Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Hindu Law

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956Section 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 Marriage Act, 1955 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 Section 13(1)(i-a) – Cruelty – Long Separation as Mental Cruelty - Supreme Court exercised its discretionary power under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage that had been a "legal fiction" for over two decades - The parties had been living separately for 24 years with no children from the wedlock and unsuccessful mediation attempts- Held that where a marriage is wrecked beyond hope of salvage, public interest lies in recognizing the reality rather than keeping parties tied to a dead relationship - Held, a long period of continuous separation without any hope of reconciliation amounts to mental cruelty to both parties - The spouses' strongly held views and refusal to accommodate each other for a long period constitute conduct that makes the matrimonial bond beyond repair - The power to do "complete justice" under Article 142(1) is not fettered by the doctrine of fault and blame applicable to standard divorce petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act - Even if one spouse opposes the dissolution, the Court can grant a divorce if the marriage is irretrievably broken down. [Relied on Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231; Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita, (2023) 17 SCC 433; Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511; Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558; Paras 23-33] N v. A, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1210 : 2025 INSC 1436 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...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Hindu Law

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags