Supreme Court Yearly Digest 2024: Family Law [Marriage, Divorce, Child Custody, Alimony & Succession]

Custody of minor children – Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) – It is challenged that the Minor Children have been influenced against the Respondent and the preference indicated by the Minor Children ought not to be considered representative of their true emotions. Held, courts ought not to prematurely and without identification of individual instances of 'alienating behaviour', label any parent as propagator and / or potential promoter of such behaviour. The aforesaid label has far-reaching implications which must not be imputed or attributed to an individual parent routinely. Further held, the Minor Children could not be said to have exhibited any indication of 'parental alienation' i.e., there was no overt preference expressed by the Minor Children between the parents and thus, the foundation for any claim of parental alienation was clearly absent. The High Court proceeded on an unsubstantiated assumption of parental alienation and was not justified in interfering with the order granting custody of the Minor Children to the Appellant. (Para 17, 22, 23, 24 & 26) Col. Ramneesh Pal Singhv v. Sugandhi Aggarwal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Custody of minor children – Decided on the basis of – (i) The socioeconomic and educational opportunities which may be made available to the Minor Children; (ii) healthcare and overall wellbeing of the children; (iii) the ability to provide physical surroundings conducive to growing adolescents; (iv) the preference of the Minor Children as mandated under Section 17(3) of the Act and also (v) the stability of surrounding(s) of the Minor Children. (Para 12) Col. Ramneesh Pal Singhv v. Sugandhi Aggarwal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Custody of minor children – Welfare – The Court must construe the term 'welfare' in its widest sense i.e., the consideration by the Court would not only extend to moral and ethical welfare but also include the physical well-being of the minor children. (Para 11) Col. Ramneesh Pal Singhv v. Sugandhi Aggarwal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Natural guardian's right to custody of a child is not lost just because temporary custody was given to a relative. Gautam Kumar Das v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 586

'Parties' rights can't override child's welfare' : Supreme Court set aside High Court order giving father toddler's custody from maternal relatives. Somprabha Rana v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 666

Visitation rights of parent – Health and well-being of a child cannot be compromised while deciding the disputes between the parents. “The interest of the minor child is paramount. In the process of adjudicating upon the rights of the parents, her health cannot be compromised.” Sugirtha v. Gowtham, SLP (C) No. 18240 of 2024, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1042

Divorce, Maintenance and Alimony

Maintenance or permanent alimony should not be penal but should be for the purposes of ensuring a decent living standard for the wife. (Para 32) Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage can't be used to the advantage of the party responsible for collapse of marriage. Prabhavathi @ Prabhamani v. Lakshmeesha M.C., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 643

Supreme Court urges advocates not to file baseless petitions, flags outrageous averments in family law cases. K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 757

Wife is entitled to the same standard of living during the divorce proceedings as what she enjoyed during the marriage. Dr. Rajiv Verghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 902

The amount of permanent alimony should not penalize the husband but should be made with the aim of ensuring a decent standard of living for the wife. Following factors require due weightage while deciding the permanent alimony amount: i. Status of the parties, social and financial. ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children. iii. Parties' individual qualifications and employment statuses. iv. Independent income or assets owned by the applicant. v. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home. vi. Any employment sacrifices made for the family responsibilities. vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife. viii. Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities. The aforesaid factors do not lay down a strait jacket formula but act as a guideline while deciding permanent alimony. Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 969

S.125 CrPC – SARFAESI – IBC – Maintenance rights of a man's wife and children have precedence over the rights of creditors under recovery proceedings, right to maintenance is equivalent to a fundamental right and shall have an overriding effect over statutory rights of creditors, etc. under business laws. Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 977

Reservations Over Tendency In Matrimonial Proceedings To Seek Maintenance Or Alimony As An Equalisation Of Wealth With The Other Party – Divorced wife cannot seek permanent alimony just to attain equal wealth status with the ex-husband. While the wife is entitled to be maintained, as far as possible, to the same standards of life to which she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home, the husband can't be expected to maintain her as per his present status in life. Merely because the husband has moved on and attained better financial status after separation, the divorced wife cannot seek a higher alimony. Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1021

Maintenance can be granted despite the financial independence of a party if it is necessary to secure dignity, social standing, and financial stability post-divorce, especially in cases where the marriage has subsisted for a long period. Amutha v. AR Subramanian, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

Prolonged separation, coupled with inability to reconcile, can be a relevant factor to decide matrimonial disputes, when marriage has become a mere legal formality devoid of mutual trust and companionship. Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship, and shared experiences. When these essential elements are missing for an extended period, the marital bond becomes a mere legal formality devoid of any substance. Amutha v. AR Subramanian, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Section 6 - Stridhan is the exclusive property of the woman, and her father cannot claim recovery of Stridhan from in-laws without explicit authorisation from her. Mulakala Malleshwara Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Section 6 - The Supreme Court reiterated that it cannot be assumed that dowry and traditional presents given at the time of marriage are entrusted to the parents-in-law of the bride and would attract the ingredients of Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides that any dowry received by a person other than the woman in connection with her marriage must be transferred to her within the specified period. It further states that such dowry, until transferred, is to be held in trust for the benefit of the woman. Failure to transfer is punishable with imprisonment and/or fine. (Para 15, Referred : Bobbili Ramakrishna Raja Yadad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2016) 3 SCC 309). Mulakala Malleshwara Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Section 6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 406 - Allegations that the appellants, former in-laws of the complainant's daughter, had not returned the “stridhan” (gifts, including gold ornaments) given at the time of marriage. Key facts include the unsuccessful marriage of the complainant's daughter, her divorce in the U.S. in 2016, and subsequent remarriage in 2018. The complaint, filed in 2021, alleged the failure of the appellants to return the “stridhan.” The Supreme Court found no evidence supporting the claim of “stridhan” possession by the appellants, emphasizing that the complainant had no locus standi to initiate proceedings on behalf of his daughter without her express authorization. The Court reiterated established jurisprudence on the absolute ownership of “stridhan” by a married woman and highlighted that delay in filing the FIR raised questions about the complainant's motives. The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings were quashed on the grounds of insufficient evidence, unexplained delay, and abuse of the legal process. Mulakala Malleshwara Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Guardianship

Habeas Corpus - There is no legal right of an elder sister to exercise guardianship over her sister except when there is an order from a Court of competent jurisdiction. Rita Dwivedi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 124

Section 17(3) – Guardianship – Importance of preference indicated by minor children – The desire / preference of the children to continue to reside with the Appellant, although in itself cannot be determinative of custody of the children, but it must be given due consideration on account of it being a factor of utmost importance. (Para 14) Col. Ramneesh Pal Singhv v. Sugandhi Aggarwal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 7 – Ceremonies for Hindu marriage – Held, Hindu marriage is a sacrament – Section 7 of the Act uses the word “solemnised” which means to perform the marriage with ceremonies and unless the marriage is performed with appropriate ceremonies and in due form, it cannot be said to be “solemnised”. In the absence of any solemnisation of a marriage as per the provisions of the Act, a man and a woman cannot acquire the status of being a husband and a wife to each other. For a valid Hindu marriage, the requisite ceremonies have to be performed and there must be proof of performance of the said ceremony when an issue/controversy arise. Unless the parties have undergone such ceremony, there would be no Hindu marriage according to Section 7 of the Act and a mere issuance of a certificate by an entity in the absence of the requisite ceremonies having been performed, would neither confirm any marital status to the parties nor establish a marriage under Hindu law. Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Section 8 – Registration of marriage – Held, it is only when the marriage is solemnised in accordance with Section 7, there can be a marriage registered under Section 8. If there has been no marriage in accordance with Section 7, the registration would not confer legitimacy to the marriage. Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Section 13(1)(ib) and 13(1A)(ii) – Divorce petition – A divorce petition can be presented on the ground that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year and more after passing the decree for restitution of conjugal rights – Held, the desertion of the appellant at least from 2008 till the date of filing the divorce petition in 2013 continued without any reasonable cause. Therefore, a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) ought to have been passed. It is a case of a complete breakdown of marriage for the last 16 years and more. (Para 14) X v. Y, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 458

Section 25 – Alimony – Held, the appellant has offered to pay the respondent a lump sum alimony of Rs. 30 lakhs which can be accepted as a one time lump sum alimony. (Para 15) X v. Y, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 458

Sections 24 and 25 - Whether alimony can be granted under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in cases where the marriage has been declared void. The Court noted that different High Court and Supreme Court rulings provided divergent interpretations on the issue, citing several precedents both in favor of and against granting alimony in such circumstances. The matter was referred to a three-judge bench to resolve the conflict and provide clarity on the applicability of Sections 24 and 25 in cases involving void marriages. Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 605

