Bombay High Court Family Law Digest 2023

Wife's Refusal For DNA Test No Ground for Adverse Inference For Maintenance – Bombay High CourtCase Title: Namdeo s/o. Digambar Giri v. SeemaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 16The Bombay High Court dismissed a man's petition challenging the grant of maintenance to his wife, observing that a claim regarding wife's refusal during cross examination to undergo DNA test for ascertaining the paternity of girl child is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference.Justice Kishore C. Sant of the Aurangabad bench said: “Mere submission that question was asked in cross-examination to wife that whether she is ready to go for DNA test, where she has answered that she is not ready itself would not be sufficient to draw adverse inference against the wife.”Bombay High Court Orders Stay On Transfer of Adoption Cases To District Magistrates, Asks Single Judge To Continue Hearing Matters Case Title: Nisha Pradeep Pandya alias Nisha Amit Gor & Anr. v. Union of India & OrsCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 20The Bombay High Court granted interim stay on transfer of pending adoption matters to the District Magistrates and directed the courts to continue with adjudication in such cases.The division bench of Justice G. S. Patel and Justice S. G. Dige, in a writ petition challenging the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2021 to the extent that the word 'Court' is replaced with 'District Magistrates', said that if the petition succeeds, any orders passed by the District Magistrates will immediately become vulnerable. “While considering interim relief, we must bear in mind the primary objective which is the interest of the children and infants who are to be adopted whether these are domestic or foreign adoptions. The concerns of the adoptive parents are also involved," the court added.Section 498A IPC | Mental Cruelty Possible Even If In-Laws Reside Separately: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sunita Kumari and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 32The Bombay High Court observed that mental cruelty is an abstract concept and can be committed even if in-laws reside separately."The mental cruelty is an abstract concept and it is a matter of experience for a person who is subjected to cruelty … Sometimes, the taunts might be seen to be innocuous by one person, while they may not be necessarily so perceived by another person … Such being the nature of mental cruelty, it is not necessary that it must take place in the physical presence of persons and that it can be handed out even from a distant place," the court observed. A division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani of Nagpur dismissed with costs an application filed by relatives of a man seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against them instituted by his wife.'Saw No Change In Husband's Behaviour After Settlement Efforts, Can't Be Blamed': Bombay High Court Upholds Grant Of Maintenance To Divorced WomanCase Title: Amit S/o. Suresh Pali v. Rita D/o. Ramavtar PalCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 59The Bombay High Court upheld the grant of maintenance to a woman, whose husband's petition for divorce was allowed by the family court on the ground of desertion and cruelty.Dealing with the argument that prior to the decree of divorce she had refused to live with the husband without a sufficient reason and thus cannot be held to be entitled to maintenance, the court said when she had gone back to her matrimonial home but possibly saw no change in her husband's behaviour and left again, she cannot be said to have refused cohabitation without sufficient reasons under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. Justice G. A. Sanap of the Nagpur bench, while upholding the family court order, said if the wife had no desire at all to establish the cohabitation with the husband, she would not have at all agreed to join his company.Bombay High Court Upholds Grant Of Maintenance To Woman Who Had Accepted Alimony Under 'Customary Divorce'Case Title: Gajanan v. SurekhaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 61Observing that a person's approaching the civil court for divorce itself shows that customary divorce does not exist in his caste, the Bombay High Court upheld an order granting maintenance to a woman under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).Justice S. G. Mehare, in the husband's challenge to the award, held that:“For claiming any customary right, the parties claiming such right are bound to prove that the customs of their caste or race still exist and the community at large is regularly observing such customs. Since the applicant approached the Civil Court for divorce, it can safely be held that the customary divorce was not in existence in their caste. Therefore, the respondent cannot claim that after the customary divorce, the domestic relationship ceased, and the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs under D.V. Act.”Domestic Violence Case Can Be Quashed By High Court Under Section 482 CrPC Even After Conviction:...

Bombay High Court Family Law Digest 2023

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags