Existing User Account
Gift Premium
Subscribe Premium

Family Law: All India Annual Digest 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

25 Jan 2025 4:30 AM

    • Family Law: All India Annual Digest 2024

    SUPREME COURT CustodyCustody 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...

    SUPREME COURT 

    Custody

    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

    HIGH COURTS

    ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    'They Aren't Supposed To Be Beneficiary Of Dowry Demand': Allahabad HC Grants Relief to Sisters-In-Law Implicated In 498A IPC Case

    Case title - Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 3

    In a criminal proceeding initiated at the instance of a wife against her sisters-in-law (accused) for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Allahabad High Court granted relief to the accused as it noted that they are not supposed to be beneficiary of any demand of dowry.

    A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus while allowing a revision plea challenging the order of an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Gorakhpur rejecting the discharge application of the accused (sisters-in-law) filed under Section 245 CrPC.

    “The court below, while dismissing the discharge application has failed to notice the role of the revisionists and the probability of their false implication, as these are married sisters-in-law of the complainant who are stated to have been living at far away place during the period when offence of matrimonial cruelty and demand of dowry was practised against the complainant,” the Court noted as it directed the Magistrate to consider their discharge plea afresh.

    Anyone Including Victims, Eyewitnesses Or Cops Having Knowledge Of Commission Of Cognizable Offence Can Lodge FIR: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Ajay Rai vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 15

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 15

    Reading Sections 154 & 155 of CrPC conjointly, the Allahabad High Court has observed that anyone possessing knowledge about the commission of a cognizable offence has the authority to file an FIR.

    This includes not only the victim or an eyewitness but also any person who becomes cognizant of the offence, extending even to police officers themselves, the Court added.

    “The universality of the authority to lodge an F.I.R. is a foundational principle ensuring that the criminal justice system remains accessible to those with information about potential criminal acts. This inclusivity empowers informants comprising victims, eyewitnesses, and even law enforcement officers to initiate the process, fostering a collaborative and comprehensive approach to crime reporting,” a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vinod Diwakar observed.

    Stray Remark Calling Complainant 'Mad' May Be Rude But It Doesn't Constitute Offence U/s 504 IPC: Allahabad High Court

    Case title - Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 16

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 16

    The Allahabad High Court observed that a stray statement made by any person by calling someone 'mad', may be inappropriate, improper and rude, however, the same doesn't constitute an offence under Section 504 Indian Penal Code(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace).

    A bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus while setting aside an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning the petitioner, in a complaint case, for an offence under Section 504 IPC for allegedly calling the complainant a 'mad person'.

    “…it appears that it was a stray statement made in a careless manner, not intending that it may provoke a person to break the public peace or commit any other offence. Even if, for the sake of argument, uttering of such words are taken as intentional insult however in my opinion the same cannot be construed as of such degree so as to provoke any person to cause breach of peace,” the Court remarked.

    Prolonged Separation From Spouse Without Cause Itself Cruelty U/S 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Charu Chug Alias Charu Arora v. Madhukar Chugh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 177 of 2017]

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 36

    The Allahabad High Court has upheld the divorce granted by the Court below to a couple living separately for almost 13 years.

    In the divorce petition filed by the husband, the Court below had decided the issue of dissertation against him. However, divorce was granted on grounds of mental cruelty inflicted by the wife on the husband.

    The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that cruelty need not only be physical in nature. In case of mental cruelty, it may be impossible for the spouse to continue in the martial relationship.

    Writ Of Habeas Corpus At Husband's Behest Seeking Wife's Return Not Available As A Matter Of Course: Allahabad High Court

    Case title - Jaishree and Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 39 [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1041 of 2023]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 39

    In an important assertion, the Allahabad High Court said that given the other remedies available for the purpose, under criminal and civil law, the exigence of a writ of habeas corpus at the behest of a husband to regain his wife would be rare and may not be available as a matter of course.

    A bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava emphasized that such a writ may not be readily available and should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances when a compelling case is presented.

    “In a situation where the husband seeks to assert that the wife, without reasonable cause, is refusing to return to her matrimonial home, it would be open for him to seek the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,” the Court added.

    Husband Bound To Maintain Wife Despite Lack Of Income, He Can Earn ₹350-400 Per Day As An Unskilled Worker: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Kamal vs. State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 46

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 46

    The Allahabad High Court observed that a husband is duty-bound to provide maintenance to his wife u/s 125 CrPC even if has no income from his job and he can earn Rs. 350-400 per day as an unskilled labour.

    A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805 wherein it was held that a husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.

    Hindu Marriage Act | Plea To Declare Marriage Void U/S 11 Can't Be Judged On Grounds Of Voidable Marriage U/S 12: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Km. Ankita Devi vs. Shri Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 58 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1391 of 2023]

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 58

    The Allahabad High Court has held that grounds under Section 11 (Void Marriages) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 are very different from grounds under Section 12 (Voidable Marriages) and thus, a petition filed under Section 11 of the Act cannot be judged on grounds other than those mentioned in Section 11.

    The Court held that a marriage performed in contravention of Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Act is void and cannot be cured or ratified. However, in case of a voidable marriage, declaration is necessary, otherwise the marriage continues to subsist.

    The bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,

    “Needless to point out that a void marriage is regarded as non-existent or as never having taken place and such declaration that the marriage is void ab initio can be sought under Section 11 of the Act on the grounds as provided therein whereas a voidable marriage is regarded as valid and subsisting unless a competent Court annuls it until the decree of nullity is obtained in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act. Unless the decree is granted, the lis remains binding and continues to subsist.”

    Live-In Relation Of A Married Muslim Woman With Another Man Is 'Haram' & 'Zina' As Per Shariat: Allahabad HC Dismisses Protection Plea

    Case title - Saleha And Another vs. State Of UP And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 130

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 130

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that a legally wedded Muslim wife can not go outside marriage and her live-in relationship with another man would be 'Zina' (fornication) and 'Haram' (act forbidden by Allah) as per the Shariat Law.

    A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal asserted thus while rejecting a protection plea filed by a married Muslim woman and her Hindu live-in partner fearing for her life against her father and other relatives. The Court added that the 'criminal act' of the woman "cannot be supported and protected" by the Court.

    Hindu Marriage Can't Be Dissolved By Unilateral Declaration Executed On A Stamp Paper: Allahabad High Court

    Case title - Vinod Kumar @ Sant Ram vs. Shiv Rani 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 150

    The Allahabad High Court has held that a marriage between two Hindus can be dissolved only by modes recognized by the Hindu Marriage Act and that it can't be dissolved by a unilateral declaration executed on a stamp paper.

    A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while dealing with a Criminal Revision plea filed by a Husband challenging the order of the family court directing him to pay Rs. 2200/- per month as maintenance to his wife-respondent in the plea moved by her under Section 125 CrPC.

    'Supporting Such Relations Will Create Chaos In Society': Allahabad HC Junks Protection Plea Of Live-In Couple Involving Married Adults

    Case title - Pooja Kumari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 156

    The Allahabad High Court rejected a protection plea filed by a couple cohabiting with each other without divorcing their spouses, imposing a fine of 2K. The court emphasized that if such type of relationship gets the support of the Court, it will create chaos in society and destroy our country's social fabric.

    "The Court cannot support such type of relationship which are in contravention of law. As per the Hindu Marriage Act, if spouse of a person is alive or before obtaining decree of divorce, a person cannot get married with another person," a bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed as it dismissed the protection plea.

    A Person Can't Be In An Illicit & Live-In Relationship As Per Hindu Law If His/Her Spouse Is Alive: Allahabad High Court

    Case title - Raksha And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158 [WRIT - C No. - 1546 of 2024]

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 158

    The Allahabad High Court has held that as per the Hindu Law, a person having a spouse alive cannot live in an illicit and live-in relationship in contravention of the provisions of the law.

    A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed thus while dismissing a protection plea filed by a live-in relationship couple cohabiting with each other without divorcing their spouses.

    "The court could not protect such type of relationship which is not supported by law. If the court indulges in such type of cases and grants protection to illegal relationship, then it will create chaos in the society, hence such type of relationship cannot be supported by the Court," the court observed as it emphasised that such relationship cannot be supported by the orders of the Court.

    Personal Loan EMI A Part Of Husband's Net Monthly Income For Purposes Of Determining Maintenance Payable To Wife U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Rakhi @ Rekha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 163

    The Allahabad High Court observed that while determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under section 125 CrPC, the payment made by the Husband towards the monthly instalment of personal loan has to be added to his net monthly income.

    The bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I added that merely on the ground that a wife is a BA degree holder and has done some professional course, no presumption can be drawn that she is earning sufficient money to maintain herself.

    Marriage Between Hindus Cannot Be Dissolved By Compromise In Proceedings U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Rajni Rani vs. State Of Up And 10 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 56 of 2024]

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 168

    The Allahabad High Court has held that a legal marriage between two Hindus cannot be dissolved by way of a compromise entered into at the time of proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The Court held that any such marriage can only be dissolved by a decree passed a competent Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

    The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held

    “The marriage between the parties since are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the only manner in which such marriage can be dissolved is by passing of an appropriate decree by the competent court in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1955.”

    Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act | Adult Head Doesn't Require Court Permission To Sell Minor's Undivided Interest In Joint Family Property: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Smt Preeti Arora v. Subhash Chandra Arora And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 172 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 272 of 2024]

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 172

    The Allahabad High Court has held that on a combined reading of Sections 6, 8 and 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 no permission of the Court is needed by the adult head of Hindu family for disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in joint family property.

    Section 6 of the Act provides that for a Hindu minor and the minor's property (excluding their undivided interest in joint family property), the father shall be the natural guardian and after him the mother is the natural guardian.

    Compassionate Appointment | Daughter-In-Law Supposed To Be Treated Like Daughter In India, Integral Part Of Family: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Vibha Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 192 [WRIT - A No. - 5017 of 2023]

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 192

    The Allahabad High Court has granted compassionate appointment to daughter-in-law as the son of the deceased was suffering from 75% disability. The Court held that daughter-in-law is an integral part of the family and is supposed to be treated like a daughter.

    The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,

    “As per the custom of Indian Society, daughter-in-law is also supposed to be treated as a daughter as she is also an integral part of the family. The main purpose of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependents of a deceased government servant is to relieve the family from distress and destitution on account of death of sole bread earner of the family.”

    Husband Can't Claim Deduction Of Insurance Premium, Loan EMI From Gross Salary For Determination Of Maintenance Amount U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Rana Pratap Singh vs. Neetu Singh And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1762 of 2023]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 203

    The Allahabad High Court held that while determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under section 125 CrPC, a husband cannot seek deductions for payments towards LIC premiums, home loans, land purchase loan instalments, or insurance policy premiums from his salary.

    Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Dr Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Rajkumari 1970, a bench of Justice Surendra Singh-I observed that only compulsory statutory deductions as income tax can be reduced from the gross salary of the husband while determining maintenance amount.

    'Second Wife' Can't Maintain Complaint Against 'Husband' U/S 498A IPC; 'Dowry Prohibition Act' May Get Attracted In Such Cases: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Akhilesh Keshari And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38288 of 2023]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208

    The Allahabad High Court has held that a complaint under Section 498-A (for the offence of cruelty) of the IPC is not maintainable against a husband at the instance of a 'second wife', however, in such cases, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 may get attracted if there is a demand of dowry.

    “…for the dowry, the performance of marriage is not necessary, and even a marriage contract is sufficient. If a male and female contracted for marriage and cohabiting together and the male partner makes any dowry demand from the female partner, then ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are attracted,” ruled a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal.

    S.23(1)(B) Hindu Marriage Act | Divorce Petition Can't Be Dismissed If Acts Of Cruelty Once Condoned By Spouse Are Repeated: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Richa Mumgaie vs. Harendra Prasad 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 215 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 245 of 2024]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 215

    The Allahabad High Court has held that divorce petition cannot be dismissed under Section 23 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 if acts of cruelty which were once condoned by the spouse are repeated.

    The Court held that merely because in the petition it was stated that the husband had condoned the adultery and lived with the wife, it cannot be said that subsequent adultery by the wife was condoned. The Court held that one paragraph of the petition cannot be read in isolation to the other averments made in the divorce petition. Since the wife had continued her relationship outside of marriage, the Court held that there was cause of action for filing the divorce petition.

    'Kanyadan' Ceremony Not Essential For Solemnization Of A Marriage As Per Hindu Marriage Act: Allahabad High Court

    Case title - Ashutosh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 216 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 296 of 2024]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 216

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that the ceremony of Kanyadan is not essential for the solemnization of a Hindu marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act.

    "Thus, Hindu Marriage Act merely provides saptpadi as an essential ceremony of a Hindu marriage and it does not provide that the ceremony of kanyadan is essential for solemnization of a Hindu marriage," a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed.

    Wife Who Waived Right To Claim Maintenance At Time Of Divorce By Mutual Consent Not Entitled To It Later: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Gaurav Mehta vs. Anamika Chopra along with a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 218 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4152 of 2023]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 218

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that if a woman waives off her right to claim maintenance from her husband at the time of divorce by mutual consent, she cannot later demand the same.

    A bench of Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit opined thus while ALLOWING a revision plea moved by a husband challenging an order of the Family Court passed in a plea moved by his wife under Section 125 CrPC directing him to pay Rs.25K per month as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife.

    '25% Of Monthly Pension As Maintenance To Wife Not Excessive': Allahabad HC Dismisses Husband's Revision Plea

    Case Title: Matapher vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 221 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3032 of 2023]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 221

    While treating the pension as the monthly income of the husband, the Allahabad High Court has held that awarding 25% of the monthly income of the husband as maintenance is not excessive.

    The Court relied on Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari where the Supreme Court held that

    “25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance allowance to the wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband to make the payment.”

    Habeas Corpus Plea For Visitation Rights Ordinarily Not Maintainable Where Husband-Wife Dispute Pending In Family Court: Allahabad HC

    Case title – Mithilesh Maurya And Another Vs. State Of Up And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 265

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 265

    The Allahabad High Court held that a habeas Corpus writ would not ordinarily be issued to grant visitation rights, particularly when proceedings between the parties are pending before the Family Court.

    “A writ of habeas corpus, as has been consistently held, though a writ of right is not to be issued as a matter of course, particularly when the writ is sought against a parent for the custody of a child,” a bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed as it dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by a father seeking visiting rights vis-à-vis his one-month-old child (presently in mother's custody).

    'Saptapadi' Ceremony Is An Essential Ingredient To Constitute A Valid Hindu Marriage: Allahabad High Court

    Case title - Nisha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 283

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 283

    The Allahabad High Court observed that the Saptapadi ceremony ((taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire)) is one of the essential ingredients of a valid marriage under Hindu law.

    With this, the bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary allowed a petition filed by one Nisha challenging the summoning order and further proceedings in a case under Sections 494 (Bigamy) IPC.

    Divorced Daughter Not Entitled To Compassionate Appointment Unless Divorce & Dependency On Father Is Proven: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Akhtari Khatoon v. State of U.P. and Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 13833 of 2023]

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 307

    The Allahabad High Court has held that unless a divorced daughter can establish that she was dependent on her father before his demise, she would not be entitled to a compassionate appointment post his demise. The Court held that the divorced daughter must also prove the factum of divorce before the authorities while seeking compassionate appointment.

    “Likewise, if on the date of demise of the employee in harness, it can be shown that a married daughter is dependent upon him, or his widow and minor family members could be taken care of by the married daughter, if granted compassionate appointment, it may be a case for considering the claim and judging the validity of the prohibitive rule,” held Justice J.J. Munir.

    Maintenance Orders U/S 125 CrPC Can Be Recalled U/S 127; Bar U/S 362 CrPC Not Applicable In Such Cases: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Rajkumar vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 316 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10290 of 2019]

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 316

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that an order passed under Section 125 CrPC may be final or interim and can be recalled or altered under Section 127 CrPC. Therefore, a bar of Section 362 CrPC is not applicable in such cases.

    Perusing the mandate of Section 362 CrPC, a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that if any provision is provided under CrPC that permits the recall or alteration of the judgement or final order, then the bar u/s 362 CrPC will not apply to those provisions, as is the case with Section 125 CrPC.

    [S.9 Guardians And Wards Act] “Ordinary Residence” Not Temporary Residence Of Minor When Application For Custody Filed: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Dheeraj vs. Smt. Chetna Goswami 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 321 [First Appeal No. 373 of 2024]

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 321

    The Allahabad High Court has held that “ordinary residence” of minor under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 will not include the temporary residence where the minor may have moved temporarily, even for education, at the time of filing of application for custody under the Act.

    Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 provides that application regarding guardianship of the person of the minor shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9 provide the jurisdiction when application is sought to be made for the property of the minor.

    Remedies Sought Under Domestic Violence Act Of Civil Nature, Amendment To Application U/S 12 Are Allowed: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Saleem Ahmad vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 361 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 339 of 2024]

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 361

    The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Chapter IV of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are civil in nature and amendments to applications made to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act are allowed to be made.

    “The proceedings before the Magistrate relating to reliefs claimed under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act, having been held essentially to be of a civil nature, the power to amend the complain/application would have to be read in relevant statutory provisions, as a necessary concomitant,” held Justice Dr.Yogendra Kumar Srivastava.

    Giving Dowry An Offence But Bride & Family Admittedly Defy This Law And Go Unpunished Because Of Bar In Law, Alarming: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Ankit Singh And 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 363 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10631 of 2024]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 363

    The Allahabad High Court has elucidated on provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 and observed that groom and his family are being prosecuted under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 merely based on the statements made by the bride and her family. However, due to the bar under Section 7(3), no action is being taken against the bride and her family for giving the dowry which is also an offence under Section 3 of the Act.

    Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.”

    S.11 Hindu Marriage Act | Parents Of Husband Can Contest Proceedings For Declaring Marriage Void After His Death: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Shatakshi Mishra v. Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 373 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 394 of 2024]

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 373

    The Allahabad High Court has held that after the death of the husband who had filed for declaration (of marriage as void) under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, his parents have a right to pursue the proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC as such matrimonial disputes include questions of inheritance.

    While hearing an appeal filed by the wife against the order of the Family Court, the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,

    “the Legal Representative who is not "either of the parties" and was not one of the spouse to the marriage in question can pursue the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act that marriage should be declared void and therefore, their application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC would be maintainable.”

    S.13 Hindu Marriage Act | Once Finding Of Cruelty Recorded, Divorce To Be Granted Irrespective Of Proof Of Desertion: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Dr. Bijoy Kundu v. Smt. Piu Kundu 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 374 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 31 of 2021]

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 374

    The Allahabad High Court has held that once the finding regarding cruelty has been recorded by the Family Court, marriage between the parties ought to be dissolved. The Court held that only because desertion is not proved, the marriage cannot be restituted.

    The Court held that the grounds of divorce provided in Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act are mutually exclusive and if any one of the grounds is made out, the divorce ought to be granted. It held that use of the word 'or' after each ground makes them disjunctive.

    [Matrimonial Dispute] Allahabad HC Orders Forensic Examination Of CDs Filed By Husband Alleging Wife's Involvement In Pornography

    Case title - Shiv Ram vs. Smt.Pinki And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 379

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 379

    The Allahabad High Court directed a forensic examination of CDs/DVDs submitted by the husband, which allegedly contain sexual videos implicating his wife.

    The husband seeks to present this evidence supporting his suit for divorce filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and a case under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for the custody of his two minor daughters.

    Petition U/S 483 CrPC Seeking Direction To Family Court For Expeditious Disposal Of S. 125 CrPC Plea Is Maintainable: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Shiva Pankaj And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 385

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 385

    The Allahabad High Court has held that an application filed under Section 483 CrPC seeking a direction to the Family Court to expedite the disposal of an application under Section 125 CrPC, would be maintainable.

    A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi clarified that while deciding an application under Section 125 CrPC, the Family Court exercises the jurisdiction of a magistrate. Therefore, a Section 483 CrPC application seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of an application under Section 125 CrPC would be maintainable.

    Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Man Who Secretly Took Daughter's Blood Sample For Private DNA Test To Deny Paternity, Avoid Maintenance

    Case title - Dr. Ifraq @ Mohammad Ifraq Husain vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 410

    The Allahabad High Court denied relief to a man, a doctor by profession, who secretly took his daughter's blood sample for a private DNA test to challenge her paternity, avoid paying maintenance to her and to show that her wife was living in adultery.

    Calling the said DNA report obtained by the applicant “nothing but trash”, which cannot be relied upon, a bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi dismissed the man's plea to order a fresh DNA test of the applicant and his daughters.

    “Child's Natural Right To Know And Meet His Parents Is Near Perfect”: Allahabad High Court Upholds Visitation Rights Of Father

    Case Title: Priyanka Agarwal v. Abhishek Agarwal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 420 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 576 of 2024]

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 420

    The Allahabad High Court has held that a child has the right to know and meet his parents, including the father during the pendency of the custody case before the Trial Court.

    The mother approached the High Court against the order of Family Court allowing the father to meet their son on one Sunday of every month in a public place for three hours. The mother challenged the order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Additional Principal Judge.

    Marriage Not Presumed To Be Irretrievably Broken Down When There Is Long Separation; Voluntary Desertion, Other Factors Necessary: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Singh v. Rani Singh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 153 of 2016]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 422

    The Allahabad High Court has held that marriage cannot be presumed irretrievably broken down just because there has been a long separation period between the parties. It has been held that voluntary desertion along with other circumstances need to be seen to conclude that divorce can be granted on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

    The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that

    “The decisions of the Supreme Court do not lay down a rule of thumb that the marriage may be presumed to be irretrievably broken down if the parties have suffered separation for any length of time. Only where one of the parties is seen to have voluntarily deserted the other and parties have continued in that status for long period of time then in view of the other attending circumstances as may indicate to the Court that there is no substance in the marriage, a conclusion may be reached that the marriage has been irretrievably broken down.”

    Mere Allegation Of Wife Ousting Husband From Matrimonial Home Not Enough To Show Desertion, He Must Show Attempts To Get Back: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Vipin Kumar Agrawal vs. Smt. Manisha Agrawal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 426 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 181 of 2019]

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 426

    The Allahabad High Court has held that a mere allegation of the wife ousting the husband from the matrimonial home is not sufficient to show 'desertion' by her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court held that the husband must show that he tried to return to the house.

    The bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held,

    “Except for making allegations that the respondent declared that she shall alone stay in the house, nothing has been indicated with regard to efforts made by the appellant to get back in the matrimonial home and in those circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been desertion on the part of respondent so as to bring the case within the ambit of Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act.”

    In A First, Allahabad HC Delivers Judgment In English, Hindi & Sanskrit, Says Interim Maintenance Order Can't Be Enforced In S. 482 CrPC Plea

    Case title - Kanchan Rawat And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 433

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 433

    The Allahabad High Court made history by delivering its judgment in three languages—English, Hindi, and Sanskrit—the first time this has been done by a High Court.

    A bench of Justice Shiv Shankar Prasad authored the judgment in the three languages mentioned above concerning the maintainability of Section 482 CrPC petition seeking enforcement of an interim maintenance order made u/s 125 CrPC.

    The single judge wrote a Single judgment in three languages merged into a single document.

    Hindu Marriage Not Proven By Mere Certificate Of Arya Samaj/ Registrar, Must Show Saptapadi Or Other Rites: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Shruti Agnihotri vs. Anand Kumar Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 436 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 239 of 2023]

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 436

    The Allahabad High Court has held that marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir or the Registrar of Hindu Marriages does not by itself prove marriage between parties. It was held that the one claiming the factum of marriage must produce evidence/ witnesses showing that Saptapadi and other rites and customs of Hindu marriage under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were performed.

    Unrebutted Evidence Of Minor Daughter Substantiating Allegations Of Cruelty Meted Out To Mother Sufficient To Grant Divorce: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Manjusha Servesh Joshi vs. Sarvesh Kumar Joshi 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 448 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 472 of 2018]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 448

    The Allahabad High Court has held that unrebutted evidence of minor daughter substantiating allegations of cruelty made by the mother sufficient ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

    Parties got married in 1999 and had two children in 2000 and 2003, respectively. Before the Family Court, it was established that the parties cohabited till 2011. While living in South Africa, the respondent is said to have assaulted the appellant. Appellant also alleged adultery. Though appellant did not want to go back to South Africa, respondent persuaded her to come with him. Once the appellant returned to South Africa with her kids, it is alleged that the cruel behaviour continued.

    Property Where Accused Resides But Does Not Own, Including Rented Premises, Can't Be Attached U/S 83 CrPC: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Faiyaz Abbas vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 449 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 194 of 2024]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 449

    The Allahabad High Court recently clarified that under Section 83 of the CrPC CrPC, only property directly belonging to an accused or owned by him can be attached.

    The court emphasized that properties where the accused resides but does not own, such as rented residences, are excluded from such attachments.

    With this observation, a bench of Justice Abdul Moin set aside an order passed by the Court under 83 CrPC, in which the property belonging to the father of the accused booked under the POCSO Act was attached.

    Police Station Not Suitable Place For Child's Visitation, No Need To Increase Emotional Burden During Parents' Stressed Marriage: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Laxmi Prakash vs. Pooja Gangwar 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 463 [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 314 of 2024]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 463

    While modifying the order the Family Court, the Allahabad High Court observed that a police station is not a place for child visitation as the transactions happing in a police station may add to the emotional stress of parents separating.

    Appeal was filed against the order the Family Court allowing visitation rights at a police station.

    The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed that

    “A police station can never be described as an appropriate place where visitation right may be allowed. Visit by any child to a police station may not be a desirable event in his life. Unwittingly, he may become witness to occurrences and transactions that may not be conducive for his upbringing. He may be confronted with different sights which may not be pleasant to a child's mind.”

    Petition U/S 482 CrPC Not Maintainable For Challenging Proceedings U/S 12 Domestic Violence Act: Allahabad High Court

    Case title - Suman Mishra vs. The State Of U.P And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 481

    Case title - 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 481

    The Allahabad High Court has said that a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 (DV Act) is not maintainable.

    A bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla held thus, heavily relying upon the rulings of the Supreme Court (in Kamatchi vs Laxmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370) and the Madras High Court (in Arul Daniel vs Suganya and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 467).

    Failure To Cohabit For A Year After Decree Of Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Entitles Decree Holder To Dissolution Of Marriage: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Smt. Maya Devi v. Bhura Lal [FIRST APPEAL No. - 808 of 2003]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 490

    While upholding a decree of dissolution of marriage for a couple who had lived separately for 40 years, the Allahabad High Court held that even if the husband had sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, upon failure to cohabit for a period of one year after the grant of such decree, the husband could seek dissolution of marriage.

    Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for the grant of divorce if there has been no cohabitation after one year or upwards after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

    S.19 HMA | Family Court Can Only Decline Jurisdiction Upon Objection Of Opposite Party Or On Transfer Order By Superior Court: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Vinay Kumar v. Suman 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 706 of 2024]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 500

    The Allahabad High Court has held that if Family Courts at two places have concurrent jurisdiction over divorce proceedings, one of them can only decline entertaining such petition on grounds of jurisdiction if specific objection is pressed by the other side or an order transferring the proceedings has been passed by a superior court.

    Oral Gift Under Mohammedan Law Reduced In Writing On Unregistered Document Cannot Be Subjected To S.47A Of Indian Stamp Act: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Sahas Degree College Thru Secretary Nadeem Hasan v. State Of U.P. Thru District Magistrate J.P. Nagar And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 506 [WRIT - C No. - 41137 of 2010]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 506

    The Allahabad High Court has held that oral gift under the Mohammedan Law which is reduced in writing on an unregistered document cannot be subjected to proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

    Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act empowers the Collector to initiate proceedings for deficiency in stamp duty on any instrument under the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A provides that where in any instrument presented for registration under the Registration Act, 1908, it is found that the market value mentioned is less than the value determined under the Stamp Act, such document shall be referred to the Collector. Thereafter, the Collector proceeds to determine the deficiency in stamp duty and penalty to be paid by the party as per the conditions set in Section 47-A.

    Hindu Father Bound To Maintain Unmarried Daughter As Per S. 20 HAM Act If She Is Unable To Maintain Herself: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Awadhesh Singh vs. State Of Up 2 Others and a connected matter 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 513

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 513

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, casts a statutory obligation on a Hindu man to maintain his daughter, who is unmarried and unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property.

    “Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is nothing but recognition of principles of Hindu Law regarding maintenance of children and aged parents. Section 20(3) now makes it statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property,” a bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam remarked.

    Courts May Not Look At Pay Package Of Parties Alone For Determining Alimony: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Smt.Kiran Gupta And Another v. Shree Ramji Gupta [FIRST APPEAL No. - 34 of 2009]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 529

    The Allahabad High Court has held that pay package alone must not be considered for determining the alimony to be awarded. Other circumstances like the duration of marriage, period of separation, remarriage of parties and further financial responsibilities must also be considered while determining the alimony amount.

    The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,

    “While money may always short to fulfill all human needs, the Courts may not look at the pay package of the parties alone to determine the amount of alimony that would be awarded.”

    When Husband Chooses To Live Away From His Parents, Wife's Failure In Taking Care Of Them Does Not Amount To Cruelty: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Jyotish Chandra Thapliyal vs. Smt. Deveshwari Thapliyal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 534 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 702 of 2008]

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 534

    The Allahabad High Court has held that when the husband choses to live away from his parent, mere failure in taking care of his parents does not amount to cruelty.

    Appellant-Husband approached the High Court against the rejection of the divorce petition by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad. Husband had filed for divorce alleging cruelty by the respondent-wife as she was not taking care of his parents.

    Abandoning Spouse Without Reason Cruelty, Constitutes Death Of Spirit & Soul Of Hindu Marriage: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Smt. Abhilasha Shroti vs. Rajendra Prasad Shroti 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 536 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 71 of 2012]

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 536

    The Allahabad High Court has held that leaving a spouse in a Hindu Marriage without any justifiable reason amounts to cruelty towards the spouse who has been left alone.

    The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,

    “A Hindu marriage is a sacrament and not just a social contract where one partner abandons the other without reason or just cause or existing or valid circumstance necessitating that conduct, the sacrament loses its soul and spirit, though it may continue to hold its external form and body. Thus to a third party the form may be visible and they may continue to visualize the marriage as exist at the same time to the spouse the sacrament may remain dead. That death of the spirit and soul of a Hindu marriage may constitute cruelty to the spouse who may be thus left alone devoid of not only physical company completely deprived of company of their spouse, at all planes of human existence.”

    Making Efforts For Reconciliation Isn't A Condition Precedent For Decreeing A Suit For Divorce: Allahabad High Court

    Case title - Saurabh Sachan vs. Garima Sachan 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 540

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 540

    The Allahabad High Court observed that making an effort for reconciliation is not a condition precedent for decreeing a suit for divorce and that the Family Court is merely required to satisfy itself whether any of the grounds mentioned in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are made out.

    The Court, however, added that if the Court prefers to examine the parties' conduct regarding reconciliation efforts, the conduct of both parties should be considered.

    S.24 HMA | Evidence For Maintenance Pendente Lite' Can Be Led At Application Stage, Does Not Have To Wait For Proceedings In Main Case: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Vineeta Verma v. Brajnesh Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 548 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 107 of 2024]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 548

    The Allahabad High Court has held that evidence for the purpose of deciding an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be led at the stage of deciding the application itself. The decision on the application need not wait for evidence to be led in the main case.

    Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that in proceedings under the Act if it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband has no separate income and needs expenses for the proceedings, the Court upon the application made by such party awards certain sums towards expenses. The income of the parties needs to be considered while awarding such expenses.

    Wife Declining To Cohabit With Husband By Forcing Him To Live In Separate Room Amounts To Cruelty: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Jitendra Kumar Srivastava v. Smt. Sweta Srivastava 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 550 [FIRST APPEAL No. - 32 of 2023]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 550

    The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that wife denying cohabitation to the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room amounts to cruelty and therefore, is a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

    The bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held,

    “Cohabitation is an essential part of a matrimonial relationship and if the wife declines to cohabit with the husband by forcing him to live in a separate room, she deprives him of his conjugal rights, which will have an adverse impact on his mental and physical well being and which will amount to both physical and mental cruelty. The plaintiff's allegation of being wrongfully deprived of his conjugal rights has not been controverted by the defendant-respondent and the same has been admitted by implication.”

    Burden To Prove Insanity Of Spouse Is On Party Seeking Dissolution Of Marriage On Grounds Of Such Insanity: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Shiv Sagar v. Smt. Poonam Devi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 455 of 2013]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 554

    The Allahabad High Court has held that in case dissolution of marriage is sought due to the insanity of a spouse, the spouse seeking dissolution of marriage must prove the existence of such insanity in the case of the other spouse.

    Marriage between the parties was solemnized in 2005 and they have lived separately since January 2012. Appellant-husband instituted a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging insanity and cruelty by the wife. Appellant provided medical test reports and prescriptions from Dr. S.B. Joshi as documentary evidence for proving their wife's alleged insanity. Respondent-wife provided her educational qualifications along with other documentary and oral evidence to show that she is well educated.

    Family Court Refused To Sever Ties Between Parties Living Separately For A Decade, Showed Disregard For Their Feelings & Emotions: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Apoorva Gupta @ Apoorva Kumar Gupta v. Vandana Gupta [FIRST APPEAL No. - 11 of 2023]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 556

    The Allahabad High Court has held that where there is long period of separation, a decade in this case, the Family Court cannot refuse to grant decree of divorce and disregard the emotions and feelings of the parties who are no longer affectionate towards each.

    The bench comprising of Justice Rajan Roy Singh and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held

    “By refusing to severe the tie between the plaintiff and the defendant, the Family Court has not served the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it has shown disregard for the feelings and emotions of the parties, which are not affectionate towards each other.”

    Not Mandatory For Widowed Daughter-In-Law To Live In Matrimonial Home To Claim Maintenance From Father-In-Law: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Shree Rajpati v. Smt. Bhuri Devi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 696 of 2013]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 557

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that agreeing to live in a matrimonial home is not a condition precedent for a widowed daughter-in-law to seek maintenance from her father-in-law. It was observed that a widowed woman choosing to live with her parents will not lead to the conclusion that she separated from her matrimonial home.

    The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed

    “it is not a mandatory condition of law that for a daughter-in-law to claim maintenance, she must first agree to live at her matrimonial home. In the societal context in which law must be applied, it is not uncommon for widowed ladies to live with her parents, for varied reasons and circumstances. Merely because the lady may have made that choice may neither lead us to the conclusion that she had separated from her matrimonial home without reasonable cause nor that she would have sufficient means to survive of her own.”

    No Spouse Expected To Continue Matrimonial Relationship At Risk Of Malicious Criminal Prosecution: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Basant Kumar Dwivedi v. Smt. Kanchan Dwivedi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 480 of 2010]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 558

    The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) a spouse cannot be expected to continue a matrimonial relationship at the risk of malicious criminal prosecution as it may lead to loss of dignity and reputation, apart from other consequences like being arrested.

    The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that

    “For the purpose of Section 13 of the Act, as amended by the U.P. Amendment, legally, no spouse whether male or female may be expected to continue in a matrimonial relationship at the risk of malicious criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecution certainly leads to loss of dignity and reputation, besides other consequences that may arise, if a person is arrested or tried for the offence alleged.”

    High Court Is Appellate Authority U/S 19 Family Courts Act, Doesn't Have Wide Powers To Dissolve Marriage Under Article 142: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Sarvesh Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Sarvesh Kumari Sharma [FIRST APPEAL No. - 715 of 2004]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 571

    While dismissing a divorce appeal, the Allahabad High Court has held that it does not possess power similar to that of the Supreme Court under Article 142 for dissolving marriages as it is only a court of appeal in terms of Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984.

    Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree/order which it may deem necessary “for doing complete justice” in any pending case before it. Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 provides for appeals against the order of the Family Court to the High Court, provided the order is not an interlocutory order.

    No Limitation U/S 7 Of Family Courts Act, 1984, For Filing Suit For Declaration Of Divorce: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Smt Hasina Bano v. Mohammad Ehsan [FIRST APPEAL No. - 495 of 2024]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 572

    The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no limitation under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for filing suit for declaration of divorce.

    Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides the jurisdiction of the Family Courts. Explanation (b) provides that a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person can be filed before the Family Court.

    Long Separation Coupled With Criminal Prosecution Without Any Desire To Retrieve Relationship Shows Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Smt. Arti Tiwari v. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari [FIRST APPEAL No. - 137 of 2011]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 574

    The Allahabad High Court has held that long separation coupled with criminal prosecution and harsh words without any desire to retrieve the matrimonial relationship shows an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

    While dealing with a matrimonial case of 21 years of separation, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held

    “Desertion suffered over long years in a young marriage, accompanied with harsh words spoken and complete lack of desire and effort on part of the deserting spouse to cohabit as also lodging of criminal case alleging demand of dowry only after institution of divorce case proceeding by the other spouse and pursuing it in appeal to secure conviction (after initial acquittal) does indicate in any case, the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down.”

    Decree Of Divorce Can Be Sustained If No Cohabitation Occurs Between Parties For A Year After Grant Of Judicial Separation: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Smt. Poonam v. Vinay Kumar Singh @ Pankaj [FIRST APPEAL No. - 37 of 2009]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 575

    The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 if no cohabitation occurs between the parties in the year after the decree of restitution of conjugal rights or decree of judicial separation, the decree of separation would be upheld.

    Parties married on 08.12.2001. Respondent-husband alleged that the appellant-wife deserted him in 2002. Since the appellant did not revive the matrimonial relationship between the parties, he initiated proceedings seeking restitution of his conjugal rights.

    Family Court Cannot Grant Divorce Based On Earlier Consent When It Is Later Withdrawn During Divorce Proceedings: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Smt. Pinki v. Pushpendra Kumar [FIRST APPEAL No. - 155 of 2011]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 579

    The Allahabad High Court has held that the Family Court cannot grant divorce based only on earlier consent given at the time of filing the divorce petition if the consent was withdrawn at a later stage in the divorce proceedings.

    Parties were married in 2006. After the appellant disserted her husband, he instituted the divorce proceedings on grounds of infertility attributable to appellant-wife. In her written statement, appellant disputed the fact, and the case was referred to mediation which failed.

    [Voidable Marriage] 'Material Fact' U/S 12 HMA Includes Any Fact Which If Disclosed Results In Either Parties Not Consenting To Marriage: High Court

    Case Title: X v. Y

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 582

    The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has said that a “material fact” for declaring a marriage voidable under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act would include any fact, which would be relevant to the consent given for a marriage and which if disclosed, would result in either of the parties not consenting to the marriage.

    It further said that such a material fact must pertain to the character of the person.

    [Divorce Law] Parties Staying Separately For Their Jobs Does Not Prove Desertion: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Arvind Singh Sengar v. Smt. Prabha Singh [FIRST APPEAL No. - 141 of 2014]

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 587

    The Allahabad High Court has held that parties staying separately for jobs does not prove desertion.

    The parties got married in 1999 and had a child in 2000. The husband was posted in Jhansi, whereas the wife was posted in Auraiya. Since the parties were living separately, the appellant-husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed ex-parte in 2004. Later when the ex-parte order was recalled at the instance of the respondent-wife in 2006. The appellant withdrew the proceedings and instituted divorce proceedings in 2007 alleging desertion and cruelty.

    The Court observed that the respondent-wife had led evidence regarding the husband visiting her when she was ill in June 2003 and going to her school for applying for medical leave thereafter. The Court held that the allegation that the respondent had deserted the appellant in June 2003 was rightly disbelieved by the Family Court.

    False Criminal Prosecution By Wife May Create Reasonable Apprehension Regarding Personal/ Family Safety, Constitutes Cruelty: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Smt. Tripti Singh v. Ajat Shatru [FIRST APPEAL No. - 251 of 2013]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 595

    The Allahabad High Court has held that false criminal prosecution case by wife against the husband and his family may create reasonable apprehension in mind of the husband regarding the safety of his family and himself if he were to stay in the matrimonial relationship.

    It was held that such false criminal prosecution is sufficient to constitute cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

    Matrimonial Dispute Remains Between Couple, No Impleadment Can Be Allowed In Divorce Proceedings U/S 13B Hindu Marriage Act: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Smt Kriti Goyal v. Dev Suman Goyal And 3 Others [FIRST APPEAL No. - 716 of 2024]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 602

    The Allahabad High Court has held that the divorce proceedings (matrimonial disputes) are only between the parties to the marriage, no third person can seek impleadment in proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

    The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,

    “Piquant as it may be, the impleadment sought may never be justified. A matrimonial dispute remains a dispute interse between the couple in question who may be finding difficulties in their matrimonial relationship. All other persons remain strangers to that dispute.”

    Where Will Spouses Go To Satisfy Their Sexual Urges If Not To Each Other In A Morally Civilized Society: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Pranjal Shukla And 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27067 of 2019]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 630

    While dealing with allegations regarding assault due to unmet demands of dowry, the Allahabad High Court observed that the allegation in the FIR against the husband arose from sexual incompatibility between the parties rather than any actual demand for dowry.

    “If man would not demand sexual favour from his own wife and vice-versa, where they will go to satisfy their physical sexual urges in a morally civilized society,” observed Justice Anish Kumar Gupta.

    Second Application U/S 125 CrPC Is Maintainable Even If First Plea Was Dismissed Sans Liberty To File Afresh: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Shankh Saxena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 634

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that a second application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC would be maintainable even though the first plea was dismissed without providing the liberty to file fresh.

    A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavani also added that a man's refusal to support his wife and children, whom he is bound to support under the law, would be covered under the maxim "de die in diem," which means "doing something every day” as it is his 'continuing duty'.

    Proceedings U/S 498A IPC By Second Wife Are Not Maintainable, Reiterates Allahabad High Court

    Case title – Maan Singh And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 635

    The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that proceedings under Section 498-A (for the offence of cruelty) of the IPC by the second wife are not maintainable.

    A bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed thus while relying upon the Top Court's rulings in the cases of Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P 2002, Shivakumar and others Vs. State and Allahabad High Court's recent decision in the case of Akhilesh Keshari And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208.

    Allahabad High Court Directs Centre, State To Frame Guidelines For Payment Of Maintenance Allowance To Estranged Spouses Of All Employees

    Case Title: Niraj Kumar Dhakre Alias Pintu v. Smt Karishma [FIRST APPEAL No. - 839 of 2024]

    Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 641

    The Allahabad High Court has directed the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training under the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India and Principal Secretary, Department of Appointment and Personnel, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to frame appropriate Rules/Norms/Guidelines for the purpose payment of maintenance allowance to estranged spouses of their employees.

    In Multiple Matrimonial Proceedings, Plea Claiming Higher/ Highest Maintenance Must Be Decided First: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: X v. Y

    Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 643

    Referring to the Supreme Court's decision on multiple deductions towards maintenance amount, the Allahabad High Court has said that in matrimonial disputes if there are multiplicity of maintenance proceedings under different legislations, the plea claiming the highest maintenance must be decided first by the concerned court.

    The observation came in an army personnel's plea who claimed that though money was being directly deducted towards maintenance from his salary under an army order, however the wife had gone on to again seek maintenance under two separate proceedings–one under the Hindu Marriage Act and the other under the Domestic Violence Act. As this was allowed by the family court through two different orders, the man approached the high court.

    Allegations Of Adultery Against Wife To Be Decided Before Application For Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Dr. Virender Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6106 of 2023]

    Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 676

    The Allahabad High Court has held that allegations of adultery against wife must be decided before the application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

    Revisionist-husband approached the High Court against the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 7000/- to the respondent-wife under Section 125 CrPC. It was argued that the wife being adulterous was not entitled to any relief by virtue of Section 125(4) CrPC.

    S.14 HMA | Divorce Petition Within 1 Year Of Marriage Barred, Can Only Be Entertained In Case Of Exceptional Hardship: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Smt. Alka Saxena v. Sri Pankaj Saxena [FIRST APPEAL No. - 239 of 2015]

    Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 677

    The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bars presentation of a petition for divorce cannot be filed within a period of 1 year from the date of marriage and can only be entertained in case of exceptional hardship caused to the spouse.

    It was held that an application under Section 14 must be filed by the spouse seeking divorce within a year of marriage and the same must be allowed with reasons for entertaining divorce within 12 months of marriage.

    Denial Of Sex Must Sustain Over A 'Long Period' To Seek Dissolution Of Marriage On This Ground: Allahabad High Court

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 684

    The Allahabad High Court has ruled that to seek dissolution of marriage on the ground of denial of sexual intercourse, it must be demonstrated that this denial has been a consistent and ongoing issue over a prolonged period of time.

    A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh also added that the issue of what type of physical intimacy the parties may be able to maintain is not subject to judicial determination.

    S. 13 (1) (iii) HMA | Spouse's 'Schizophrenia' Alone Not Sufficient For Divorce, Requisite Degree Of Mental Disorder Must Be Proved: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Pawan Kumar Pandey vs. Sudha [FIRST APPEAL No. - 174 of 2023]

    Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 696

    The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that the ground of a spouse suffering from schizophrenia, by itself, is not sufficient for the grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as it must be proven that the 'mental disorder' if of such a kind and degree that a spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with partner.

    Noting that Section 13 (1) (iii) of HMA does not make the mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of a marriage, a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed thus:

    “The contest in which the ideas of unsoundness of mind and mental disorder occur in section as ground for dissolution of a marriage, require assessment of degree of mental disorder and its degree must be such that spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other.”

    Wives & Children Struggle To Face Matrimonial Proceedings Due To Financial Crisis, Husbands Exploit Their Situation: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Arun Pandey vs. Neha Pandey

    Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 705

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that in matrimonial proceedings, wives and children often face financial crises compared to husbands, as they have limited support from family or income and their situation is frequently exploited by husbands, which makes it difficult for them to face such proceedings.

    “In a matrimonial proceeding, the wife and children are pitted against the husband or the father, as the case may be and in most of the cases they are not on equal footing. Some gets financial support from their parents, brothers and sisters and also some work and earn, in exceptional cases. However, in all cases, the women and children are unable to face the onslaught of matrimonial proceedings because of their financial crisis, which tends to be exploited by the husbands,” a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed.

    Nominee Entitled To Bank Deposits After Account Holder's Death But Money Would Be Subject To Succession Laws: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. Union Of India And Another

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 708

    The Allahabad High Court has clarified that while a nominee has a right to obtain money from the bank after the account holder's death, the money received would be subject to succession laws, and the deceased's heirs would have a right to the said amount in accordance with the law.

    A bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit observed this while dealing with a writ plea filed by Manoj Kumar Sharma, who claimed that, as the nominee, he was entitled to receive the money from the Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of his late mother in accordance with Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 [Nomination for payment of depositors' money].

    Lucknow Bench Competent To Hear Transfer Pleas For Family Court Cases Falling Within Its Jurisdiction, Not Principal Bench: Allahabad HC

    Case title – Shivika Upadhayay vs. Pushpendra Trivedi

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 711

    The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the transfer applications concerning cases pending in Family Courts which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court must be filed before the Lucknow Bench itself, not the principal seat at Allahabad.

    A bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra emphasised that the Lucknow Bench is the appellate court competent to hear appeals against orders passed by Family Courts falling within its territorial jurisdiction, so transfer applications related to such matters would have to be filed before the Lucknow bench only and not before the principal seat at Allahabad, where such an appeal would be incompetent.

    'Widowed Daughter Falls Within Definition Of Dependent Family', Allahabad HC Directs Compassionate Appointment

    Case title - Punita Bhatt Alias Punita Dhawan vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl) New Delhi Thru. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And 3 Others

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 721

    A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justices Rajan Roy, and Om Prakash Shukla granted relief to a widowed daughter seeking appointment to the post her deceased father based on compassionate grounds.

    The Court held that even after marriage or widowhood, a woman would continue to be a daughter. Moreover, if she was widowed before the death of her father, she would for all legal and practical purposes be included in the definition of 'daughter', although widowed, on the date of her father's death.

    Allegations Of Wife Quarreling With Husband Not Sufficient To Show Acute Mental Agony: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: Dr. Bagish Kumar Mishra v. Rinki Mishra [FIRST APPEAL No. - 55 of 2021]

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 726

    The Allahabad High Court has held that allegations of wife quarreling with the husband are not sufficient to show acute mental agony suffered by him so as to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty.

    Observing that the allegations made by the husband against the wife inflicting cruelty on him were vague in nature, the bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held,

    “The allegations that she was quarreling with him without any reason, in the considered view of this Court, are not sufficient to form any opinion that the appellant/husband is undergoing acute mental pain, agony, suffering, disappointment and frustration and therefore it is not possible for him to live in the company of the respondent/wife.”

    Second Divorce Plea On Fresh Cause Of Action Of Cruelty After Dismissal Of First Plea Not Barred By Res Judicata: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: X v/s Y

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 729

    While hearing a case where a man had moved a second divorce plea after dismissal of the first divorce case, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court said that a second divorce petition filed on grounds of cruelty is maintainable where fresh cause of action arises after the dismissal of the first divorce petition.

    In doing so the court observed that the second divorce plea is not hit by the principle of res judicata.

    Impossible For A Middle-Class Woman To Have Even A Square Meal From Paltry Maintenance Amount Of ₹2.5K: Allahabad HC

    Case title - Shilpy Sharma vs. Rahul Sharma

    Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 762

    The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is almost impossible for a woman who belongs to a middle-class family to have even a square meal from the paltry amount of Rs.2500/-

    A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus while partly allowing a wife's criminal revision plea challenging an order passed by a Family court under Section 125 CrPC, directing her husband (opposite party) to grant her interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month.

    [Muslim Law] Court Obligated To Endorse Divorce By Muba'arat After Ascertaining Mutuality & Voluntariness Of Agreement: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Arshad Hussain v. Shahneela Nishat

    Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 766

    The Allahabad High Court granted a decree of divorce to a Muslim couple who had filed for divorce by mutual agreement through a Mubaarat.

    A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla referred to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Asbi K.N. v Hashim M.U. to hold that where the authenticity of the mutual nature of the Mubaarat had been verified, the Courts were not to investigate further and simply grant the divorce.

    While Eviction Under Senior Citizens Act Is Subject To Outcome Of Pending Suit, Protection Offered To Elders Shouldn't Be Defeated: Allahabad HC

    Case Title: Dinesh Ahuja @ Chinu and Anr. v. District Magistrate and 2 Ors. [WRIT - C No. - 33687 of 2021]

    Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 767

    The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of eviction sought under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 would be subject to the outcome of a suit pertaining to larger issues between the family members, if such suit is filed prior to the application made for eviction under the Act of 2007.

    The division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed that while the order for eviction was subject to the outcome of the previous suit, the protection granted under it must not be defeated.

    ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act | Divorced Woman Entitled To Maintenance Regardless Of Remarriage: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 4

    The Bombay High Court held that a Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance from her first husband after divorce under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (MWPA) despite remarrying.

    Justice Rajesh Patil observed that there is no condition under section 3(1)(a) of MWPA disentitling a Muslim woman from getting maintenance after remarriage. “The protection referred to in the MWPA is unconditional. Nowhere does the said Act intend to limit the protection that is due to the former-wife on the grounds of the remarriage of the former-wife. The essence of the Act is that a divorced woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance regardless of her remarriage. The fact of divorce between the husband and wife is in itself sufficient for the wife to claim maintenance under section 3 (1) (a)”, the court held.

    Husband Can't Deny Maintenance To Wife Just Because She Is Staying In Matrimonial Home : Bombay High Court

    Case Title: XXX v. XXXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 6

    The Bombay High Court held that a woman residing in the matrimonial home would also be entitled to maintenance to meet her basic expenses. The court dismissed a petition filed by a husband challenging the interim maintenance granted by a Family Court to his estranged wife and minor son.

    The Family Court had directed the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month to his wife and Rs. 10,000 for their 10-year-old son. Justice Neela Gokhale observed, “The mere fact that she is residing in the matrimonial home is not a pretext to disentitle her to a reasonable amount of maintenance. She still needs some amount towards food, medicine, clothes and educational expenses for the child.”

    Domestic Violence Complaint Maintainable Against Daughter-In-Law But Not Maintainable Against Her Father, Brother: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Zeba Mohasin Pathan @ Zeba Easak Pathan v. State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 7

    The Bombay High Court held that a complaint filed by a mother-in-law (MIL) against her daughter-in-law (DIL) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) is maintainable. However, it quashed the complaint against the daughter-in-law's father and brother.

    “While the object and purpose of the DV Act is to protect a woman from domestic violence, it does not confer a right on a mother-in-law to prosecute the father and brother of her daughter-in-law under the DV Act,” the judge observed.

    Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale partly allowed a petition filed by the DIL, her father and brother challenging a DV complaint filed by the woman's MIL before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koregaon, Satara.

    Merely Commenting About Lack Of Woman's Cooking Skills Not 'Cruelty' U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 20

    The Bombay High Court ruled that commenting that a woman doesn't know how to cook is not cruelty and would not constitute an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

    A division bench comprising Justice Anuja Prabhudessai and Justice N.R. Borkar quashed an FIR registered under section 498A against two brothers-in-law for allegedly commenting that the complainant did not know how to cook.

    The court observed that petty quarrels do not constitute 'cruelty' within the meaning of section 498A. To constitute an offence under this section, there must be prima facie material to prove willful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury, and that she was harassed to satisfy unlawful dowry demands.

    S.67 Succession Act | Testamentary Court In Probate Proceedings Can't Decide Whether Bequest Is Void Due To Beneficiary Being Witness's Spouse: Bombay HC

    Case Title: Cecilia Reynold D'souza & Ors. v. Ruby Cyril D'souza & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 43

    The Bombay High Court held that the issue of voidness of a bequest under Section 67 Indian Succession Act in a Will due to the beneficiary being the spouse of the witness is outside the jurisdiction of the Testamentary Court in proceedings for Probate of Will or Letters of Administration with Will annexed.

    Justice Manish Pitale rejected an application filed by the daughters of a deceased man seeking to add in a testamentary suit an additional issue pertaining to voiding the bequest to the son of the deceased as the daughter-in-law was the witness to the Will. The court said that this issue should be addressed in separate proceedings.

    Bombay High Court Annuls Adoption Of 3-Year-Old After Adoptive Parents Complain Of Bad Behaviour & Express Lack Of Bond With Child

    Case Title: Bal Asha Trust, Mumbai v. ABC

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 61

    The Bombay High Court annulled the adoption of a three-year-old boy after the adoptive parents complained of his uncontrollable bad behaviour and expressed a lack of bonding with the child.

    Justice RI Chagla directed CARA to re-register the child as 'Free for Adoption' to identify suitable prospective adoptive parents promptly. “I am of the considered view that it would be in the interest of the said male minor child that the adoption order dated 17th August 2023 is annulled and consequential reliefs sought for in the said Affidavit are granted”, the court said.

    Custody Battle: Bombay High Court Pulls Up Father For Making "Hollow Claims" Of Racial Discrimination Against Dutch Ex-Wife And In-Laws

    Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 70

    The Bombay High Court took strong exception to a lawyer's accusation of racial discrimination against his ex-wife and her Dutch family in a child custody case.

    The court allowed the woman to take her daughter back to Netherlands in accordance with orders previously issued by a Dutch Court and the father's undertaking to that court. A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Shyam Chandak held that the father's claims of racial discrimination against him and his five-year-old daughter were “completely hollow” and a “sham plea.”

    “India is undoubtedly known for its zero-tolerance policy towards racial discrimination. The Respondent No.2 (father), however, had the audacity to take the shelter of the defence of racial discrimination; that too against the Petitioner (mother), who once was his wife and spent considerable years with him.”

    Bombay High Court Quashes Judicial Officer's Cruelty FIR Against Husband And Relatives, Says It Is A Counterblast To Matrimonial Dispute

    Case Title: ABCD v. WXYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 81

    The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR filed by a judicial officer against her husband and in-laws alleging cruelty and other offences observing that the FIR was a counterblast to a matrimonial dispute between the couple.

    A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the delay in lodging the FIR along with the fact that the incidents described in the FIR do not constitute any of the offences invoked in the FIR shows that it was a counterblast in a matrimonial dispute.

    Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea By Deceased's Mother Against Legal Heirship Certificate To Son Of Deceased Excluding Her, Says He Wasn't ound To Disclose Her Pending Suit Claiming To Be A Legal Heir

    Case Title: Gitadevi Ramprakash Podar v. Pragnesh Narayan Podar and Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 86

    The Bombay High Court refused to revoke legal heir certificate granted to wife and children of a deceased man in a petition filed by a woman claiming to be his biological mother, who alleged that the son of the deceased suppressed her pending suit claiming to be a legal heir.

    Justice Manish Pitale observed that the son of the deceased while seeking dispensation of proclamation in proceedings for legal heirship certificate was not bound to disclose the petitioner's suit to the court as the suit has not yet been decided.

    The court observed that until the petitioner's claim of being a legal heir is accepted by the competent court, she cannot claim to be an heir of the deceased, and “there is no question of the petitioner making any claim, including a claim that proclamation should have been issued for her to oppose the grant of legal heirship certificate”.

    Married Sister-In-Law Who Frequently Visits House Not In Domestic Relationship With Complainant: Bombay High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case

    Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 87

    The Bombay High Court quashed a domestic violence case against a woman's married sister-in-law observing that the sister-in-law visiting frequently to the household of the complainant without any permanency is not sufficient to constitute residence in shared household.

    Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh allowed a writ petition filed by the sister-in-law challenging the order of the Sessions Court which overturned the decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate to dismiss the domestic violence complaint against her.

    “there was no subsisting domestic relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent No 1 and the Petitioner could not have been arrayed as Respondent in the D.V. application. The mere visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household. Even otherwise considering the pleadings in the applications read with the reliefs, there is no case of domestic violence made out qua the Petitioner”, the court held.

    S.125(3) CrPC | Magistrate Can't Order Imprisonment For More Than 12 Months' Default In Maintenance In A Single Application: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 109

    The Bombay High Court ordered the release of a man sentenced to simple imprisonment of 47 months for of default in payment of interim maintenance awarded to his wife and daughter in a domestic violence case.

    Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh observed that under section 125(3) CrPC, the power of the Magistrate to impose punishment of imprisonment for default is restricted to 12 months, as the proviso provides a limitation period of 12 months from the due date of payment.

    “Can't Render Wife Homeless For Senior Citizen In-Laws' Peace”: Bombay HC Stays Eviction Till Interim Decision On Shared Household Under DV Act

    Case Title: Sanjivani Jayesh Seernani v. Kavita Shyam Seernani & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 153

    The Bombay High Court stayed an order directing a daughter-in-law to vacate her matrimonial home under the Senior Citizens Act for six months until a Magistrate decides her interim application for residence under the Domestic Violence Act.

    Justice Sandeep Marne held that when there's a conflict between the rights of senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act and those of women under the Domestic Violence Act, a balanced approach is required and the rights of senior citizens cannot be determined in isolation.

    Domestic Violence | Court Can't Direct Parties To File Affidavit Of Assets & Liabilities In Appeal Against Final Trial Court Judgment: Bombay HC

    Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 165

    The Bombay High Court held that the appellate court cannot direct parties to file affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in proceedings challenging final judgment of the trial court in a domestic violence case.

    Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh clarified that such affidavits are only required at the interim stage for the purpose of deciding interim maintenance.

    [Domestic Violence Act] Bombay High Court Upholds ₹3 Crores Compensation For Woman Whose Husband Called Her “Second-Hand”

    Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 169

    The Bombay High Court upheld a trial court's order directing a man to pay Rs. 3 crores compensation to his ex-wife for various acts of domestic violence including calling her “Second Hand” as her engagement with another person was called off.

    Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh rejected the man's revision application against the orders observing – “Although the abuse will necessarily result in mental torture and emotional distress for the aggrieved person, the gravity will differ from person to person. In the present case admittedly both the parties are well educated and highly placed in their workplace and in social life. That being the social standing, the acts of domestic violence would be greater felt by the Respondent No 1 as it would affect her self worth”

    Reception Held In Mumbai Not Part Of Marriage Ritual: High Court Declines Mumbai Family Court's Jurisdiction Over Husband's Divorce Plea

    Case Title: Shikha Lodha v. Suketu Shah and Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 216

    Observing that reception can't be considered part of the marriage ritual, the Bombay High Court held that the family court in Mumbai had no jurisdiction over a divorce case just because the couple had the wedding reception in Mumbai and resided there for a few days.

    Justice Rajesh S Patil allowed a woman's application challenging Family Court Mumbai's jurisdiction over her husband's divorce petition observing that the couple's actual last place of joint residence is in the US. “Sec.19(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, nowhere mentions “last residing together in India”. In my view such words “in India”, can't be read in the sub-section (iii) of 19”, the court observed.

    Although Adultery Is Grounds For Divorce, It Can't Be A Ground To Deny Child's Custody: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 217

    The Bombay High Court held that adultery is a ground for divorce but cannot be a ground for denying custody of a child.

    Justice Rajesh Patil dismissed a writ petition filed by son of a former legislator seeking custody of his nine-year-old daughter from his estranged wife on grounds of adultery. “Adultery is in any case a ground for divorce, however the same can't be a ground for not granting custody”, the court observed.

    High Court Cannot Deprive Wife Of Her Right To Choose Appropriate Forum To Seek Maintenance: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: A vs P

    Citation: 2024 LivwLaw (Bom) 349

    The Bombay High Court held that it is the choice of a wife to file Domestic Violence proceedings seeking maintenance and reliefs either before a Magistrate Court or before a Family Court where the husband has already instituted divorce proceedings. Single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar further held that in such a scenario, the High Court should not entertain applications filed by the husband to transfer the proceedings before the Magistrate to the Family Court as it cannot deprive a wife of her right to choose an appropriate forum to seek maintenance.

    With these observations, the High Court had dismissed with Rs 10,000 costs, a miscellaneous application filed by a husband, who sought to transfer the DV proceedings initiated by his wife before a Magistrate Court in Sewree to the Family Court in Bandra, where he himself has instituted divorce proceedings against the wife.

    Husband Convicted For Causing Dowry Death Cannot Inherit Deceased Wife's Property Under Hindu Succession Act: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Pawan Jain vs Sejal Jain

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 364

    A husband convicted for causing the dowry death of his wife stands disqualified from inheriting the property of the deceased wife as provided under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Bombay High Court held. Single-judge Justice Nijamoodin Jamadar rejected the argument of the Testamentary Department which opined that a person convicted for causing dowry death (under section 304-B of the IPC) cannot be equated with a 'murderer' as prescribed under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, as the law only disqualifies a person convicted for murder (under section 302 of the IPC).

    The Court emphasised that Section 25 of the Act disqualified a person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder. This expression, it said, must be construed as to advance the object of the Act, which is to disallow devolution of property upon deceased's murderer.

    Allegations Of Ill-Treatment By Man Against His Family Members Cannot Come U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Darshan Kumar Vilayatiram Khanna vs State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 376

    In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that allegations of ill-treatment made by a man against his own family members will not fall within the ambit of section 498A (domestic violence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

    A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale noted that in the instant case, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by a woman along with her husband, against her in-laws.

    Asking Wife To Clean House And Show To In-Laws On Video Call Is "Sadist Ill-Treatment": Bombay HC While Refusing To Quash Cruelty FIR

    Case Details: Hardik Shah vs State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 390

    Asking a woman to clean the house and show the same on a WhatsApp video call to the in-laws is a sadist manner of ill-treatment, the Bombay High Court said recently while refusing to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed under section 498-A against five members of a family.

    Right To Seek Divorce Is 'Personal Right' Of Individual, Family Cannot Pursue Proceedings After Son's Death: Bombay High Court

    Case Details: Aniket Dhatrak vs Shalaka Dhatrak

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 395

    In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court held that the 'right to seek divorce' is a personal right of an individual and the same cannot be extended to the family members of a person, even after his or her death.

    A division bench of Justices Mangesh Patil and Shailesh Brahme delivered the judgment while dismissing an appeal filed by the mother and brothers of a Pune-based man, who sought to pursue the mutual consent divorce proceedings against the man's wife, after he died during the Covid19 outbreak.

    Keeping Mutual Divorce Proceedings Pending Causes Mental Agony: Bombay High Court Waives 6 Months Cooling Period, Dissolves Marriage

    Case Title: Sneha Akshay Garg & Anr. v. Nil

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 407

    A newly married couple, unable to reside together for various reasons, itself is mental agony, said the Bombay High Court recently, while holding that in cases where the wife and husband have agreed to mutual divorce and there being no scope for reconciliation, the mandatory six months cooling off period can be waived off.

    Single-judge Justice Gauri Godse dissolved a marriage between a couple after noting that the couple despite filing divorce by mutual consent, was compelled to undergo the mental agony of keeping the proceedings pending for further six months due to the cooling off period.

    S. 498A IPC | In-Laws Can't Be Booked Merely On Allegations That They Supported Husband Who Subjected Wife To Cruelty: Bombay HC

    Case Title: Samad Habib Mithani vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 1241 of 2014)

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 411

    The Bombay High Court recently held that merely because the complaint states that the in-laws supported the husband in subjecting her to cruelty would not mean that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande quashed a case of cruelty against four members of a family, all in-laws of a woman, who had lodged a section 498A complaint against them including her husband, in March 2014.

    Husband's Girlfriend Is Not His Relative, Cannot Be Booked For Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Vaishali Gawande vs State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 440

    In a significant order, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held that the girlfriend of a husband cannot be booked under charges of domestic violence or cruelty punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

    Mere Desire Of Child To Be With One Parent Is Not A Ground To Decide Custody Matters: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: MS vs HS

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 456

    In a significant order, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held that custody matters pertaining to a child cannot be decided merely on the basis of the 'desire' of the child of a tender age since there are possibilities of 'tutoring' the child. Single-judge Justice Kishore Sant upheld the May 9, 2024 judgment of a Family Court in Aurangabad, which granted custody of two minor boys of 2 and 5 years of age, to their mother. The bench refused to accept the contention of the father, who enjoyed the children's custody until May 2024, that the children 'desired' to stay with him and not with the mother.

    Any And Every Cruelty Or Harassment Of Wife Will Not Attract Section 498A Of IPC: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Namdeo Bansode vs State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 488

    The Bombay High Court on Monday (September 23) while acquitting a husband convicted for abetting the suicide of his wife by torturing her, held that section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not attract in any and every harassment or type of cruelty. Single-judge Justice Sanjay Mehare sitting at Aurangabad held that to convict a person under section 498A, the prosecution must establish 'continuous' harassment.

    Art.4(8) Law Of Divorce | Wife Refusing To Live With Husband And His Paramour Doesn't Mean She "Freely Consented" To Separation: Bombay HC

    Case Title: Arshad Khalifa vs Gulzar Khalifa

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 495

    A husband insisting a wife to live in the house where he lives with his paramour is a good enough reason for her to stay separately and this 'separation' cannot be regarded as the wife's 'free consent' to separation, to afford a ground to the husband to seek divorce under the Law of Divorce (Divorce Act, 1910), ruled the Bombay High Court at Goa, recently.

    Single-judge Justice Makarand Karanik noted that the husband in the instant case, claimed that his wife abandoned him and refused to join the conjugal relationship in May 1993, which was just within a year of their marriage, which was registered in November 1992. The judge noted from the material on record that the husband was living his another woman, with whom he had an affair even prior to his marriage with the respondent wife and has two sons from her.

    Bombay High Court Slaps Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Husband Who Opposed Wife's Plea To Transfer Divorce Proceedings Despite Her Hardships

    Case Title: S vs R

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 507

    The Bombay High Court recently came to the aide of a woman, who was being 'compelled' by her estranged husband to travel at least 8 hours along with her pre-term born now 15-months old son, to attend divorce proceedings and also slapped a fine of Rs 1 lakh on the husband in order to ameliorate her hardships.

    Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav noting the 'hardships' of the woman, transferred the divorce proceedings initiated by the husband at Vasai in Thane district to Bandra Family Court in Mumbai.

    Not Allowing Daughter-In-Law To Watch TV, Meet Neighbours, Go To Temple Alone & Making Her Sleep On Carpet Is Not Cruelty: Bombay High Court

    Case title: X v/s State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 578

    Quashing a 20-year-old order convicting a man and his family for cruelty towards his deceased wife, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court said that the allegations of taunting the deceased, not allowing her to watch TV, not allowing her to go alone to the temple and making her sleep on a carpet would not constitute the offence of cruelty under IPC Section 498A, as none of these actions were “severe.”

    A single judge bench of Justice Abhay S Waghwase observed that the nature of allegations would not constitute physical and mental cruelty as the allegations pertained to the domestic affairs of the house of accused.

    Daughter Has No Inheritance Right In Father's Properties If He Died Before 1956, Leaving Behind Daughter & Her Mother: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Radhabai Shirke vs Keshav Jadhav

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 584

    In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (November 12) held that a daughter will not have any limited or absolute right of inheritance in the properties of her father, if he has died prior to the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

    A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain answered a reference - Whether a daughter could acquire any right, either limited or absolute, by inheritance prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the property of her deceased father, who died prior to 1956, leaving behind him in addition to such daughter, his widow as well? - made by a single-judge, way back on February 28, 2007.

    In-Laws Keeping Young Child Away From Mother In Defiance Of Court Order Is Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Rekha Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 632

    In a significant ruling, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that keeping a minor child away from the mother in defiance of a court order would amount to mental harassment and cruelty.

    A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi refused to quash an FIR against the in-laws of a woman, after noting that her husband, the main accused, had been absconding. The bench noted that the husband had taken along with him, his four year old daughter, despite a clear order from a Family Court to hand over the child's custody to the complainant mother.

    CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

    Wife Making Allegations Of Mental Illness Against Husband's Mother Not 'Cruelty': Calcutta High Court Dismisses Plea For Marriage Dissolution

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 2

    Case: Gopal Ranjan Bandopadhyay @ Gopal Ranjan Banerjee v Smt. Manidipa Banerjee (Talukdar)

    The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed an appeal by a husband challenging the decision of the trial court which dismissed his prayer for dissolution of marriage with his wife, granting him a decree of judicial separation instead.

    The petitioner/husband had alleged that the wife had committed acts of 'mental cruelty' by alleging that the petitioner's mother had a mental illness, misbehaving with her in-laws, and had also deserted the petitioner by taking away their daughter and leaving the matrimonial home.

    A division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Madhuresh Prasad held:

    The issue of mental illness has not been established or proved with any material in the trial. Such allegation, per se cannot be viewed to constitute an act of mental cruelty. There is also nothing on record to show that the petitioner at any time prior to filing of the suit in question had objected to the respondent residing with her parents, or made any efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial home.

    Lodging False Case U/S 498A IPC Is An Element Of Cruelty By Wife, Cannot Ignore The Same: Calcutta High Court Allows Dissolution Of Marriage

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 3

    Case Name: Poulami Biswas v Shamik Biswas

    The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a wife making false allegations against her husband & his family members under section 498A of the IPC would constitute an element of the offence of cruelty, which is a ground for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).

    In allowing the husband's plea for dissolution of marriage, a division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Madhuresh Prasad held:

    Interestingly, the wife in her evidence categorically deposed that she initiated the proceeding under Section 498A/406 of the IPC on the advice of the learned Advocate. The said proceeding ended in an acquittal of all the accused named therein including the husband. Lodging a false criminal case under Section 498A/406 of the IPC is also one of the element of cruelty and, therefore, the Court cannot ignore the same while considering the appeal on merit.

    Collective Duty Of Husband & Wife To Wither Trivial Issues, Respect Each Other's Decisions & Create Congenial Atmosphere: Calcutta High Court

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 75

    Case: Dipanwita Das (Sarkar) Vs. Moloy Das

    The Calcutta High Court has allowed an appeal, dismissing an application for dissolution of marriage while holding that in matrimonial life it is the collective duty of a couple to create a congenial atmosphere.

    A division bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Madhuresh Prasad held that the Constitution recognises equality in gender and both partners must show mutual respect to each others' decision as it is the hallmark of society.

    Child Care Leave Should Be Given To Both Male And Female Govt Employees, Family Responsibilities Must Be Shared By Mother & Father: Calcutta HC

    Case: Md. Abu Raihan Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 184

    The Calcutta High Court has directed that the benefit of child care benefit must be extended to both male and female employees and family responsibilities must be shared by the mother and the father.

    In considering the case of a man who had two minor children and had lost his wife a few months ago, a single bench of Justice Amrita Sinha held:

    "It appears that time has come when the Government should treat its employees equally without any discrimination between the male and the female employees. The responsibility of maintaining a family should be shared equally both by the mother and the father. Natural guardian of a Hindu minor under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl is the father and after him the mother. The Government should take a decision to extend similar benefit to the male employees as has been done in the case of the females...to erase discrimination."

    [S. 498A IPC] Second Wife Not Guilty Of Cruelty Merely Because Husband Married Her During Lifetime Of First Wife: Calcutta High Court

    Case: Sagari Hembram -vs- State of West Bengal & another

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 250

    The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man's second wife, under various sections of the IPC including Section 498A (cruelty), Section 494, 406 and Section 506, as well as under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by his first wife.

    Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul quashed the charges and held: "Offence alleged under Section 494 of IPC is applicable to the person who has married for the second time, during the life time of his spouse in a valid marriage. none of the offences alleged in the said complaint are applicable in respect of the petitioner who admittedly is not the relative of the husband of the complainant."

    High Time That Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage Is Recognized As Grounds For Divorce Under Indian Law: Calcutta High Court

    Case: Suman Talukder Vs. Namita Paul Talukder

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 254

    The Calcutta High Court has observed that it is high time that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is recognised as a ground for divorce under Indian law, by reading it into the grounds of cruelty or desertion, like it is in the UK.

    A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:

    It transpires from the consistent conduct and lack of interest of the wife that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. Although irretrievable breakdown is per se not a ground for divorce as yet in Indian Law, the jurisprudence in certain other countries such as the United Kingdom incorporate the component of irretrievable breakdown as an aspect of cruelty, affording a ground of divorce in such cases.

    Calcutta High Court Quashes Cruelty Case Filed By Wife Against Husband 3 Yrs After Leaving Matrimonial Home

    Case: PABITRA ADAK & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 274

    The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case initiated by a wife against her husband under Section 498A of the IPC, accusing him of cruelty towards her, three years after leaving their matrimonial home. While the wife had left the husband's house in 2020, she filed a complaint accusing him of cruelty in 2023.

    Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held: The allegations in both the cases arise out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is further seen that since the year 2020, when she filed the first case, the complainant has left her matrimonial home and has now after almost three years initiated the present case on 13.04.2023. Accordingly in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law... the case is hereby quashed.

    "Quarrel" Involves Both Parties, Cannot Be A Reason To Grant Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty: Calcutta High Court

    Case: Pankaj Mukherjee Vs. Rina Mukherjee nee Biswas

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 282

    The Calcutta High Court has held that a "quarrel" between husband and wife would be attributed to both parties and that it would be a part of the normal "wear and tear" of marital life, and could not be grounds to allow divorce on the ground of cruelty.

    A division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:

    "The term “quarrel”, by its very definition, involves two parties. As such, fault cannot be attributed solely to one of the parties for an altercation or quarrel. Thus, the consistent case of P.W.2 in his cross-examination that the spouses quarrelled between themselves is not sufficient to attribute any cruelty to the respondent-wife...the exact role of either of the spouses in such altercations cannot be fixed. Thus, the only so-called corroborative evidence of the plaint case is no evidence of cruelty at all but might at best indicate towards the natural wear and tear of married life."

    Wife Imposing Her Friends & Family At Husband's Residence Against His Will Amounts To Cruelty: Calcutta High Court

    Case: Mr. Dhiraj Guin Vs. Mrs. Tanusree Majumder

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 284

    The Calcutta High Court has held that a wife imposing her friends and family on her husband by having them put up at his residence without his willingness would amount to cruelty.

    A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:

    The mother of the respondent (wife) would not have lived at the Kolaghat residence of the appellant (husband) if he extorted her pension or the respondent's earned money. In any event, the continued presence of Mousumi Paul (friend) and others of her family at the residence of the husband despite his objection and discomfort on such count is borne out by the records.

    Calcutta High Court Quashes Cruelty Case Filed By Wife Against Brother-In-Law After 18 Years Of Marriage

    Case: Smt. Tanusree Das alias Tanushree Das -Vs- The State of West Bengal and another

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 290

    The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man accused by his sister-in-law of cruelty. Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul noted that the allegations in the FIR were vague and did not directly point at the petitioner. She said:

    "As seen from the allegations as made in the written complaint by the opposite party no. 2, it appears that there is no specific allegation against the present petitioner, who is the married sister-in-law (nanad) of the defacto complainant. The allegations are general in nature and the petitioner herein has been named only in the cause title of the petition under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. There does not appear to be any specific allegations against her in the contents of the said application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C."

    CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT 

    Station Master's Heated Exchange With Wife Sends Train To Maoist-Affected Region: Chhattisgarh High Court Grants Divorce For Cruelty

    Case Title: X v. Y

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (CH) 45

    The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently granted divorce to a station master-husband against his wife on the ground of 'cruelty' as the latter not only raised severe allegations on the character of the former but also her casual approach towards her on-duty husband led a goods train to a prohibited maoist-affected region.

    Setting aside the order of the Family Court, which denied divorce to the appellant-husband, the Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal held that making severe allegations against the appellant and his relatives for dowry as well as physical and mental torture by the respondent-wife so also assailing the character of the appellant amounts to cruelty.

    Wife Insulting Husband's Religion & Gods Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Chhattisgarh High Court

    Case Title: X v. Y.

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (CH) 43

    The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the conduct of a wife in insulting religion of her husband, his religious beliefs and his Gods amounts to mental cruelty.

    The Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal referred to Hindu epics like Ramayana, Mahabharata and Manusmriti and held –

    “In Hinduism, the wife is regarded as the "Sahadharmini" (Equal Partner in Dharma), meaning she shares in the spiritual duties and righteousness (dharma) alongside her husband. This concept underscores the wife's essential role in fulfilling religious obligations, particularly in the performance of rituals, where her presence is indispensable.”

    Chattisgarh High Court Upholds Maintenance To Woman In Live-In Relationship, Unaware Of Partner's First Marriage

    Case Title: X v/s Y

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (CH) 37

    The Chhattisgarh High Court recently upheld an order directing a man to provide maintenance to a woman with whom he had a live-in relationship and their three year old daughter, after noting that the woman was not aware of the man's first marriage and the three children born out of it.

    The court passed the order in a man's plea challenging order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class–upheld by the Second Additional Sessions Judge–directing it to pay Rs. 4000 per month to the respondent woman and Rs. 2000 per month to their child towards maintenance and also compensation of Rs. 50,000 in five instalments.

    Merely Abducting Woman Not An Offence U/S 366 IPC, Intention To Marry Or Force Intercourse Must Be Proved: Chhattisgarh High Court

    Case Title: Thanda Ram Sidar v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (CH) 20

    The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that every abduction of a minor female cannot be regarded as an offence under Section 366 IPC [Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc].

    The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal underscored that the ingredients of such an offence must be corroborated by the victim's statement, as well as medical and forensic evidence on record so that the intention of the accused is established.

    Live-In Relation A 'Stigma' In Indian Culture; Apathy Towards Matrimonial Duties Gave Rise To This Concept: Chhattisgarh HC

    Case title - Abdul Hameed Siddiqui vs. Kavita Gupta

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (CH) 15

    The Chhattisgarh High Court recently observed that live-in relationships, which are followed in certain sects of society, still continue as a “stigma” in Indian culture as such relations are an imported philosophy contrary to the general expectations of Indian Tenets.

    Noting that "apathy" towards matrimonial duties has given rise to the concept of a Live-in Relationship, a bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal observed that a live-in relationship never provides the security, social acceptance, progress, and stability that the institution of marriage provides.

    Matrimonial Home Can't Be Built With Bricks & Stones But With Love, Respect & Care Between Spouses: Chhattisgarh High Court

    Case title - Sarojlata Rajak vs. Vikas Kumar Rajak

    Case citation: 2023 LiveLaw (CH) 14

    The Chhattisgarh High Court recently observed that a matrimonial home cannot be constructed merely with bricks and stones, but rather, it is the elements of love, respect, and care exchanged between spouses that lay the foundation of such a home.

    A bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal observed this while dismissing a first appeal moved by Sarojlata Rajak challenging the judgment and decree passed by a family court in May 2023 dismissing her application seeking divorce from her husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion [Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955].

    Section 498-A IPC | Second Wife Can't Maintain Complaint/FIR Against Husband, In-Laws For 'Cruelty': Chhattisgarh High Court

    Case title - Suman Sharma and others vs. State Of Chhattisgarh and others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Chh) 3

    The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a complaint/FIR under Section 498-A (for the offence of cruelty) of the IPC filed by the second wife against the husband and her in-laws is not maintainable.

    A bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput held thus while answering a reference made by a Single Judge to the division bench on the following question:

    “Whether the complaint/FIR lodged by the second wife for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. would be tenable or not ?”

    DELHI HIGH COURT

    Can Issue Anti-Suit Injunction If Matrimonial Proceedings In Foreign Courts Concerning Non-Resident Indians Oppressive: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 10

    The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Indian Courts can issue anti-suit injunction if matrimonial proceedings in a foreign court, concerning non-resident Indians are oppressive or vexatious.

    Bigamy | Inability To Prove 'Saptapadi' Qua Partner's Second Marriage At Summoning Stage Can't Be Misused To Evade Legal Consequences: Delhi HC

    Title: POOJA SHARMA BAJAJ v. KUNAL BAJAJ & ORS.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 15

    The Delhi High Court has observed that the absence of law making adultery an offence cannot provide individuals a “blanket immunity” where they can marry others in secrecy during subsistence of their first marriage.

    Wife's Conduct Of Attempting Suicide, Trying To Put Blame On Husband And His Family Amounts To Cruelty: Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 37

    The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's conduct of attempting suicide and then trying to put the blame on the husband and his family members is an act of “extreme cruelty.”

    DV Act | Unproven Allegations Of Illicit Relationship No Ground To Deny Interim Maintenance To Wife: Delhi High Court

    Title: A v. B

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 38

    The Delhi High Court has observed that the wife cannot be denied the benefit of interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, merely on the basis of allegations of illicit relationship which are yet to be proved during the course of trial.

    Those Harassing Daughter-In-Law For Giving Birth To Girl Child Should Know That Chromosomes Of Their Son Decides Child's Gender: Delhi HC

    Title: HARDESH KUMAR v. STATE

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 43

    While dealing with a dowry death case which involved alleged harassment of the daughter-in-law for giving birth to a girl child, the Delhi High Court has observed that perpetrators of such crimes need to be educated that it is their son and not the daughter-in-law whose chromosomes, through union of a married couple, will decide the birth of the unborn child.

    Findings Of Cruelty Against Wife In Divorce Case No Basis To Deny Her Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act: Delhi High Court

    Title: A v. B

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 75

    The Delhi High Court has ruled that the findings of cruelty against a wife in the divorce proceedings by itself cannot be a basis to deny her maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

    Delhi High Court Grants Divorce To Man From 'Non Adjusting Wife' On Grounds Of Cruelty

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 88

    The Delhi High Court granted divorce to a man on the grounds of cruelty by his wife, observing that she had a “non-adjusting attitude” and no maturity to sort out the differences with him without his public humiliation due to which he suffered mental cruelty.

    Delhi HC Upholds Prohibition Of Marriage Between 'Sapindas', Says Incestuous Relations May Gain Legitimacy If Partner's Choice Left Unregulated

    Title: NEETU GROVER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 93

    The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act which states that no marriage can be solemnized between parties who are related to each other as “sapindas”, unless it is sanctioned by usage or custom governing them.

    Litigant Can't Be Allowed To Take Proceedings Initiated By Victim Under Domestic Violence Act For Granted: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 103

    The Delhi High Court has observed that a litigant cannot be allowed to take for granted the proceedings initiated by a victim of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

    Delhi High Court Upholds Family Court Order Rejecting Husband's Plea For Paternity Test Of Wife, Child Over Allegations Of Adultery

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 119

    The Delhi High Court has upheld a family court order which rejected a husband's plea to direct the wife and the child to give their blood samples for conducting a paternity test in order to establish her “adulterous conduct” and the minor being the “pawn.”

    Adulterous Spouse Not Equivalent To 'Incompetent Parent', Extramarital Affair Not Sole Factor To Deny Child's Custody: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 128

    Observing that an “adulterous spouse” is not equivalent to an “incompetent parent,” the Delhi High Court has said that the points for consideration in divorce proceedings and custody matters may be co-related but they are always “mutually exclusive.”

    Wife Pressurising Husband To Fulfil Whimsical Dreams Beyond His Financial Reach Sufficient Mental Strain: Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce

    Title: A v. B

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 130

    While upholding divorce of a couple on the ground of cruelty by wife, the Delhi High Court has observed that pressurising the husband to fulfil “distant and whimsical dreams” not within his financial reach may create a sense of “persistent dissatisfaction” which would be sufficient mental strain to drain the contentment and tranquillity out of any married life.

    Person Can't Be Sent To Jail For More Than Three Months Over Recovery Of Maintenance Arrears In Subsequent Execution Petition: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 132

    The Delhi High Court has ruled that a person cannot be sent to jail for more than three months, over non-payment of arrears of maintenance to the spouse, in the subsequent execution petitions filed for recovery of maintenance which may accrue from time to time under the same order.

    Raising Voice Against Alleged Cruelty Does Not Mean Complainant Is Not Interested In Continuing With Marriage: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 196

    The Delhi High Court has observed that raising a voice against alleged cruelty does not, in any way, indicate that the complainant is not interested in continuing with the marriage or is not ready to adjust.

    Concealing Income To Avoid Paying Maintenance Or Claim Exorbitant Amount In Matrimonial Cases Is Unfortunate: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 222

    The Delhi High Court has said that it is unfortunate that in matrimonial litigations, the parties do not come out with their true income.

    “Effort is always made to conceal the true income by the husband in order to avoid payment of maintenance to the wife and the child. On the other hand, effort is made by the wife to claim exorbitant amount as the income of the husband,” Justice Navin Chawla said.

    Wife Turning Children Against Father Is Parental Alienation, Amounts To Grave Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 243

    The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of a wife in trying to turn the children against the father is a clear case of “parental alienation”, which amounts to “grave mental cruelty.”

    Observing that a person may be a bad husband but that does not lead to the necessary conclusion of he being a bad father, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:

    Husband Expecting Wife To Do Household Chores Can't Be Termed As Cruelty: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 266

    The Delhi High Court has observed that a husband expecting his wife to do household chores cannot be termed as cruelty.

    A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while dealing with a husband's appeal challenging a family court order rejecting his plea seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty by the wife.

    Delhi High Court Rejects Husband's Plea For Divorce, Says Matrimonial Disputes Due To Mere Lack Of Adjustment Are Unfortunate

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 271

    The Delhi High Court has observed that unfortunate are the matrimonial disputes where the “fountain head of friction” inter se the spouses is mere lack of adjustment, understanding and the will to stay together.

    Mere Acquittal In Cruelty Case By Wife No Ground To Grant Divorce To Husband: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 272

    While rejecting a husband's plea for divorce, the Delhi High Court has observed that his mere acquittal in a criminal case filed by the wife alleging cruelty cannot be a ground for him to seek divorce.

    Wife's Request For Financial Support From Husband Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 276

    The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's request for financial support from her husband cannot be termed as an act of cruelty.

    A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that though the aggrieved person is entitled to avail the remedy under laws, but crossing the point of “no return” becomes inevitable once the spouses get engulfed in the “rabbit hole of criminal litigations.”

    'Lackadaisical': Delhi High Court Unhappy Over Non-Compliance Of Ruling On Drafting Settlement Agreements In Matrimonial Cases

    Title: SH. CHHATTER PAL & ORS. v. STATE & ANR.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 302

    The Delhi High Court has expressed displeasure over non-compliance of its last year's ruling wherein guidelines were framed on drafting of mediation settlement agreements in matrimonial cases, with special reference to clauses dealing with criminal cases.

    Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that failure to effectively communicate and implement the directions poses a significant setback to the progress made in promoting ADR mechanisms.

    Court Must Scrutinize Wife's FIR To Determine If Allegations Are 'Case Of Clever Drafting' Or Have Some Element Of Truth: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 318

    The Delhi High Court has observed that the court must scrutinize the complaint or FIR filed by the wife against the husband and his family members to determine whether the allegations are a “case of cheer drafting” or have some element of truth.

    Justice Navin Chawla observed that where the wife is set to implicate the entire family of the husband in a criminal case, it is to be expected that she would get a complaint properly drafted through her lawyer making specific allegations against each one of them.

    Forcing Wife To Do Household Chores Even If Her Health Doesn't Permit It Amounts To Cruelty: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 324

    The Delhi High Court has observed that forcefully asking a wife to do household chores if her health does not permit her to do so amounts to cruelty.

    “In our opinion, when a wife indulges herself to do household chores, she does it by affection and love for her family. However, if her health or other circumstances do not permit her to do so, forcefully asking her to do house hold chores would certainly be cruelty,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

    Wife Openly Humiliating Husband, Calling Him Impotent Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 356

    The Delhi High Court has said that being openly humiliated and called impotent by the wife in front of family members is an act of humiliation causing mental cruelty to the husband.

    A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while granting divorce to a husband on the grounds of cruelty by the wife under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

    Wife Leaving Matrimonial Home From Time To Time Without Husband's Fault Is Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 408

    The Delhi High Court has said that the wife leaving the matrimonial home from time to time without any fault of the husband is an act of mental cruelty.

    A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna granted divorce to a husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife under Section 13 (1) (i- a) and 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

    Domestic Violence Act Applicable To Every Woman Irrespective Of Religious Affiliation: Delhi High Court

    Title: GULSHAN KUMAR & ANR. v. NIDHI KASHYAP

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 437

    The Delhi High Court has observed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is a measure of social justice applicable to each woman, irrespective of religious affiliation or social background.

    Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the statute was enacted to safeguard the rights of the victims of 'domestic violence' in 'domestic relationship'.

    Making Derogatory Complaints To Spouse's Employer To Harm Professional Reputation Amounts To Cruelty: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 469

    The Delhi High Court has observed that making derogatory complaints to the employer of the spouse to harm professional reputation and financial well-being amounts to cruelty.

    A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that making such complaints demonstrates a lack of mutual respect and goodwill, which is crucial for a healthy marriage.

    Hindu Woman Without Own Income Can Enjoy Property Given By Deceased Husband, But Can't Have Absolute Rights Over It: Delhi High Court

    Title: MANMOHAN SINGH & ANR v. SHITAL SINGH & ORS.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 490

    The Delhi High Court observed that a Hindu woman without having her own income has complete rights to enjoy, throughout her lifetime, the property received by her from the deceased husband but cannot have “absolute rights” over it.

    Falsely Accusing Spouse Of Extra Marital Relationship, Refusal To Accept Children Constitutes Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 498

    The Delhi High Court has observed that falsely accusing a spouse of being in an extra marital relationship and denying parentage of the children constitutes mental cruelty.

    A division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that repudiation of the matrimonial bond and refusal to accept the children, who are innocent victims in the vile allegations made by the spouse, is nothing but the act of mental cruelty of the gravest kind.

    'We Are Living In Era Of Deepfakes': Delhi High Court Says Photos Produced By Husband Alleging Adultery By Wife Must Be Proved In Trial

    Case Title: Nirmaan Malhotra vs. Tushita Kaul

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 710

    The Delhi High Court has refused to rely on the photographs produced by a man to show that his wife has been living in adultery and to claim that she is not entitled to receive maintenance from him under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

    'Adulterer' Not Necessary Party To Divorce Petition, Decree Can Be Passed In His Or Her Absence: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 860

    The Delhi High Court has ruled that an alleged adulterer, being a third party and suspected of having an affair with a spouse, is not a necessary party to a divorce petition.

    A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal said that a decree can be passed in the absence of such an individual.

    Husband's Alleged Involvement In Criminal Case No Ground To Deny Security Clearance To Spouse For OCI Registration: Delhi High Court

    Title: ANASTASIIA PIVTSAEVA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 864

    The Delhi High Court has held that mere familial relationship with an accused, without evidence of direct involvement in the alleged crime, is no ground to deny security clearance to a spouse for Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration.

    “Mere association or familial relationship with an accused, without concrete evidence of direct involvement or complicity in the alleged crimes, does not substantiate the grounds for denying security clearance under Section 7A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act and neither does it withstand the test of arbitrariness and reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

    Major Child Entitled To Maintenance Under Hindu Marriage Act Till He Is Pursuing Education And Not Financially Independent: Delhi High Court

    Title: A v. B

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 868

    The Delhi High Court has ruled that a child is entitled to maintenance under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, till the time he is pursuing his education and does not become financially independent.

    Difficult To Digest That Divorce Would Be "Stigmatic" When Parties Are Educated : Delhi High Court

    Case Details: RUCHI WADHAWAN VERSUS AMIT WALI

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 901

    While allowing a wife's plea seeking divorce on the ground of mental cruelty, the Delhi High Court rejected the husband's contention that the grant of divorce would bring “dishonour” and “stigma” upon himself and his family.

    The Court said that it is difficult to digest the argument that a grant of divorce would be stigmatic for either of the spouses when both are educated, and it would be in their interest to bring an end to a marriage rather than suffering from persistent mental agony and trauma.

    Unlike S.125 CrPC, Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act Not Connected With Wife's Inability To Maintain Herself: Delhi High Court

    Case title: X and Ors. v The State and Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1001

    Dismissing a plea moved by a husband and his kin against an order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife under the Domestic Violence Act, the Delhi High Court agreed with the trial court's observation that unlike Section 125 CrPC, maintenance under the DV Act is not linked to the inability of the wife to maintain herself.

    Abysmal State Of Affairs That Litigants Prefer False Complaints In Matrimonial Disputes: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR

    Title: PRATEEK & ORS. v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1029

    The Delhi High Court has observed that it is an “abysmal state of affairs” that litigants have resorted to preferring false complaints in matrimonial disputes against the opposite party, thereby making a mockery of the judicial system.

    S.125 CrPC | Wife Not Disentitled To Claim Maintenance Merely Because She Seeks Divorce: Delhi High Court

    Title: MANISH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

    The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife cannot be disentitled from claiming any maintenance merely because she seeks divorce after having left the company of her husband due to sufficient reasons.

    Wife Compelled To Leave Matrimonial House Due To Husband's Extra Marital Affair Makes Her Victim Of Domestic Violence: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1052

    The Delhi High Court has observed that a husband living with another lady and having a child with her makes the wife victim of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act.

    Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while rejecting a husband's plea against grant of monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000 to his wife.

    Application U/S 12 Of Domestic Violence Act Can Only Be Filed Before Jurisdictional Magistrate: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1054

    The Delhi High Court has observed that an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act can only be filed before the jurisdictional magistrate.

    Section 12 states that an “aggrieved person” or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act.

    Orders Passed U/S 12 Of Guardians And Wards Act Appealable U/S 19 Of Family Courts Act: Delhi High Court

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1140

    A full bench of Delhi High Court ruled that the orders passed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act would be appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

    Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act gives power to the Family Court to pass interlocutory order for production of minor and interim protection of person and property.

    Section 19 of Family Courts Act states that appeals can be made from any judgment or order of a Family Court to the High Court , except for interlocutory orders.

    Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Family Courts For Dissolution Of Muslim Marriage On Basis Of Talaq Nama, Mubarat Agreement, Etc.

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1232

    The Delhi High Court has passed directions for guidance of family courts in the national capital while dealing with any petition filed under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act for dissolution of marriage through extra-judicial divorce under the Muslim Personal Law.

    Usage Of 'Separated/Divorced' Can't Be Restricted To Only Those With A Judicial Separation Decree: Delhi High Court

    Case title: Deep Minor Through Next Friend vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1379

    While hearing a minor boy's plea against non-issuance of Scheduled Caste certificate by the State on the ground that the application could only be accepted if the mother is legally divorced or separated, the Delhi High Court said that the terms like 'separated/ divorced/ single women' cannot be restricted to only those women who have a formal divorce or judicial separation decree.

    Delhi High Court Directs Family Courts To Complete Witness Cross Examinations Expeditiously Without Embarrassment To Parties

    Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1382

    The Delhi High Court has recently directed all the Family Courts in the national capital to ensure that the cross-examinations of witnesses are completed as expeditiously as possible, without causing any undue harassment or embarrassment to the parties.

    GAUHATI HIGH COURT

    [Hindu Marriage Act] Bar Against Remarriage Not Applicable If Delay In Filing Matrimonial Appeal Is Not Satisfactorily Explained: Gauhati HC

    Case Title: Rashmi Indouliya @ Chaudhary v. Ved Prakash Indouliya

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 38

    The Gauhati High Court on Wednesday dismissed an Interlocutory Application filed by a woman for condonation of 122 days of delay in preferring the matrimonial appeal which challenged an ex-parte divorce decree passed by the District Court, on the ground that the bar of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act (remarriage) would not be applicable in the case and delay has not been satisfactorily explained.

    GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Difficult To Assess Income Of Husband Working In Unorganized Sector, Courts Have To Do Small Guesswork In Maintenance Pleas: Gujarat HC

    Case Title - Meghrajsinh S/O Manharsinh Chudasma Vs. Meghaviniba W/O Meghrajsinh Chudasama D/O Prahladsinhji Pradyumansinhji Jadeja & Anr.

    LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 38

    Stressing that it is difficult to assess the income of the self-employed husband working in the unorganized sector, the Gujarat High Court has observed that in such scenarios, the Family Courts have to take small guesswork to determine the husband's income.

    A bench of Justice JC Doshi also added that in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC, there is a tendency to avoid placing the correct scenario of the income; therefore, the husband's truthful income generally never surfaces.

    148. Father-In-Law Contributing To Husband's Growth To Help Save Daughter's Marriage Not Cruelty Sans Contrary Evidence: Gujarat High Court

    Case Title: X v/s Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 148

    The Gujarat High Court rejected a man's divorce plea based on alleged cruelty by his wife, ruling that there was no evidence of interference by her father that could be considered "cruelty." The man had claimed that his in-laws pressured him to return to Surat and interfered in family matters, causing marital strain. However, the court noted that the father-in-law's support was for the family's welfare and didn't amount to interference. Allegations from both sides, including claims of gambling and harassment, were not severe enough to justify divorce. Observing that the marriage's breakdown didn't automatically constitute cruelty, the court upheld the lower court's decision, dismissing the husband's appeal.

    184. Be Sensitive, Avoid Lengthy Civil Procedure: Gujarat High Court Asks Family Courts To Proceed More Like Conciliators, Sets Out Principles

    Case Title: X vs Y

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 184

    A Family Court decision rejecting a plea for divorce despite 11 years of separation and mutual divorce signed in 2014 has been set aside by the Gujarat High Court, granting divorce to the woman. The wife had alleged mental cruelty, neglect and financial burden due to husband's addiction to betting and had left her matrimonial home in 2013 and did not return back. The Family Court dismissed her petition on the grounds of procedural lacunae and lack of evidence.

    The High Court, however, criticized the Family Court's mechanical and overly technical approach, which has to be sensitive in dealing with family disputes, with a focus on reconciliation and welfare. The High Court noted that: The wife established mental cruelty and desertion by her husband. The marriage had broken down irretrievably and had no possibility of being reconstituted. The wife's evidence was unblemished and uncontroverted. The Court observed that the Family Court Act of 1984 demands humane treatment in family matters, and it was underlined that the wife had duly established cruelty and desertion, as contemplated by Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The terms of divorce mutual were also recognized. The husband waived his custodial rights, and the wife relinquished her claims for future alimony. The High Court dissolved the marriage, quashed the Family Court's verdict, and granted a decree of divorce.

    HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT 

    Divorced Wife Not Disentitled To Maintenance On Grounds That She Is Living In Adultery: Himachal Pradesh High Court

    Case title: Krishan Lal vs. Champa Devi

    Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 40

    The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that a divorced wife is not automatically disqualified from receiving maintenance solely on the grounds of living in adultery.

    A bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed this while dismissing a plea moved by a man challenging an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Shimla to issue a warrant for the attachment of immovable property after he failed to provide maintenance to his divorced wife.

    [Triple Talaq] Legislature Has Prohibited Instantaneous & Irrevocable Divorce, Other Forms Of Talaq Still Valid: Himachal Pradesh High Court

    Case Title: Shehwaz Khan State of H.P and Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 45

    The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that the legislative prohibition under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, is specifically aimed at Talaq-e-Biddat or any other similar forms of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce.

    The court ruled that the Act does not extend to other forms of divorce like Talaq-e-Hasan, which allows for revocation during the waiting period (Iddat).

    Children From Void Marriages Entitled To Birth Registration, To Be Acknowledged Under Law: HP High Court

    Case Title: Navya & others Vs State of H.P. & others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 69

    The High Court of Himachal Pradesh ruled that children born from void marriages cannot be denied birth registration, thereby affirming their right to legal recognition regardless of their parents' marital status.

    Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, presiding over the case, emphasized the inherent rights of children to be acknowledged under the law, remarking, “The fact that they are living beings and are there needs to be acknowledged in law.”

    HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

    Criminal Court Can Review Its Own Order At Notice Stage Under Domestic Violence Act: J&K High Court

    Case Title: MUDASIR AHMAD DAR Vs. MST.MASHOOKA AND ANOTHER

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 135

    The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh clarified that the bar on a criminal court to review its own order does not apply at the stage when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

    [Domestic Violence Act] No Specific Bar On Filing Appeal Before Sessions Court To Challenge Interim Orders: J&K High Court Clarifies

    Case Title: ABDUL ROUF SHAH Vs ATIQA HASSAN & OTHERS

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 169

    The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court affirmed that there is no specific bar to filing an appeal before the sessions court against an interim order passed under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act.

    Highlighting the absence of any such bar on the interim orders a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

    “if the Legislature intended to keep the interim orders out of the purview of Section 29 of the DV Act, the same could have been specifically provided. In the absence of any specific bar, an interim order, which is included in the definition of 'order' cannot be kept outside the purview of Section 29 of the Act”.

    Comprehensive Proof Of Talak By Husband With Efforts For Reconciliation Is Essential To Avoid Maintenance Obligations: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Wani Vs Mst Hameeda

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 182

    The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a husband cannot evade his obligation to maintain his wife merely by claiming to have divorced her.

    Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul emphasized that the husband must not only prove the pronouncement of Talaak or the execution of a divorce deed but must also demonstrate that sincere efforts were made by both parties' representatives to reconcile their disputes. Failure of such efforts, without any fault of the husband, must be convincingly established.

    [DV Act] Arrest Warrants Unjustified In Domestic Violence Cases Since Proceedings Are Civil In Nature: J&K High Court

    Case Title: KAMRAN KHAN AND & ORS. Vs BILKEES KHANAM

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 204

    A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar while hearing a petition challenging the issuance of such warrants, observed that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) are inherently civil in nature and not criminal.

    Minor Staying With Father Cannot Be Termed Illegal Confinement, Not Proper To Assume Only Mother Is Important For Child: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Mir Vs Nighat Nasreen

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 212

    Underscoring the paramount importance of both parents in a child's life, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court severely reprimanded a magistrate for illegally ordering the custody of a minor child to the mother under Section 97 of the CrPC.

    DV Act | No Need For Trial To Grant Interim Residence Order, It Is An Urgent Relief To Protect Woman From Taking Shelter On Road: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Mst Shameema Begum Vs Javid Iqbal Khan

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 248

    The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that a Magistrate, while considering an interim residence order under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), is not required to conduct a full trial but only needs to be satisfied with the application filed by the aggrieved person.

    Temporary Residence Elsewhere Doesn't Alter Jurisdiction In Guardianship Petitions, It Depends On Ordinary Residence: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Sabahat Sanna Vs Dr Shabir Ahmad

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 273

    The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that it is the ordinary place of residence of the minor which determines the jurisdiction of the Court in guardianship matters under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and temporary residence elsewhere at the time of filing the application does not alter this jurisdiction.

    Heated Exchange Between Couple/Family Members Over Non-Preparedness Of Food Not Sufficient To Prove Abetment To Suicide: J&K High Court

    Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Rakesh Kumar

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 281

    The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a heated exchange between family members over domestic matters such as the preparation of food cannot be construed as abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

    Family Courts Must Strive For Settlement With Balanced Approach, Avoid Procrastination & Haste: J&K High Court

    Case Title: Afrooza & Anr Vs Mohammad Aslam Dar

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 305

    The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized the role of family courts under the Family Courts Act, 1984, asserting that these courts must strive to mediate and help the parties reach a fair settlement.

    While adjudicating upon a matter under the Act a bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani underscored that family courts are equipped to follow procedures they deem suitable to encourage amicable resolution, balancing swift action with thoughtful deliberation in family disputes. Sensitivity to the parties' circumstances is paramount, as per the Act, reflecting its core objective of fair and compassionate adjudication, he stressed.

    Domestic Violence Act Can Be Invoked For Past Domestic Relationships As Well: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

    Case Title: Sardul Singh son of Joga Singh VS Davinder Kour wife of Gurinder Singh

    Citation 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 341

    The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) can be invoked even in cases involving past domestic relationships where the parties have lived together in a shared household at any point in time.

    Justice Sanjay Dhar clarified that the definition of "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act is not confined to ongoing cohabitation but extends to relationships where shared residence existed previously.

    JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

    Strict Proof Of Marriage Not Required U/S 125 CrPC, Parties Living Together As Husband-Wife Sufficient To Order Maintenance: Jharkhand High Court

    Case Title: Ram Kumar Ravi vs State of Jharkhand & Anr.

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 14

    While rejecting a revision application filed for quashing grant of maintenance to a woman, the Jharkhand High Court held that documentary evidence of marriage in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, is not required, especially when the evidence is on record that the Applicant was living with the opposite party as husband and wife.

    Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “Documentary evidence of marriage cannot be insisted in all cases, particularly in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. If the parties live together as husband and wife, a presumption of marriage can be drawn.”

    'Unbecoming' Of Police Personnel To Be In Live-In Relationship Despite Being Married: Jharkhand High Court Upholds Constable's Dismissal

    Case Title: XXX vs The State Of Jharkhand

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 113

    The Jharkhand High Court has affirmed the dismissal of a police constable who, despite being married, was involved in a live-in relationship with another woman. The Court stated that such behaviour is inappropriate for a police officer and violates the rules governing his service conditions.

    Justice SN Pathak presiding over the case, ruled, "It is unbecoming of a police personnel who was in live-in-relation with another lady other than wife and amounts to violation of rules whereby the service conditions of the petitioner are governed."

    'Subsistence Of Valid Marriage Is Prerequisite For Passing Maintenance Orders U/S 125 Cr.P.C': Jharkhand High Court

    Case Title: Rengha Oraon @ Regha Oraon V. State of Jharkhand

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 119

    The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a valid marriage is a prerequisite for issuing orders under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

    The court set aside a maintenance order issued under Section 125, emphasising that the petitioner's second marriage lacked legal sanctity unless he was validly divorced from his first wife.

    Father Can't Escape Liability To Maintain Children Citing His Wife's Employment: Jharkhand High Court

    Case Title: Raghubar Singh @ Raghuber Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and ors.

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 15

    The Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that a father is liable to support and maintain his children, irrespective of their mother's employment.

    Justice Subhash Chand observed,

    “So far as the income of the petitioner—wife in the maintenance application is concerned, admittedly she is getting Rs.12 to 14 thousand per month and she is maintaining herself and both the minor children. Even if the salary of the wife Nibha Singh is taken into consideration, the responsibility of father of both the children is also to maintain both the children.”

    The father had preferred a revision petition against a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs.5,000/- monthly maintenance to each of his two children.

    S.125(4) CrPC | Wife Residing Away From Husband Without Any Reasonable Cause Not Entitled To Maintenance: Jharkhand High Court

    Case Title: Amit Kumar Kachhap vs Sangeeta Toppo

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 33

    The Jharkhand High Court has stated that if a wife chooses to live separately from her husband without any valid reason, she is not eligible for maintenance under Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

    Justice Subhash Chand emphasized, “In view of the overall evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, it is found that the respondent-applicant has been residing aloof from the husband without any reasonable cause. Accordingly, this point of determination is decided in favour of the petitioner-husband and against the opposite party-wife. In consequence thereof, in view of Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 she is not entitled to any amount of maintenance.”

    S.125 CrPC | 'Once Marital Relationship Is Disproved, There Cannot Be Any Order Of Maintenance': Jharkhand High Court

    Case Title: Ashok Kumar Singh @ Ashok Singh @ A. K. Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 16

    The Jharkhand High Court has held that once the marital relationship is disproved, there cannot be any order of maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC.

    Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed that the respondent-woman had filed a criminal case against the revision petitioner in 2008 alleging that he made a false promise of marriage to her. This, the Court held, "demolishes the case of the Applicant that she had been married to the petitioner in 2005. Once the marital relationship is disproved, there cannot be any order of maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC.”

    Jharkhand High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated Against Lawyer On 'Malafide Complaint' By Opposite Party In Litigation

    Case Title: VD v. The Jharkhand State Bar Council

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 21

    Last week, the Jharkhand High Court annulled disciplinary proceedings initiated by the State Bar Council against a lawyer accused of engaging in an "illicit" physical relationship with his client. The complaint was lodged by the client's husband while being involved in a matrimonial dispute with her.

    The lawyer challenged the commencement and continuation of the disciplinary inquiry initiated by the Jharkhand State Bar Council through a notice dated August 26, 2023.

    Justice Ananda Sen held, “Considering the totality of the matter, I find that this complaint before the Jharkhand State Bar Council has been filed by respondent No. 3 [client's husband] with mala fide, with an intention to wreak vengeance, that too against a professional lawyer, who was defending his client i.e. the wife of the complainant.”

    Family Members Are Natural Witnesses, Cannot Be Deemed To Be 'Interested' Parties Due To Relation With Victim: Jharkhand High Court

    Case Title: William Dungdung V. State of Jharkhand

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 151

    The Jharkhand High Court has held that family members of a victim are natural witnesses to an incident and cannot be deemed biassed solely because of their close relationship to the victim.

    The division bench, comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary, rejected the argument made by the appellants that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, while observing, “It is difficult to agree with the argument advanced on behalf of the convicts that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution. Members of the family are natural witnesses to the incidence and they cannot be said to be interested only for the reason that they happen to be the close family relatives of the victim.”

    KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

    Woman Brings US-Born Daughter To India In Violation Of Foreign Court Order: Karnataka HC Refuses To Interfere, Says Child's Welfare Paramount

    Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others

    Case No: W.P.H.C NO. 43 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 5

    The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by a father residing in the USA, seeking a direction upon his wife to hand over their 4 year-old daughter's custody to him.

    The man claimed that his wife had brought the child to India in violation of the US-Court's orders. A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda however dismissed the petition saying, “Keeping in view the welfare of minor girl, in our considered opinion, the girl being a four year old girl child, it would be in her best interest to remain in the custody of her mother.”

    Hindu Succession Act | Legal Heirs Of Daughters Who Died Before 2005 Amendment Entitled To Equal Share In Family Property: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: Channabasappa Hosmani AND Parvatevva alias Kasturevva & Others

    Case No: Writ Petition no 105363 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 6

    The Karnataka High Court has held that legal heirs of a daughter are entitled to equal share in the family properties, even if the daughters had passed away before the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, came into force in 2005.

    A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, dismissed the plea filed by Channabasappa Hosmani, questioning the order passed by the trial court wherein his application made under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, was declined and the trial court refused to amend the preliminary decree which granted equal share to the legal heirs of the pre-deceased daughters.

    Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Divorce Decree Passed During Covid-19 Pandemic; Says Marriage Sacrosanct, Wife Can't Be Condemned Unheard

    Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

    Case NO: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 6578/2021

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 12

    The Karnataka High Court has set aside an ex-parte divorce decree passed by the trial court in 2021, as the trial Court had conducted the hearing including recording of the evidence when the world was in the grip of Covid-19 pandemic.

    A division bench of Justice K S Mudagal and K V Aravind allowed the appeal filed by the wife and set aside the decree passed by the trial court on the petition filed by the husband seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

    Depriving Child Of Either Parent's Love During Their Lifetime Unjust: Karnataka High Court Upholds Shared Custody Of 4-Yr-Old

    Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

    Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 7082 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 30

    The Karnataka High Court while refusing to set aside an order of the trial court granting two-days custody of a minor child to his father observed, “When the father and the mother, both are alive, depriving a child of its entitlement to have the love and affection of its parents i.e. both father and the mother would not be a justice that is being done to the child.”

    A division bench Justice Dr H.B.Prabhakara Sastry and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar dismissed the appeal filed by mother challenging trial court order granting custody of the toddler to her father from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on every Saturdays and Sundays.

    against defendant No.1, which he has already done by filing suit.”

    Inter-Country Relative Adoption | Country Of Adoptive Child's Father Must Communicate To CARA For Issuance Of NOC: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: ABC AND Union of India

    Case No: WRIT PETITION No.16681 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 43

    The Karnataka High Court has directed a couple seeking intercountry relative adoption to petition the receiving country i.e Germany, where the father of the adopted child resides for communication to the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) for issuance of a No Objection Certificate and Conformity Certificate to take the child out of India.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “If what is sought by the petitioners is granted it would run counter to the established procedure Therefore, the inter-country adoption should necessarily be in tune with the procedure.”