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Admission of the common ancestor to treat the children born out of a void marriage as his legitimate children would be also considered as evidence against his legitimate child, who is claiming through the common ancestor. (Para 16) Raja Gounder v. M. Sengodan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 48 : AIR 2024 SC 644

Children born out of a void and voidable marriage shall be considered as legitimate children and be treated as an extended family of the common ancestor for the purpose of deciding a valid share in the property of the common ancestor. (Para 17) Raja Gounder v. M. Sengodan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 48 : AIR 2024 SC 644

Once the common ancestor has admittedly considered the children born of void and voidable marriage as his legitimate children, then such children would be entitled to the same share as the successors in the property of the common ancestor as that of children born out of a valid marriage. (Para 16) Raja Gounder v. M. Sengodan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 48 : AIR 2024 SC 644

Section 14(1) – Succession rights of the widow on the joint Hindu family property – The Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property but she must have acquired the property and such acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at a partition or “in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance” or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription. Held, it becomes clear that the widow was never in possession of the suit property as the civil suit was filed by her claiming relief of title and possession was dismissed by civil Court and was never challenged. Since, Smt. The widow was never in possession of the suit property, the Revenue suit for partition claiming absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the HSA could not be maintained by her adopted son, by virtue of inheritance. (Patra 24, 25 & 26) Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 388 : AIR 2024 SC 2809

Section 14(2) – When a Hindu woman is given only a restricted estate in property, then she cannot claim to be the absolute owner of the property due to the application of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. Hence, such a property cannot be bequeathed through a Will. The property possessed by a Hindu woman will transform into absolute ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) only if it was based on any pre-existing right or in lieu of maintenance. However, when the deed itself gives a limited life interest in the property, it will not transform into absolute ownership. Kallakuri Pattabhiramaswamy (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Kallakuri Kamaraju & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 906

Sections 14(1) and 14(2) – Highlighting the inconsistencies and conflicting interpretations surrounding the interplay between Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Act which deal with the rights of Hindu females in property inherited or possessed by them, the Court referred to larger bench conflicting opinions on female Hindu's rights under Section14. One line of precedents advances the cause of the female Hindu, recognizing her absolute right to ownership over the property received by her in recognition of her pre-existing right in the property under Section 14(1), and another line of precedents, basing its reliance on Section 14(2) of the HSA, does not recognizes her absolute ownership over the property received in recognition of her pre-existing right unless the property received by her was before or at the time of the enactment of HSA. Tej Bhan (D) Through Lr. & Ors. v. Ram Kishan (D) Through Lrs. & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 966

Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856

Section 2 – Right of widow in deceased husband's property to cease on marriage – Hence she could not convey any property over which she did not have any right or title. Held, the plaintiff who is the son of the widow and her second husband cannot claim share in suit property through the widow as the widow had lost her right over the subject property on her contracting second marriage. (Para 17 & 19) Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan v. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Section 2 – Validity of lease deed – The validity of lease deed executed by the widow and her two sons is accepted to the extent it was made by the sons (sons of widow and deceased). Held, even if subsistence of a deed is proved in evidence, the title of the executing person does not automatically stand confirmed. If a document seeking to convey immovable property ex-facie reveals that the conveyer does not have the title over the same, specific declaration that the document is invalid would not be necessary. (Para 18) Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan v. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Marumakkathayam Law

Property acquired by a woman and her children post-partition does not become their separate property but remains part of the tharwad (joint property). Property held by the female without a legal heir after partition would be her separate property and not tharwad property. Ramachandran & Ors. v. Vijayan & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 913

Mohammedan Law

Partition – Gift – Partition of a property via gift deed during an owner's lifetime cannot be validated under Mohammedan Law. The concept of partition is not recognized under Mohammedan Law, and thus, a 'partition of property' through a gift deed cannot be upheld as valid due to the absence of a clear and unequivocal 'declaration' by the donor of the intention to make a gift. The registration of gifts (Hiba) is not required under Mohammedan Law. If valid requisites of the gift (declaration, acceptance, and possession) are fulfilled, then the validity of the gift cannot be affected even if it remains unregistered. Mansoor Saheb (Dead) & Ors. v. Salima (D) By Lrs. & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1023

Other Supreme Court Annual Round-up stories can be read here.