband, the only role of a Court of law is to put a judicial stamp on the termination of the marriage, which then becomes binding on both parties"
Ganga Bhavani @ Gundabattina Ganga Bhavani vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (TG) 102
The Telangana High Court quashed the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act against a woman living in America accused of harassing her sister-in-law for dowry via phone calls, observing that the two never lived together in shared house at any point of time.
The respondent no. 2 and her husband (petitioner no. 1) got married in 2020. She claimed that her in-laws looked after her for three months and thereafter her in laws made her to do all the household works without the help of any one.
Karabooja Srikanth vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (TG) 104
The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against late Ch. Ramoji Rao (petitioner 2) on the grounds that criminal proceedings— which involved allegations of receiving deposits from the public in violation of Section 45S of the Reserve Bank of India Act and failure to repay them within the prescribed period, stood abated following his death, as he was the sole Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (Petitioner 1)
X vs. Y
2025 LiveLaw (TG) 106
The Telangana High Court dismissed a woman's appeal seeking divorce claiming 'marriage fraud', after noting that she was unable to prove the allegation that her husband was impotent at the time of marriage and had concealed his medical condition before marriage.
The court observed that if the wife never informed her parents, in-laws about her husband's alleged impotency and inability to perform marital obligations, instead she joined him in USA where they were living after marriage.
Nirupama Dadi vs. State of TG
2025 LiveLaw (TG) 107
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that provisions 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, would apply only when the incident either occurred in a public place or was witnessed by at least one independent witness.
The order was passed by Justice E.V. Venugopal in a petition to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who had allegedly insulted her ex-husband using caste based slurs.
Avula Surender vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (TG) 114
The Telangana High Court has declined to interfere with the action of the Child Welfare Committee and District Child Protection Unit in taking away the custody of an adopted child residing with the petitioner, holding that the adoption process was illegal.
The Division Bench of Justice Moushmi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar has further held that a petition for habeas corpus can only be entertained when the detention of an individual is illegal. The Bench noted that when the adoption process was not followed, the adoption could not be deemed legal.
Telangana High Court Directs CWC To Hand Over Baby To Parents Who Were Victims Of Surrogacy Scam
Mrs. Sr-rcharitha Gangireddygari vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (TG) 116
The Telangana High Court has directed the Child Welfare Committee to hand over a baby, taken away from her parents, on account of violations in the surrogacy procedure.
The parents of baby Hiya, contended that they had used the facilities of Dr. Namratha and Universal Srushti Fertility to have a surrogate baby, and were also under the impression that the baby was biologically theirs. However, when the baby fell sick, and blood tests were conducted, it was realised that the baby did not share the same DNA as her parents.
C. Srinivas vs. State of TS
2025 LiveLaw (TG) 130
The Telangana High Court, in regard to Section 23(1) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has reiterated that mere non-mentioning of a condition to maintain in a gift deed does not absolve the receiver from the duty of maintenance.
Justice Pulla Karthik, while relying on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit, and rendered by the Kerala High Court in Radhamani and Oths vs. State of Kerala and, Subhashini v. District Collector has held:
“...his Court is of the view that mere non-mentioning of a condition in the gift deed to maintain the executor does not absolve the petitioner from performing his duty to maintain the respondent No.4 to keep the gift deed in force. Therefore, the plea urged by the petitioner in this regard cannot be sustained and is hereby rejected.”
Dr. Athaluri @ Pachipala Namratha vs. State of TG
2025 LiveLaw (TG) 142
Granting bail to a doctor booked for surrogacy-related offences, the Telangana High Court said that once an accused is in judicial custody in the first case, then it is necessary for the investigating authorities to show the arrest and remand of the accused in all connected cases, from the respective dates of registration of FIRs.
The petitioner contended that she was implicated in several crimes registered on the file of Gopalapuram Police Station, all of which arise out of the same or substantially similar transactions.