    [Succession Act, 1925] Probate Can Be Granted In Plea By Beneficiary Of Will Even If No Executor Has Been Named: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: M R Mohan Kumar & Others AND NIL

    Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 4399 OF 2023.

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 63

    The Karnataka High Court has held that probate can be granted on a plea made by the beneficiary named in a will, in case no executor had been named.

    A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh allowed the appeal filed by M.R. Mohan and others and set aside the order of the trial court rejecting their petition filed for issuance of probate. Allowing the appeal the court granted Probate/Succession Certificate in favour of the appellants as sought.

    If Husband Fails To Adhere To Decree For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights, Wife Can Seek Interim Maintenance Before Executing Court: Karnataka HC

    Case Title: ABC and XYZ

    Case No: Writ Petition No 2215 OF 2022

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 64

    The Karnataka High Court has held that in the absence of a stay on the decree for restitution of conjugal rights (RCR), if the husband fails to take the wife back to the matrimonial home, then it would be open to the wife to seek interim maintenance for herself and their child even at the stage of execution of the decree.

    The Court was dealing with a challenge by the husband, against an order of the Family Court directing him to pay a sum of Rs 25,000 per month as interim maintenance for his wife and child upon the wife executing a decree for RCR when the husband failed to take her back to the matrimonial home.

    'Malicious Parent Syndrome' Of Purposely Separating Child From Other Parent Worrisome, Affects Child's Psyche: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

    Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3749 OF 2022

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

    The Karnataka High Court has expressed concern over the emerging trend of 'malicious parent syndrome' whereby a malicious parent engages in attempts to punish the other parent by separating the child, denying child visitation and lying to children.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while allowing a petition filed by the third husband of a woman, who was charged under POCSO Act on a complaint made by the biological father of the child.

    Court said the trend is "worrisome" as wrangling parents forget that they are projecting their own child to have been a subject of such assault.

    [S.498A IPC] Woman Alleged Of Having Illicit Relationship With Complainant's Husband Can't Be Charged With Cruelty, Adultery No Longer An Offense: Karnataka HC

    Case Title: ABC AND State By Mysuru Women Police Station & ANR

    Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3051 OF 2023 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2579 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

    The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case of cruelty under Section 498A IPC against a woman (accused no 9) who was alleged to be in an illicit relationship with the husband of the complainant.

    A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the plea filed by the woman held: “The allegation against accused No.9 is nothing but adultery. The allegation also reveals that she was abating accused No.1 for committing the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Accused No.9 is not a family member or in-laws in order to implicate under Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, proceeding against accused No.9 cannot be sustainable for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC or any other offence. The Supreme Court in the case of JOSEPH SHINE Vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2019), has struck down the provision of Section 497 of IPC as violative of Articles 14, 15(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has held adultery is not an offence punishable under the IPC and it may be used for civil cases seeking remedy in the matrimonial cases."

    Self Acquired Properties Of Hindu Joint Family Member If Thrown In "Common Hotchpot" To Be Treated As Joint Family Property: Karnataka HC

    Case Title: T Narayana Reddy & ANR AND Nirmala & others

    Case No: Regular First Appeal No 491 OF 2016

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 87

    The Karnataka High Court has held that if a member of a joint Hindu family voluntarily throws his/her self-acquired property into common hotchpot with the intention of abandoning his/her separate claim over it and render it to be of all other members as well, such a property becomes a joint family property.

    A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja while dismissing an appeal filed by T Narayana Reddy and another said, “Partitioning of the self acquired property amongst all the members of the family by the matriarch raises a very strong presumption as to the subject properties having been put into a common hotchpot. That being the position, there is an eminent case for the invocation of the doctrine of common hotchpot.”

    Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act | Presumption Of Validity Operates In Favour Of Registered Adoption Deed, Strict Proof Not Required: Karnataka HC

    Case Title: M G Purshotham & Others AND N K Srinivasan & Others

    Case No: Regular Second Appeal No 498/2007

    Citation NO: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 90

    The Karnataka High Court has said that a strict burden of proof for an adoption cannot be insisted upon when the adoption deed is registered.

    A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh allowed an appeal filed by MG Purushotham who had challenged the order of the trial court and the first appellate court allowing the suit filed by NK Srinivasan and others, declaring him as the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and held that the adoption deed was null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

    Mother Taking Care Of Children Does A "Whole Time Job", Can't Be Said To Be Lazying Around: Karnataka High Court Enhances Maintenance

    Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

    Case No: Writ Petition No 14094 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 106

    The Karnataka High Court has observed that taking care of the children, for a mother, is a whole time job and the husband cannot deny maintenance amount on the ground that she being qualified is not willing to work and earn money and wants to live on the maintenance that the husband pays.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a woman questioning the order of the trial court granting a monthly maintenance amount under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the tune of Rs 18,000 instead of Rs 36,000 sought by her.

    Can't Let Husband Create 'Artificial Deductions' From Salary To Grant Less Maintenance To Wife: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

    Case No: REV. PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.233 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 110

    The Karnataka High Court has held that extra deductions from the salary of husband like provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, etc., cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount to be granted to the estranged wife.

    A single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar dismissed the petition filed by a husband questioning the order of the family court granting maintenance of Rs.15,000 to his wife and Rs.10,000 to his daughter under section 125 CrPC. It said, “What are the compulsorily amounts to be deducted are income tax and professional tax...Considering deductions from the salary of petitioner/husband, those are provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, towards loan obtained by the petitioner/husband, LIC premium and festival advance, these are all deductions accruing to the benefit of petitioner only. These amounts cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount.”

    S.125 CrPC | Daughter-In-Law Cannot Seek Maintenance From Parents-In-Law: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: Abdul Khader & ANR AND Tasleem Jamela Agadi & Others

    Case No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100026 OF 2022

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 121

    The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a daughter-in-law cannot lay a claim for maintenance against her parents-in-law.

    A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by an elderly couple and set aside the order of the trial court dated 30.11.2021, directing them to pay Rs 20,000 to the wife of their deceased son and Rs 5,000 to his children.

    Matrimonial Dispute | Strong Prima Facie Evidence Needed To Refer Wife To Board Of Psychiatrist For Medical Examination: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

    Case No: WRIT PETITION No.26295 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 130

    The Karnataka High Court has said that there should be strong prima facie evidence to consider an application filed by the husband who is seeking divorce, to refer the wife to a Board of Psychiatrists for medical examination on the ground of her being of unsound mind.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by a husband who questioned the order of the family court which kept in abeyance his application seeking to refer the wife to a Board of Psychiatrists at NIMHANS for medical examination. It also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner (husband) to be paid to the wife.

    Second Spouse Or Their Family Can't Be Prosecuted For Bigamy Under Section 494 IPC: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: Thimmappa & Others AND Bharathi

    Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7517 OF 2017

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 148

    The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that it is only the husband or wife who marries for the second time during the subsistence of an earlier marriage and the life time of the earlier spouse, who can be prosecuted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

    A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj added that the second spouse or their parents can't be prosecuted under the provision.

    Rights Of Adopted Children Of Citizens Can't Be Marooned: Karnataka HC Directs CARA To Consider Granting NOC For Child Adopted From Non-Hague Convention Country

    Case Title: Ravi Kumar & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Authority & Others

    Case No: Writ Petition 17967 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 149

    The Karnataka High Court has directed the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to consider the representation of a couple who are Indian Citizens and have adopted a child in Uganda, a country which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention 1995 and seeking to legalise the adoption in India in terms of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations of CARA, 2022.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and said, “The Union of India not to restrict its magnanimity to issuance of a support letter; it should stretch for issuance of an approval or a no objection under the Regulations, for the reason that, it is a signatory to the Hague Convention. Even though the adoption has not happened under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, and in a country which is not a signatory to Hague Convention, but adoption has happened, the rights of a child of Indian citizens, who have adopted, cannot be left marooned.”

    Stigma Of Ex-Parte Divorce Can't Hang Over Head Of Widow To Deny Her Benefits Of Being Spouse Of Ex-Serviceman: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: Parvathamma And The Joint Director

    Case No: Writ Petition No 416 of 2024

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 161

    The Karnataka High Court has held that a spouse of an ex-serviceman cannot be denied a grant of a widow identity card on the ground that an ex-parte decree of divorce against the wife was granted on a plea by the husband who passed away during the pendency of the application seeking recall of the ex-parte decree.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Parvathamma and directed the Joint Director, Sainik Welfare and Resettlement to issue the petitioner a widow identity card, within two weeks. She is entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the grant of the identity card.

    Couple Entering Into 'Mubarat' Agreement Is Entitled To Declaration Of Dissolution Of Marriage By Family Court: Karnataka HC

    Case Title: Shabnam Parveen Ahmad & ANR AND NIL

    Case NO: MFA 4711 OF 2022

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 162

    The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that when the parties (Sunni Muslims) have entered into a Mubarat agreement and have decided to dissolve the marriage entered into between them by the said agreement, the Family Court is empowered to consider the application for divorce by mutual consent.

    A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde allowed the appeal filed by the couple and dissolved the marriage between the parties accepting the Mubarat agreement.

    Specific Relief Can Be Granted If 'Karta' Enters Agreement Without Joint Owners For Benefit Of Joint Family, To Clear Loan Availed By Them: Karnataka HC

    Case Title: C Kempanna AND Munichannarayappa & others

    Case No: R.S.A.NO.1102/2008

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 165

    The Karnataka High Court has held that relief of specific performance can be granted against a defendant who is the Karta of the family when the other members of the joint family are not included in the sale agreement if the sale consideration is used for benefit of the joint family and for clearing the loan availed by joint owners.

    A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed an appeal filed by C Kempanna challenging the order of the trial court and the first appellate court allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff.

    Husband With 75% Disability Can't Be Directed To Pay Maintenance To Estranged Wife: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: Priyanka Singh AND Pankaj Singh Sengar

    Case No: WRIT PETITION No.48615 OF 2013 (GM - FC) C/W WRIT PETITION No.41607 OF 2017 (GM - FC) WRIT PETITION No.41608 OF 2017

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 172

    The Karnataka High Court has refused to direct a husband with 75% disability to pay maintenance to his estranged wife and also set aside an order of the execution court which, acting on the plea filed by the wife, had issued an arrest warrant or fine levy warrant against the husband.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The husband walks with the help of crutches. Therefore, in the considered view of the Court, no direction can be issued to the husband to pay maintenance to the wife/respondent as he is no longer an able bodied man to search for employment and pay maintenance to maintain the wife and the child.”

    Shariat Law Doesn't Override Stamp Act; Transfer Of Property By Way Of Settlement Deed Permissible Among Mohammedans: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: Sultan Mohiyuddin & Others AND Habeebunissa & Others

    Case No: RFA NO.626 OF 2013

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 204

    The Karnataka High Court has held that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, does not override Section 2(q) and Article 48 of the Karnataka Stamp Act 1957, which deal with the contract of “settlement” thus, the transfer of property by way of “settlement” is very much permissible even among Mohammedans.

    A single-judge bench of Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde allowed an appeal filed by Sultan Mohiyuddin and others and set aside the order of the trial court which had allowed the suit for partition and separate possession filed by Habeebunnissa and others and held that the transfer of property through settlement deed as was done by the father of the appellant is impermissible among the Mohammadans.

    Wife's Appeal Challenging Divorce Decree Does Not Stand Abated On Husband's Death: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

    Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4677 OF 2016

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 221

    The Karnataka High Court recently held that an appeal filed by a wife challenging the divorce decree granted in favour of the husband by the family court does not stand abated on the husband dying pending hearing of appeal.

    A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde allowed the appeal filed by a woman and set aside order of the family court granting divorce on grounds of cruelty on the petition filed by the husband.

    Custody Application Of Minor Can Only Be Filed Before Court Having Jurisdiction Where Child Ordinarily Resides: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: Samiulla Saheb & ANR AND Mohammed Sameer

    Case No: WRIT PETITION No.6789 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 224

    The Karnataka High Court recently held that an application seeking custody of a minor child has to be filed only before a court where the minor child ordinarily resides.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the grandparents Samiulla Saheb and another of the minor child and set aside the order of the trial court rejecting their application filed under Order VII Rule, 10 a/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to return the plaint filed by the father of the minor child.

    Karnataka High Court Attaches Husband's Property For Failing To Pay Maintenance To Wife & Differently-Abled Child

    Case Title: Uma & ANR AND Banshankar & Others

    Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9908 OF 2018

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 225

    The Karnataka High Court recently directed attaching the property of a man by creating a charge over his property to secure payment of maintenance to his estranged wife and differently-abled son.

    A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde allowed the application filed by the wife and child for attaching the property of the husband. It said “Charge is created over the said property to secure payment of maintenance to the plaintiffs. The property standing in the name of the 1st defendant described in the schedule given below, and any other property in the name of the 1st defendant, if the property details are furnished by the plaintiff, shall carry the charge of maintenance ordered by this Court.”

    Unfounded Allegation On Character Of Spouse Is Cruelty, Can Be Grounds For Dissolution Of Marriage: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

    Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2107 OF 2020

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 232

    The Karnataka High Court recently allowed an appeal filed by a woman challenging the order of the trial court dismissing her petition seeking divorce and held that unfounded allegation on the character of a spouse causes mental cruelty and can be a ground for dissolution of marriage.

    A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde allowed the appeal filed by the woman and said “The institution of marriage rests on the mutual trust, confidence, love and respect between the couple. When one spouse makes an allegation suspecting the character of the other and if that allegation is not substantiated, the Court has to hold that the allegation is unfounded. The unfounded allegation on the character of a spouse shakes the edifice of the institution of marriage. In such a situation, it would be extremely difficult for the spouse to live peacefully in matrimony.”

    Husband Who Has Deserted Wife And Child Is Bound To Pay Maintenance Irrespective Of Financial Status: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: Amit Chougule AND Megha

    Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.102123 OF 2024

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 244

    The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a husband questioning the interim maintenance granted to the estranged and minor child by the trial court.

    A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed the contention of the husband that he is unemployed as he has lost his job. He is not in a position to pay maintenance as he has no independent source of income.

    The court said “If the petitioner has deserted the wife irrespective of his financial status, he is bound to maintain his wife and minor children. The petitioner under the garb that he has lost his employment, cannot shy away from his responsibility of maintaining the wife and minor daughter.”

    Non-Alienating Members Of Joint Family Cannot Be Impleaded In Suit Filed For Specific Performance Of Contract: Karnataka High Court

    Case Tile: Rasheedabanu Mohammed Goush Kwati & ANR AND Ashpakaahamad Abdulasab Mulla & Others

    Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100847 OF 2024

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 249

    The Karnataka High Court has held that even if the property which is the subject matter of the agreement to sell is the ancestral property, non-alienating members of a joint family have no locus to contest the suit for specific performance.

    A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum sitting at Dharwad bench dismissed the petition filed by Rasheedabanu Mohammed Goush Kwati and another challenging the order of the trial court dismissing their application seeking impleadment.

    Karnataka High Court Declines Wife's Plea To Examine Husband Allegedly Diagnosed With 'Missing Brain' Condition Amidst Pending Divorce Case

    Case Title: X AND Karnataka Medical Council & ANR

    Case No: WRIT PETITION No.4617 OF 2024

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 259

    The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a doctor-wife questioning the rejection of her application by the Karnataka Medical Council wherein she had sought to appoint an Expert Committee to examine her husband, also a doctor, who was allegedly diagnosed as suffering from a porencephalic cyst (missing brain).

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by the estranged wife. However, it clarified that the issue could be kept open to be urged at a later point in time if the need arises.

    [S.498A IPC] Scores Of Cases Where Husband's Family Is Dragged Into Web Of Crime By Frivolous Complaints Of Wife, Must Be Nipped In The Bud: Karnataka HC

    Case Title: C B Prakash & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

    Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6995 OF 2022

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 262

    The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code registered by a woman against her father and mother-in-law.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by C B Prakash and another said “There are scores and scores of cases where allegations are made that have pointed overt acts by every member of the family which are sustained and further trial is permitted. There are even scores and scores of cases where every member of the family without rhyme or reason is dragged into the web of crime by frivolous complaints registered by the complainant/wife while the entire grievance is against the husband and every imaginary member of the family is dragged in. It is these cases which are to be nipped in the bud.”

    Husband's Paramour Is Not Relative Or Family Member, Cannot Be Dragged Into Proceedings U/S 498A IPC: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

    Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 88 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 275

    The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by a woman against the paramour of her husband.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the woman and her mother who were arrayed as accused in the case registered under sections 498A, 323, 324, 307, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

    [S.498A IPC] Karnataka HC Allows Husband To Initiate Criminal Proceedings Against Wife For Falsely Accusing Him Of Cruelty, Claiming He Had HPV

    Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR

    Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1803 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 291

    The Karnataka High Court has granted liberty to a husband to initiate criminal proceedings for malicious prosecution, under Section 211 of the IPC (Falsely accuse others of committing an offence) against his estranged wife.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a husband and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against him by the wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The wife had claimed that the husband was suffering from Human Papilloma-Virus (HPV), which is a sexually transmitted disease (STD).

    Sessions Court Not Empowered To Quash Entire Proceedings U/S 12 Domestic Violence Act, Party Must Approach High Court: Karnataka HC

    Case Title: A Ramesh Babu & Others AND Dharani S

    Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3578 OF 2022

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 292

    The Karnataka High Court has held that a petition calling in question the entire proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would be maintainable before the High Court, not the Sessions Court.

    However, if any particular order is passed on any application filed under Sections 18, 19, 20 or 22 of the Act, those specific orders are to be agitated before the Court of Sessions invoking Section 29 of the Act.

    Application By Woman Under Domestic Violence Act Can't Be Dismissed By Trial Court Without Issuing Notice, Carrying Out Inquiry: Karnataka HC

    Case Title: ABC AND XYZ & Others

    Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4710 OF 2024

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 300

    The Karnataka High Court has said that an application made by a woman under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, cannot be dismissed by the trial court without issuing notice to the respondents or carrying out an enquiry.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a woman and set aside the order dated 18-03-2024, passed by the trial which had on going through the application dismissed it by observing that the case does not project any domestic violence.

    Father Can't Be Charged Of 'Kidnapping' His Minor Child From Wife's Custody Unless He Was Specifically Prohibited By Competent Court: Karnataka HC

    Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka

    Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102394 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 349

    The Karnataka High court has held that a father cannot be charged for kidnapping his minor child from the custody of his wife, so long as there is no prohibition order passed by a competent court against him.

    A single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T allowed the petition filed by the husband and quashed the proceedings initiated against him by his wife for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC.

    Wife's Suit For Declaration Of Right In Ex-Husband's Property Maintainable Before Family Court: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: Bashirahmed AND Surayya & Others

    Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101005 OF 2015

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 353

    The Karnataka High Court has said that a suit filed by a wife before the family court to seek a declaration of share in property of her divorced husband as agreed in the terms of divorce, is maintainable.

    A division bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed an appeal filed by the ex-husband questioning the jurisdiction of the family court to declare that the divorced wife was entitled to 1/4th share in his suit house property, by way of partition as per Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure and restraining him from permanently alienating the property.

    "Misconceived, Filed During Divorce Proceedings": Karnataka HC Dismisses Wife's Appeal Seeking Examination Of Husband For Alleged 'Missing Brain' Condition

    Case Title:Dr. Namratha NR and Karnataka Medical Council & Others

    Case No: Writ Appeal No 1017/2024

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 362

    The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by an estranged wife challenging a single bench order which refused to direct the appointment of an Expert Committee of neurosurgeons to examine her doctor husband who is alleged of suffering from a porencephalic cyst (missing brain).

    A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the appeal filed by the estranged wife challenging the order of the single judge bench dated June 4. It said “The entire petition clearly smacked that the petitioner was grinding a family dispute as per her own case, to file a complaint and seek prayer against R2 (husband) who is practising doctor. Petitioner did not file any complaint for 26 years against her husband's practice. At such a stage she brought the petition when divorce proceedings are pending, the prayers made are outrightly misconceived.”

    S.23 Senior Citizens Act | Karnataka HC Allows Mother To Void Gift Deed Transferring Property To Son After He Refuses To Assist Parents In Old Age

    Case Title: Shobha AND Dr Anil P Kumar

    Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 202832 OF 2019

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar). 375

    The Karnataka High Court has said that when parents transfer property by way of gift, a reasonable expectation that their offspring would take care of their requirements in their old age can imputed from the pleadings made in the application filed under Section 23 of the Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, even if not so mentioned in the gift deed.

    Section 23 pertains to transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.

    A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while setting aside an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which had rejected the application made by one Shobha seeking to void the gift deed executed in favour of her son Dr Anil P Kumar after he showed disinterest in ensuring her and her husband's welfare and did not provide basic amenities and tend to physical needs during old age.

    Karnataka High Court Quashes Husband's Complaint Alleging Wife Was Attempting To Murder Him And His Mother Using 'Black Magic'

    Case Title: Mohammed Shahid & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

    Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9653 OF 2023 C/W WRIT PETITION No.19687 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.23864 OF 2023.

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 376

    The Karnataka High Court has quashed a complaint registered by a husband against his wife claiming she wanted to murder him and his mother using Black Magic.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the wife and quashed the order of reference made for further investigation by the Magistrate court on the private complaint filed by the husband under sections 380, 411, 506, 307, 511 and 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act, 2017.

    Father Responsible To Pay Child's School Fees Apart From Interim Maintenance Particularly When Wife Unemployed At His Insistence: Karnataka HC

    Case Title: Chaithanya Reddy S V AND Nayana & ANR

    Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4463 OF 2024

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 382

    The Karnataka High Court has said that payment of child's school fees by a father would not mean that he would not pay maintenance amount to the child on account of him living separately with his mother.

    A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the petition filed by a husband challenging an order of the trial court directing him to pay Rs 5,000 each to wife and child as interim maintenance.

    Courts Can Stay Divorce Proceedings Instituted By Husband Until He Pays Arrears Of Maintenance To Wife: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

    Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11721 OF 2020

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 419

    The Karnataka High Court has recently held that courts can stay the divorce proceedings instituted by the husband until he pays arrears of maintenance amount to the wife as ordered by the court.

    The observations were made, while the high court allowed a petition filed by an estranged wife and set aside the order of the trial court which had dismissed her application seeking stay on the divorce proceedings initiated by the husband for non payment of the arrears of interim maintenance.

    Husband Committing Suicide Due To Wife's Illicit Relationship No Ground To Convict For Abetment Of Suicide: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: Prema & ANR AND State of Karnataka

    Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 54 OF 2013

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 463

    The Karnataka High Court has said that a husband committing suicide allegedly due to his wife having an illicit relationship with another man cannot be a ground to convict the wife for charges of abetment to suicide.

    A single-judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar allowed the appeal filed by Prema and Basavalinge Gowda and set aside the conviction order passed by the trial court.

    Court noted that as per the definition of abutment, there should be instigation to do that thing and then it amounts to abetment. A person is said to have instigated another to an act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement.

    Father Legally Bound To Maintain Daughters, Provide 'Excellent Education' Even If They Live With Mother After Divorce: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: B C Hanumantharaju AND Kavyashree & ANR

    Case No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 313 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 464

    While dismissing a man's plea challenging an order to maintain his daughters including a minor, the Karnataka High Court underscored that the father is "legally bound to maintain the daughters" and provide them with an "excellent education"even if they are living separately with his ex-wife.

    A single judge bench of Justice Ashok S Kinagi held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one B C Hanumantharaju challenging an order of maintenance issued by the trial court. The trial court vide its order dated 07-03-2023, directed him to pay Rs.6,000 per month to each of his daughters including a minor till they get married. It had further directed him to pay Rs.1,04,000 to the respondents towards educational expenses incurred during the current academic year.

    Family Members Calling Wife For Conciliation Meeting After She Had Feud With Husband Not Mental Harassment: Karnataka High Court

    Case Title: Sudha Bai & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR

    Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7090 OF 2023

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 499

    The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered by a woman against her brother-in-law and others alleging them of causing mental harassment to her when they after she had a feud with her husband called her to the matrimonial home for conciliation.

    Single judge Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Sudha Bai and others and quashed the proceedings initiated against them under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

    KERALA HIGH COURT

    Special Marriage Act | Even Parties To A Void Marriage Can Approach Family Court For Redressal Of Grievances: Kerala High Court

    Case title: Joseph A U v Princy P J

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 56

    The Kerala High Court on interpreting the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Special Marriage Act, 1954 observed that a dispute between parties to a void marriage could be determined by a Family Court.

    The Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C.Pratheep Kumar observed that even parties to a void marriage can approach the Family Court for the redressal of their grievances.

    “Therefore, from a conjoined reading of Section 24 (1)(i) of Special Marriage Act and Explanation (a) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, it is evident that a marriage which is void, as defined under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, will remain valid for all practical purposes, unless it is annulled in a suit or proceedings before the Family Court. In other words, from the above provisions, it can also be safely concluded that even the parties to a void marriage can approach the Family Court for redressing their grievance and as such this point is liable to be answered in the negative.”

    No Wife Expected To Sacrifice Her Physical, Mental Health For Sadistic Pleasure Of Partner: Kerala High Court Declines Husband's Divorce Plea

    Case title: AD v. B

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 105

    The Kerala High Court has refused dissolution of marriage in a matrimonial appeal preferred by the husband on grounds of alleged cruelty, desertion and non-fulfilment of marital obligations by the wife, stating that a wife cannot be expected to tolerate husband's acts of cruelty by sacrificing her physical and mental health.

    The appellant (husband) had approached the High Court challenging the order of the Family Court by which he was denied dissolution of marriage after the respondent (wife) raised allegations of matrimonial cruelty, including physical and mental abuse.

    Not Feasible To Expect Documentary Evidence In Family Matters, Court Must Be Prudent: Kerala High Court Reiterates

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 165

    Case Title: Isahack v. Mini and ors.

    The Kerala High Court has reiterated that it is not feasible to have documentary evidence in a transaction between spouses and in-laws, in a plea challenging the maintainability of a petition before the family court.

    A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C Pratheep Kumar observed that “in a transaction between spouses and in-laws, especially when it occurred during the period in which they were in cordial terms and most probably at the time of marriage or immediately before the marriage, usually there will be no documents to prove the same”. 

    The petitioner had challenged an original petition filed by his daughter (1st respondent) on the ground that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The respondent had filed a plea before the family court to assign the scheduled property in her favor in lieu of the money and gold belonging to her that was entrusted to the petitioner.

    Wife Can't Unilaterally Withdraw Consent For Divorce After Settlement Was Arrived At During Mediation: Kerala HC Upholds Dissolution Of Marriage

    Case Title: XXX v. XXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 181

    The Kerala High Court upheld the judgement passed by the Family Court dissolving the marriage between the parties in a joint petition filed for divorce, even though the wife withdrew her consent for filing the divorce.

    The Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C Pratheep Kumar stated that the Family Court dissolved the marriage by relying upon the decision in Benny v. Mini (2021) and the Bombay High Court judgment in Prakash Alumal Kalandari v. Jahnavi Prakash Kalandari (2011). The Court stated that one party cannot unilaterally withdraw from the terms of settlement entered through a mediation agreement after the other party has performed their part of the settlement terms.

    Dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, the Court stated that, 

    “Several litigations are pending between the parties before various courts including petition for divorce, custody of child and patrimony. All those cases were settled in mediation and the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Accordingly, the parties filed a joint petition for divorce, received part payment, disposed of the pending cases and thereafter at the final stage when the case was taken up for evidence to record the consent of the parties, the appellant withdrew her consent.”

    Family Courts Have Power To Modify Child Custody Orders If Situation Changes, Doctrine Of Res Judicata Not Applicable: Kerala High Court

    Case Title: Thomas @ Manoj EJ v. Indu S 

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 260 

    The Kerala High Court has upheld an order of the Family Court which stated that in child custody matters, it is open to the parties to approach the court and seek modification of the order if there is any change of circumstances. The Family Court added that the order passed initially cannot be said to be final, stating that the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable in child custody matters.

    While dismissing the petition challenging the Family Court order, a division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice PM Manoj reiterated that “the Courts have the authority to modify custody orders if there are changes in circumstances that affect the well-being of the child. Even when orders are based on agreement/understanding between parents, they can be revisited if the situation changes and it's deemed necessary for the welfare of the child”.

    Affidavit Necessary With Application U/S 156(3) CrPC, Magistrate Should Be Vigilant In Accepting Applications In Matrimonial/Family Disputes: Kerala High Court

    Case Title: Don Paul V State of Kerala

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 300

    The Kerala High Court relying upon the Apex Court decision in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) and other decisions stated that preconditions have to be satisfied to seek investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC before a Magistrate.

    Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the Magistrate should be vigilant in accepting applications seeking investigation in cases relating to the fiscal sphere, matrimonial/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, or cases where there is abnormal delay/laches.

    Doctrine Of 'Paternity' By Estoppel: Kerala High Court Says Child's Parentage Can't Be Challenged When Conduct Proves Otherwise

    Case Title: A J Stephen v Rosemariya

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 339

    The Kerala High Court has held that it is not permissible for a man to challenge the paternity of a child when his conduct proves otherwise.

    The facts of the case were that in 2022, the petitioner approached the Family Court seeking DNA test stating that he reasonably suspects the minor child's paternity. The Family Court observed that the petitioner suppressed material fact that he had entered into an agreement with the child's mother wherein he accepted the paternity. It thus dismissed petitioner's prayer to undergo DNA test. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 seeking a declaration that he was not the father of the minor child.

    The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P M Manoj applied the principle of doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel by relying on by Pennsylvania Supreme Court in T.E.B. v. C.A.B. v. P.D.K. Jr. to state that if a man cannot be permitted to deny child's parentage if he has held out be a child's father through his conduct.

    Kerala HC Directs Family Court To Conduct Joint Trial Of Plea To Recover Past Maintenance And Miscellaneous Case Claiming Future Maintenance

    Case Title: Suneeh Babu v Maneesha

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 447

    The Kerala High Court has directed a Family Court to conduct joint trial of an Original Petition (OP) and Miscellaneous Case (MC) filed under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance.

    The petitioner/husband had approached the High Court against the dismissal of his joint trial application of an OP and MC by the Family Court.

    The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice C Pratheep Kumar observed that join trial would save judicial time and energy.

    Woman's Partner, His Relatives Can't Be Prosecuted For Cruelty In Absence Of Legal Marriage: Kerala High Court

    Case Title: X v State of Kerala and Anr

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 688

    While quashing a criminal case registered against a man under Section 498A IPC by the complainant wife, the Kerala High Court reiterated that in the absence of records proving legal marriage between the parties, there can be no prosecution for cruelty against the partner of the woman, or his relatives. In the facts of the case, the marriage between the petitioner husband and the de facto complainant wife was declared as null and void by the Family Court in 2013 after finding that the complainant wife's prior marriage was subsisting and had not dissolved. The high court thus said since the marriage has been declared as null and void, then there is "no legal marriage in the eye of law".

    Referring to the court's recent decision on the subject, a single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held: “Thus it is emphatically clear that when there is no legal marriage the woman's partner did not attain the status of her husband and an offence under Section 498A of IPC would get attracted only against her husband or relative/relatives of her husband. Therefore, in the absence of a legal marriage as borne out from the records, no offence under Section 498A of IPC would get attracted against the partner of a woman or against the partner's relatives since the partner without a legal marriage would not occupy the status of husband.

    Post-Partum Depression Is Common, Temporary: Kerala HC Sets Aside Family Court's Order Granting Permanent Custody Of Child To Father

    Case Name: xxx v xxx 

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 714

    The Kerala High Court set aside the orders of the Family Court granting permanent custody of a one-and-a-half-year-old daughter to the father on the prima facie finding that the mother was suffering from psychiatric disorders from her old medical records indicating post-partum depression.

    The Court further stated that scientific studies are proving that post-partum depression is relatively common in some women and is typically a temporary condition and not permanent.

    The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed that the Family Court should not have granted permanent custody the daughter to the father merely based on the mother's medical records which indicated post-partum depression shortly after giving birth to the child.

    Proceedings Pending U/S 125 CrPC Not Bar On Maintenance Tribunal's Jurisdiction To Provide Residence To Senior Citizens/ Parents: Kerala HC

    Case Title: Mrs. Ameera M V The Maintenance Tribunal, Kozhikode

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 772

    The Kerala High Court has held that the pendency of maintenance proceedings before the Family Court under Section 125 of the CrPC would not affect the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal from ordering residence to senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007.

    Justice D. K. Singh observed that the 2007 Act was enacted to prevent the deprivation of senior citizens by their children and to safeguard their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court clarified that Section 12 of the Act, which stipulates that maintenance can be claimed either under Section 125 of the CrPC or Section 12 of the Act but not under both, does not restrict the Tribunal's authority to grant residence to senior citizens.

    Modern Legal System Doesn't Allow Claiming Damages For Adultery, Rejects Notion Of 'Owning' Spouse's Loyalty: Kerala High Court

    Case Title: XXX and Another v XXX and Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 793

    The Kerala High Court while reversing a decision of the Family Court granting compensation to the husband for his wife's alleged adulterous behaviour observed that India like many other jurisdictions does not recognize adultery as a ground for claiming damages.

    The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha observed that Indian law does not recognize marriage as a “relationship that creates enforceable propriety rights over spouse's behaviour.”

    Shuttling Child Between Two Forums Causes Inconvenience And Is Detrimental To Child's Welfare: Kerala High Court In Custody Battle

    Case Title: xxx v Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 815

    The Kerala High Court set aside an order issued by the Child Welfare Committee, which had directed the child to be produced before it without hearing the preliminary objections of the mother. The Court noted that the father filed a parallel petition before the Child Welfare Committee, while his original petition for custody was still pending before the Family Court.

    Justice C S Dias observed that shuttling child between two forums would cause inconvenience to the child and would affect its well-being.

    MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT 

    Wife's Refusal To Consummate Marriage Amounts To Mental Cruelty, Ground For Divorce: MP High Court

    Title: Sudeepto Saha v. Moumita Saha

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 6

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that wife's refusal to consummate the marriage would amount to cruelty, and would constitute a ground for divorce under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

    The Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vinay Saraf observed

    “...The appellant solemnized the marriage. It was already decided that he will leave India in a short period. During this period, the appellant was hopeful to consummate the marriage but the same was denied by the respondent and certainly the said act of the respondent amounts to mental cruelty. The ground of divorce enumerated in Clause (i-a) under Section 13 (1) is made out. The appellant is entitled for the decree of divorce”

    The appellant husband in this case filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce alleging that despite the solemnization of marriage with the respondent in 2006, the latter refused consummation of their marriage, and denied cohabitation with the appellant.

    No Hindu Marriage Deemed Valid Until 'Saptapadi' Is Performed: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Title: Ajay Kumar Jain and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 13

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court had observed that in Hindu law, marriage is not a contract and unless and until Saptapadi is performed, there cannot be said to be a valid marriage.

    With this, a bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia dismissed a plea filed by 4 petitioners seeking to quash an FIR lodged against them for offences under Sections 366 (abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage), 498- A (cruelty), 34 (common intention) of IPC

    The petitioners were alleged to have abducted the prosecutrix/victim, forcibly bringing her to Jabalpur. Subsequently, they took her to the High Court premises and coerced her into signing specific documents pertaining to the marriage of the victim and petitioner no. 1.

    Seeking to quash the FIR, the counsel for the petitioners argued that a marriage (between victim and petitioner no. 1) had been performed by following the ritual of exchange of garland (Varmala) and filling up of Maang with vermilion (Sindoor). A marriage certificate was also produced to fortify their claim of marriage. However, in its order, the Court noted that counsel for petitioners could not point out any provision of law which acknowledges the performance of marriage by exchange of garland (Varmala). The court also emphasized on the importance of performance of Saptapadi for a valid Hindu marriage.

    Wife Entitled To Maintenance When Promises Made By Husband In Agreement To Live Separately Not Complied With: MP High Court

    Title: Smt. Nagina Bano & Ors v. Mohd. Naeem Ali

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 21

    Madhya Pradesh High Court had held that when the husband has taken a step back from the promises made in the agreement to live separately, then it can't be said that the wife is living separately by mutual consent.

    The single-judge bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat also clarified that the wife will be entitled to maintenance in such instances.

    “... Petitioner No.1 agreed to live separately on the basis of promises made in the agreement. Since respondent resiled from promises made in the agreement therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner is living separately by mutual consent”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur observed.

    The court also added that the trial court has erred in dismissing the application filed by the wife for the grant of maintenance to her and her two children under Section 125(5) of Cr.P.C. The court accordingly directed the respondent-husband to pay the maintenance of Rs 5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs 2,500 each to the children aged 18 and 11 years.

    S.498A IPC | MP High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Husband's Relatives Upon Noting Allegations Lacked Specificity Such As Date & Time Of Dowry Demand

    Title: Smt. Geetababi Khambra V. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 25

    Citing the lack of 'specific' allegations in the F.I.R. as well as the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a case registered against the close relatives of the complainant's husband for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

    The single judge bench of Justice Maninder S. Bhatti pointed out that the petitioners, i.e., mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant, were not residing with the complainant at the relevant time. The complainant submitted that the petitioners used to visit her at the house where she lived along with her husband. During such visits, the petitioners allegedly demanded dowry from her to secure their financial interests.

    …There are no particulars like specific date and time when the complaint was subjected to the demand of dowry. As per complainant own showing the present petitioners were not residing with the present complainant but the complainant made an effort to demonstrate that the present petitioners used to visit her at place. The said particulars have not been disclosed by the complainant…”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur explained.

    Unscrupulous Litigation Against Husband & Family Even After Settlement & Mutual Divorce: MP High Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Wife

    Title: Anshul & Ors. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Connected Matter

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 47

    Madhya Pradesh High Court had imposed Rs 1 Lakh cost on a litigant wife for misusing the process of court by continuing prosecution against the husband and his family even after reaching a settlement and obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

    The single judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar opined that the cost imposed would serve as a warning for 'unscrupulous litigants' wasting the valuable time of the courts instead of serious litigation. The court also took note of the fact that the respondent-wife had already received Rs 50 lakhs as a part of the settlement before obtaining a divorce. Therefore, she should deposit the cost to the bank account of the petitioner-husband within four weeks, the court instructed.

    The petitioners had filed two separate petitions: one to quash the FIR registered at Vijayanagar Police station, and a criminal revision petition since the charges had already been framed by the trial court in pursuance of the criminal proceedings initiated. While allowing both petitions, the court also referred to judgments where unscrupulous litigations and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the husband even after reaching a compromise were frowned upon by the apex court as a misuse of the court's time. Some of these case laws were Mohd. Shamim & Ors v. Nahid Begum & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 757 and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731.

    'Tutored Daughter To Speak Against Her Own Father', MP High Court Holds Wife Depriving Husband Of Child's Affection Counts As Mental Cruelty

    Title: Karandeep Singh Chawla v. Gurshish Karandeep Chawla

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 48

    Madhya Pradesh High Court recently iterated in a matrimonial dispute that just like a child has the right to the love and affection of both parents, parents too have a right to receive the love and affection of their child.

    When the parent who has custody of the child does any act intending to deny such affection to the other parent, such alienation amounts to mental cruelty, the court clarified by relying on previous judgments.

    The Division Bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and Vinay Saraf observed,

    “…it can be safely observed that in present case also wife has tried to keep away husband from minor daughter and tutored her to speak against her own father. This is serious matter and definitely caused mental cruelty to husband”.

    The court also held that the husband is entitled to the decree of dissolution of marriage on account of baseless allegations levelled by the wife against him and his family members, which also amounts to mental cruelty. The court then went on to note that the other ground of desertion by the wife also stood proved since the wife refused to reply to the restitution notice issued by the husband. Instead, she chose to file numerous cases against him without valid grounds, the court added.

    Woman Can't Seek Maintenance From Second Husband U/S 125 CrPC If Her First Marriage Survives: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 54

    Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with a family court order that denied maintenance to a woman on account of the subsistence of her first marriage with another man. The court took the view that a wife should be a 'legally wedded wife' for claiming maintenance under section 125 CrPC.

    The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh added that the petitioner-woman will be at liberty to avail other remedies such as seeking compensation under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

    A woman, having solemnized second marriage to another person, is only entitled to get maintenance from that person, when the first marriage has been declared either null and void or she has obtained a divorce decree from her first husband… the petitioner No. 1 could not get divorce from her earlier husband/Bhagwansingh and could not file any proof of getting divorce…”, the court clarified why maintenance cannot be granted in the case

    Though another relief sought in the revision petition pertained to an increase in the quantum of maintenance awarded to the daughter born out of their relationship from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000/, the High Court refused to interfere with the maintenance amount citing the current income of her father. However, the daughter could apply before the Family Court under Section 127 CrPC [Alteration In Allowance Upon Change In Circumstances], the court added.

    Ousting Woman From Matrimonial Home Over Dowry Is Mental Cruelty, Continuous Offence With Fresh Cause Of Action Each Day: MP High Court

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 59

    Madhya Pradesh High Court had underscored that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home for less dowry would amount to mental cruelty.

    The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia added that the same would constitute a continuous offence which gives the aggrieved woman a fresh cause of action every day from there on.

    “It is true that there may not be any physical cruelty after the separation but under section 498-A of IPC, cruelty may be of mental or physical. If a lady has been ousted from her matrimonial house, then certainly it will have impact on her mind amounting to mental cruelty….then it would become a continuous offence and every day would give a fresh cause of action”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur noted in the order.

    The F.I.R. was filed by the wife allegedly three years after the separation; the complaint filed in 2021 stated that her husband, mother-in-law and relatives subjected her to torture, including physical and mental cruelty, for bringing less dowry. Her husband and mother-in-law allegedly used to beat her up by demanding an additional Rs 10 lakhs.

    The allegations of physical cruelty meted out by the mother-in-law is sufficient for the prosecution of offences mentioned in the F.I.R., the court opined. The court opined that there is sufficient material available against the husband as well for warranting prosecution.

    Madhya Pradesh HC Refuses Relief To Husband Who Threatened Wife With Irrevocable Divorce Through Talaq-E-Ahsan, Illegally Pronounced Talaq-Ul-Biddat

    Title: Javed Naseem v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 62

    Madhya Pradesh High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings pending against a husband and the witnesses who signed talaknama for granting Talaq-e-ahsan to a woman in contravention of Section 2(c) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

    The applicant-husband primarily submitted that Talaq-e-ahsan has no instantaneous effect and it becomes effective only after the completion of the wife's three menstrual cycles.

    The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that it does not become lawful merely by virtue of the husband's discretion to withdraw the same before the Talaq comes into force. It was further noted thad that before the period of iddah was over, the appellant had illegally pronounced talaq ul biddat or triple talaq to his wife.

    The court, after perusing the Talaq-e-ahsan sent by the applicant-husband by registered post on 30.01.2023, noted that the husband is effectively putting pressure on the complainant wife to come back during the period of iddah by threatening that Talaq would take effect otherwise. Therefore, the court felt that Talaq-e-ahsan sent by the husband is akin to 'instantaneous talaq'.

    Granting Protection To 19-Year-Olds, MP High Court Advises Youngsters To Be Cautious About Getting Into Live-In Relationships So Early

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 66

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while granting protection to a young live-in couple - both the boy and the girl aged 19 years- sounded a word of caution about youngsters getting into relationships and leaving their families at an early stage of life.

    Since the petitioners had attained the age of majority and affirmed that they were acting out of free choice, the Court (Indore Bench) granted them protection. At the same time, the bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed, “Having held so, this Court must record its concern on the choices, the youngsters are making these days. Although there is much to ponder over this subject but it must be remembered that even though certain rights have been conferred by the Constitution, it is not necessary to enjoy, and enforce them as well.”

    The petition filed by the petitioners, both of whom are aged 19 years sought that the respondents no.2 and 3 i.e., the Sanawad Dist. Khargone (Madhya Pradesh) and the Station House Officer P.S. Sanawad Dist. Khargone (Madhya Pradesh) be directed to give proper protection and help against the respondent no.4 to 6 and their associates.

    Both the petitioners also sought that they be given full protection and security and a false case should not be registered against the petitioner no.2

    In view of the aforesaid, the Madhya Pradesh Court allowed the petition as despite the fact that, “both the petitioners are 19 years old only, and the petitioner no.2 has not even completed 21 years, since he is a major, he is entitled to reside as per his own will, and if he so decides, his choice needs to be protected from external forces.”

    Wife Must Be Living In Adultery 'At Or Around Time' Of Filing S. 125 CrPC Plea To Be Disentitled To Maintenance: MP High Court

    Case title - RKA vs DA

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 68

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court had observed that a wife can be debarred from getting maintenance on the ground of “adultery” only when she is actually “living in adultery” at or around the time of application for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

    A bench of Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta added that the acts of adultery by the wife have to be continuous and the liability to prove the same is upon the husband to debar wife from getting maintenance as per Section 125 (4) CrPC.

    The Court observed thus while dismissing a plea moved by a husband challenging a family court's order directing him to pay Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance to his wife (respondent) on a plea moved by her under Section 125 CrPC.

    In the family court, the wife asserted that her husband began pressuring her for dowry shortly after their marriage. She claimed that when she didn't meet his demands, he resorted to physical violence against her. She further alleged that a year before filing for maintenance, her husband forced her out of the matrimonial house, leaving her to reside in a rented room without any support from him.

    The Court noted that as per Sectio 125 (4) CrPC, a wife is not entitled to any maintenance allowance from her husband if she is living in adultery or if she has refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason or if they are living separately by mutual consent

    The Court, however, noted that the law mandates that to extract the provision under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, the husband has to establish with definite evidence that the wife has been living in adultery, and one or occasion acts of adultery committed in isolation would not amount to “living in adultery”.

    Wife Going Shopping With Others, Compelling Husband To Do Household Chores Not 'Abetment Of Suicide': Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Case Title: Nisha Saket vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 71

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the wife's act of not preparing the food in time, compelling the husband to do household chores and going to the market along with other persons for shopping purposes does not attract the offence of abetment of suicide.

    While setting aside an order of the Sessions Judge, Umaria framing charge under Section 306 IPC against the wife for allegedly abetting her husband's suicide, a bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed thus:

    “In cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts or incitement of commission of suicide. Acts involve multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and reactions or in the cases of abetment, Court must look for cogent and convincing proof of acts of incitement of commission of suicide”

    The Court was dealing with a plea filed by one Nisha Saket (applicant), against whom, a charge had been framed for abetting her husband's suicide.

    The primary allegations against the applicant-wife revolved around her alleged rude behaviour towards her in-laws and her deceased husband. It was alleged that she did not maintain a good relationship with her in-laws and failed to adequately care for her husband. There were instances where she did not prepare meals for her husband on time, leading to him sometimes going on duty without eating.

    Mother-In-Law Objecting To Household Works Of Daughter-In-Law Doesn't Constitute Cruelty U/S 498-A IPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Case Title: Alka Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 72

    In a ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had said that the mere act of a mother-in-law objecting to the household work of her daughter-in-law does not constitute cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.

    "If the daughter-in-law gets mental harassment on account of certain objections raised by her mother-in-law in the household works, then it can be said that the daughter-in-law may be hypersensitive. But, certain disputes with regard to household works would certainly not amount to cruelty," a bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed.

    The single judge added that if a mother-in-law tries to stay away from the personal disputes in the life of the husband and wife, then also it cannot be said that such an act of mother-in-law would amount to cruelty as per the requirement of Section 498A IPC.

    The court made these observations while allowing a plea filed by one Alka Sharma (mother-in-law) seeking quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings in a case lodged against her (filed by her daughter-in-law) for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

    Woman Living As Wife For Long Time Entitled To Maintenance From Husband In Absence Of Proof That She Is Not 'Legally Wedded': MP High Court

    Case Title: Shailesh Bopche v. Anita Bopche

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 76

    Madhya Pradesh High Court had clarified that a woman will be entitled to maintenance when the parties are living as husband and wife for a long time, given that there is no specific finding that she is not the legally wedded wife.

    In the instant case, the single judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia concluded that the trial court was right in awarding maintenance to the aggrieved woman.

    “….this Court is of considered opinion that since the applicant and respondent were residing as husband and wife for a considerable long time and in absence of any specific finding by the Trial Court that respondent is not a legally wedded wife of the applicant, this Court is of considered opinion that the Trial Court did not commit any mistake by awarding maintenance to the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur noted in the order after considering the totality of facts and circumstances in the case.

    Denying Food To Married Woman Over Non-Fulfillment Of Dowry Demand Amounts To Physical & Mental Harassment: MP High Court

    Case title - Nitish Umariya and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 77

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that not providing food to the married woman on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry would amount to physical and mental harassment.

    A bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia added that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry would certainly amount to mental harassment, punishable under section 498-A of IPC.

    The Court made these observations while dismissing a petition moved by a husband (applicant no. 1) and his family members seeking to quash an FIR lodged at the instance of the wife (respondent no. 2) for the offence under sections 498-A, 506, 34 of I.P.C. read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

    The impugned FIR had been lodged by respondent No.2 (wife) on the allegations that upon her marriage to applicant No.1 (husband) in April 2018, adequate dowry was provided by her father. However, the applicants (husband and in-laws) allegedly refused to provide her with food, keeping it hidden and leaving her hungry and thirsty. The FIR claimed that she had been subjected to mental harassment due to her failure to bring an air-conditioned car as part of her dowry.

    Husband Objecting To Wife Supporting Her Parents Financially Amounts To Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Case Title: Pawan Kumar vs. Dr. Babita Jain

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 79

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court had observed that if the husband objects to his wife's act of financially supporting her parents, the same would amount to cruelty.

    A bench of Justice Rohit Arya and Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar also added that making complaints to the employers of the wife as to how they had kept her at a job without his (husband's) permission, constitutes treating the wife as a “slave”, stripping her of her own identity, thus constituting cruelty.

    These observations were made by the division bench while DISMISSING an appeal filed by the husband under section 19 of the Family Courts Act challenging a judgment of the Family Court whereby the court had allowed the wife's petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and a decree of divorce had been granted.

    Wife Leading A Modern Life That's Immoral In Eyes Of Husband Not Sufficient Ground To Deny Maintenance: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Title: Sukhendra Chatuvedi v. Neha & Anr .

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 80

    Madhya Pradesh High Court underscored that the wife leading a modern life that's immoral in her husband's eyes cannot be a ground for denying maintenance when it's not shown that she has been living separately from her husband without sufficient cause.

    The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia opined that as long as the wife is not committing any offense or indulging in any criminal activity while leading her modern life, mere differences between the spouses do not affect the matter of maintenance.

    Thus, this court cannot hold that if the wife is leading a modern life and if such an act of the wife is immoral in the eyes of her husband, then wife is wrong…If there are differences between the applicant and his wife on this issue, then this Court can only say that so long as respondent No.1 is not indulged in criminal activity, she is free to live her life as per own wishes whether orthodox or modern”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur observed.

    Giving False Information About Educational Qualifications For Marriage Not Cheating; No Grounds For Divorce: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Title: Bharat Singh Chouhan & Ors v. The Madhya State Of Pradesh Through Collector Katni District & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 81

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dealing with proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute, held that concealing the true educational qualification and lying about it for the purpose of marriage does not constitute the offence of deceiving or cheating as contemplated in Sections 415 and 420 of IPC. The court also highlighted that none of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act would cover the said instance either as a condition for the marriage or for granting a divorce.

    “The counsel for petitioner as well as petitioner No.3 could not justify as to how the performance of marriage by giving false information about educational qualification would amount to deceiving a person to deliver the property. The petitioner No.3 is admittedly cannot be said to be property. The word “deceive” clearly indicates otherwise a person was not bound to deliver the property”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur emphasized.

    Justice G.S. Ahluwalia underscored that petitioner no.3/husband failed to prove how the act of his wife, who allegedly gave false information that she has passed Class-12th when she has only passed Class-10th would amount to deceiving or cheating.

    Any marriage conducted on the basis of wrong information about educational qualification will not make it a void or voidable marriage within the definitions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court remarked.

    'Living In Adultery' Means 'Continuous & Repeated' Acts of Adultery, Single Instance Won't Disentitle Wife To Maintenance: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Title: V v. R & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 84

    Madhya Pradesh High Court had held that an isolated instance of adultery can't disentitle a wife to receive maintenance from her husband. To attract the rigors of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C, the wife should be 'living in adultery' through 'continuous and repeated acts of adultery,' the court made it clear.

    “… 'living in adultery' means only continuous and repeated acts of adultery…. The learned trial Court has considered the whole evidence…after considering the whole evidence found that on substratum of the single instance in living adultery, the wife could not be eschewed from getting the maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr. P.C”, the bench sitting at Indore concluded.

    The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh mentioned that 'relevance' and 'admissibility' may seem synonymous with each other, and the finding of adultery in the divorce decree is 'relevant' in deciding the issue of maintenance as per Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, 'relevance' and 'admissibility' have varying legal implications, the court added.

    “…For example, an evidence of a witness who dies prior to his cross-examination is relevant though the evidentiary value will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Certainly, relevant evidence is prima facie admissible unless it is secluded for some other reasons”, the court clarified further.

    Unnatural Sex By A Man With Wife Not Rape, Absence Of Woman's Consent Immaterial: MP High Court

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 89

    Noting that 'Marital rape' has not been recognised as an offence in India, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that any sexual intercourse, including unnatural sex by a man with a wife, won't amount to rape as the consent of the wife becomes immaterial in such cases.

    A bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that if a wife is residing with her husband during the subsistence of a valid marriage, then any sexual intercourse or sexual act by a man with his own wife not below the age of fifteen years will not be rape.

    "...insertion of penis in the anus of a woman has also been included in the definition of 'rape' and any sexual intercourse or sexual act by the husband with her wife not below the age of fifteen years is not a rape, then under these circumstances, absence of consent of wife for unnatural act loses its importance", remarked single judge.

    The Court, however, added that the only exception to this position of law is Section 376-B of IPC, where the sexual act with his own wife during the separate living on account of judicial separation or otherwise would be rape.

    Referring to Exception 2 of Section 375, the Court noted that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, will not amount to rape.

    The Court made these observations while quashing an FIR lodged against one Manish Sahu by his wife alleging, inter alia, a commission of unnatural offence as per Section 377 of IPC.

    Hindu-Muslim Marriage Invalid Under Muslim Personal Law : MP HC Refuses Protection Plea Of Inter-Faith Couple

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 105

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently refused to grant protection to an inter-faith couple observing that a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman was invalid as per the Muslim Personal Law.

    The petitioners, stating that they were in love with each other, approached the Marriage Officer under the Special Marriage Act, however on account of objections raised by the family, they could not appear before the Marriage Officer. As a result, their marriage is not being registered.

    In this backdrop, they sought, among other reliefs, protection to appear before the Marriage Officer on the date fixed for the registration of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

    The Court refused protection stating that the marriage between Hindu woman and Muslim man would be irregular as per the Muslim personal law.

    “As per Mahomedan law, the marriage of a Muslim boy with a girl who is an idolatress or a fire-worshiper, is not a valid marriage. Even if the marriage is registered under the Special Marriage Act, the marriage would be no more a valid marriage and it would be an irregular (fasid) marriage.” Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia stated in the order passed on May 27.

    Does Agreement Of Separation Between Married Couple Amount To Divorce? Madhya Pradesh HC Answers

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 107

    A single bench led by Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that a separate divorce agreement signed by a husband and wife has no legal validity and does not amount to divorce.

    This case concerns quashing a case registered by a wife in 2023 against her husband and in-laws. Husband and Wife got married on 21/04/2022 and later the wife alleged that she was subjected to taunts for dowry from her husband and in-laws. As a result, she is compelled to live with her parents due to cruelty, and harassment by the husband and in-laws, and therefore, an FIR was lodged against the husband and in-laws under Sections 498-A, 506, and 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

    Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia of the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the contentions of the applicants that parties have separately divorced agreement cannot be relied upon. The Court said that “the agreement of separation has no sanctity in the eye of law, therefore it cannot be said that any divorce has taken place between the parties.”

    Adding to that the Court also mentioned that “Even otherwise, if any divorce has taken place, still the FIR under Section 498-A of IPC can be lodged in respect of cruelty meted out to the complainant prior to the divorce but that situation has not arisen in the present case because no divorce has taken place between the parties.”

    The Court mentioned that parties are not Muslim by religion, therefore cannot be any divorce by mutual consent without approaching the Court.

    The Court also addressed the contention raised by the counsel for applicants, which argued that wife had agreed not to take any judicial action against them. The Court conclusively rejected this argument, identifying it as misconceived and contrary to the provisions of Section 28 of the Contract Act.

    Act Of Unnatural Sex By Husband With His Wife During Subsistence Of Marriage Not An Offence, Consent Immaterial: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 109

    Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that consent becomes immaterial when the husband indulges in an unnatural act of sex with his wife during the subsistence of marriage, and the same cannot come within the purview of rape as mentioned in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. Since it won't be rape under Section 375 IPC, the offence under Section 377 IPC will not be attracted either, the court further held.

    The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh observed that the alleged unnatural act, i.e., the insertion of a penis in the mouth of a woman, comes within the ambit of rape as defined in Section 375. However, any sexual act between the husband and wife when they are residing together during the subsistence of marriage, even in the absence of consent, cannot be brought under the scope of Section 375 IPC, the bench sitting at Indore clarified.

    “…in the case at hand since the respondent no.2/wife was residing with her husband during the subsistence of their marriage and as per amended definition of "rape" under Section 375 of IPC by which insertion of penis in the mouth of a woman has also been included in the definition of "rape" and any sexual intercourse or act, by the husband with his wife not below the age of fifteen years is not a rape, therefore, consent is immaterial…”, the court concluded that the allegations mentioned in the FIR would not constitute an offence under Section 377 IPC for the same reason.

    Wife Filing Criminal Case Against Spouse & In-Laws Is Only Taking Recourse Of Legal Remedy, Not Abetting Husband To Commit Suicide: MP High Court

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 110

    Stating that the act of the wife who filed a criminal case against the husband and in-laws for cruelty cannot be termed as an act that amounts to abetting the husband to commit suicide, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the complainant-wife shouldn't be punished for taking the recourse of a legal remedy.

    The single judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia also added that a person committing suicide, since he is hypersensitive, cannot be termed as an outcome of abetment. If a person takes recourse to the legal remedy available to them after an offence has been committed, it cannot be considered an illegal act synonymous with abetting the deceased to commit suicide, the court laid down in clear terms.

    “…By lodging the FIR, the applicants had not committed any illegal act and since a victim has a solitary option of approaching the Police and thereafter to the Court for redressal of her grievances and if the suicide committed by the deceased on the pretext that he has been falsely framed in offence under Section 498-A, 406, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, then it cannot be said that the widow of the deceased or her parents had abetted the deceased to commit suicide”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur clarified.

    Murder Conviction & Life Imprisonment Of Husband Ground For Divorce On Account Of Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 123

    Madhya Pradesh High Court had held that the factum of a husband sentenced to life imprisonment in a murder case can be grounds for divorce on account of 'mental cruelty' to the wife.

    The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani observed that divorce can be granted in instances where the husband or wife has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, even in the absence of an express provision for the same under the Hindu Marriage Act. The bench sitting at Gwalior placed its reliance on the Delhi high Court's decision in Swati v. Arvind Mudgal(2013) where divorce was granted in similar set of circumstances.

    “…Therefore, the conviction of the husband under Section 302 of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment amounts to mental cruelty towards the wife which entails her getting the divorce from her husband”, the division bench held in the order.

    The court, therefore, set aside the decree and judgment of the Gwalior Family Court in November 2023 by dissolving the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband.

    The court laid down in unequivocal terms that no wife can share a marriage with someone who is so 'short tempered-and impulsive turned criminal'. The court also opined that it would be prejudicial to the interests of their 12-year-old daughter if she were to live with a parent who has such a criminal background.

    Wife's Silence For 'Noble Cause' To Save Marriage Can't Be Held Against Her: MP High Court On Cruelty Complaint Lodged After Husband Sought Divorce

    Case Title: Neeraj Saraf v. Shilpa Saraf

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 124

    Refusing to dismiss the FIR registered against the husband's relatives for cruelty meted out to the wife, Madhya Pradesh High Court had underscored that the complainant-wife's silence in the hopes of saving the marital ties cannot be held against her.

    The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia noted that the FIR lodged for cruelty cannot be discarded as a 'counterblast' to the divorce petition merely because of the lapse of time that has occurred in filing the criminal complaint. In this case, the time of filing the complaint for cruelty had coincided with the divorce petition filed by the husband.

    “If the wife had maintained silence in order to save her marital life and did not lodge the report, then her silence for the noble cause should not be considered against her…Once, the wife had realized that all the chances of reconciliation have vanished on account of filing of divorce petition and if she decided to take action in accordance with law, then she cannot be blamed for the same…”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur held.

    Justifying the wife's hesitance to file a complaint at first, the single-judge bench observed that she couldn't be left at the losing end for her 'good gestures of maintaining silence'. She was merely trying to save her marital life, if possible, by withholding information about the cruelty meted out to her, the court explained. There is nothing wrong in filing the complaint for the in-laws' cruelty only after realising that the marriage was beyond repair, the court remarked.

    Wife's Refusal To Have Physical Relations With Husband Amounts To Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Case Title: Sanchita Vishwakarma Vs. Yogendra Prasad Vishwakarma

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 131

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court had observed that the denial of the wife for having a physical relationship with her husband amounts to cruelty to the husband.

    A bench of Acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani) observed thus while upholding a family court's order allowing the husband's application for divorce under Section 13-1 (i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

    The husband filed a divorce petition in January 2018 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the appellant/wife.

    It was his case that his marriage was solemnised with the appellant-wife on May 26, 2013, as per Hindu customs and rites, but on the first night itself, the appellant-wife refused to establish physical relations with him and also told that she did not like him and she got married under the pressure of her parents.

    Perusing the records of the case and the arguments advanced by the parties, the Court noted that the wife had admitted that after the solemnization of marriage, she stayed at her matrimonial house only for three days, and when the husband's family members asked her to come back, she did not. The Court opined that the respondent-husband's averment was proved that on the first night, the appellant/wife refused to have a physical relationship with the respondent/husband.

    In this regard, the Court asserted that the denial of the appellant/wife for making a physical relationship with the respondent/husband amounted to cruelty to the respondent.

    Husband Cannot Escape From Maintenance Obligations Towards Wife Due To Temporary Disability: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Case title: Mahendra Singh vs. Kavita Singh

    Citation: 2024 Live Law (MP) 159

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a maintenance order while addressing the question on whether physical disability exempts an individual from the obligation of spousal maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

    The case was heard by Justice G. S. Ahluwalia. Mahendra Singh claimed his physical disability rendered him unable to support his wife, Kavita Singh. The court concluded that a temporary disability does not absolve him of his maintenance obligations.

    Wife Cannot Be Denied Maintenance Merely Because She Is Educated: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Case title: Rahul Patel Versus Hemlata Malviya

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 170

    In a recent decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, presided over by Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi has held that being educated does not disqualify an individual from receiving maintenance.

    The applicant, Rahul Patel, sought a revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the order by the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh.The impugned order mandated that the Petitioner pay Rs. 9,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, Hemlata Malviya, the respondent who filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for maintenance. The couple married on 19th November 2011, according to Hindu customs and traditions.

    Breach Of Privacy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Declines Admission Of Unauthorised Recordings Of Wife's Conversations In Matrimonial Dispute

    Case Title: Smt. Saroj Versus Aashish Yadav

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 172

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench has addressed the issue of the admissibility of electronic evidence recorded illegally in matrimonial disputes.

    Justice Gajendra Singh set aside a previous order by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, which allowed the inclusion of an illegally recorded conversation as evidence. It was held that unauthorized recording breaches privacy rights.

    Trivial Domestic Matters Such As Not Preparing Food On Time, Making Husband Do Household Chores Is Not Abetment To Suicide: Madhya Pradesh HC

    Case Title: Sangita v. State of Madhya Pradesh

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 175

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore in a recent case on abetment of suicide observed that the allegations against the petitioner, such as not preparing food on time, compelling her husband to do household chores, and attending her brother's wedding, were trivial domestic issues which did not meet the threshold of "instigation" as defined under Section 107 of the IPC.

    Justice Hirdesh acquitted Sangita, who was accused of abetting the suicide of her husband and highlighted the necessity for concrete evidence of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement in cases of abetment of suicide.

    Coparceners Cannot Alienate Any Specific Share Of Land Belonging To Hindu Joint Family Property Other Than Their Own Share: Madhya Pradesh HC

    Case title: Ahamad Khan And Others Versus Bhaskar Ddatt Pandey And Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 177

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court has discussed the issue of the sale of a part of land belonging to a Hindu joint family property. The court adjudicated on the question of whether a specific piece of land, not being the share of a coparcener, can be alienated. In answering the question in the negative, Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that:“Although a coparcener or co-sharer can alienate to the extent of his share but he cannot alienate any specific piece of land. Therefore, at the most the petitioners can be said to have purchased a share of coparceners/Co-sharer still they are not entitled for any specific piece of land.”

    Wife Living Separately Since 18 Yrs Due To Brutality: MP High Court Dismisses Husband's "Missing Person" Complaint With 10K Cost

    Case title: Nandkishore Rahangdale Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 183

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently imposed Rs 10,000 cost on a man seeking directions to trace out his missing wife and children, allegedly missing since 2006.

    Justice Vishal Dhagat found that the petitioner was fully aware that his wife had left him due to his abusive behavior.

    Depending On "Facts Of Case" Wife Terminating Pregnancy Without Husband's Consent May Be Termed Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 199

    The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a family court's order dissolving the marriage of a couple under Hindu Marriage Act, while noting that depending on the "facts of the case", a wife opting to terminate her pregnancy without her husband's consent "may" be termed as cruelty.

    [S.13 HMA] Marriage Of Minor Girl With Major Male May Cause Physical & Mental Crutely, Can Be Used As Grounds For Divorce: MP High Court

    Case title: X vs Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 204

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Indore bench held that in cases where a minor female has been married to a major male, their marriage could be declared voidable under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

    Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi stated that even if the remedy is not present under Section 11 or 12, under Section 13 of HMA, divorce can be claimed on grounds of the minor woman being married to a major and it will fall under the term cruelty.

    [S.13B HMA] Inconvenience Of Parties To Appear Before Court Not Ground To Waive Off Cooling Period For Mutual Divorce: MP High Court

    Case Title: Sushant Kumar Sahu Versus Smt Mohini Sahu

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 206

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that inconvenience of parties to appear before the Court cannot be a ground to waive off the six-month statutory cooling-off period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), before grant of divorce by mutual consent.

    The petitioner sought dissolution of his marriage through mutual consent and submitted that since both the parties are required to stay out of station in connection with their work, therefore they are facing difficulty in attending the case.

    Question Of Paying Maintenance To Parents Doesn't Depend On How Much Property Has Been Given To Children: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Case Title: Govind Lodhi Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 210

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the question of a child paying maintenance to their parents does not depend on how much property was given to the child by the parents and that it is the duty of children to maintain their parents.

    A bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was dealing with a writ petition challenging a maintenance order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Petitioner contended that he was not liable to provide maintenance to his mother since not a single piece of land was given to him by his mother.

    Loan Taken Voluntarily By Spouse After Separation To Bring Down Net Salary Cannot Be Considered While Calculating Quantum Of Maintenance: MP HC

    Case title: Smt. Monika Versus Praveen

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 211

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Indore bench held that loan deductions, voluntarily undertaken by the respondent after the couple's separation cannot be grounds for not enhancing the monthly payment of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

    Well Qualified Wife Can't Sit Idle Just To Claim Maintenance From Husband: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reduces Quantum

    Case title: Smt. Shikha Versus Avaneesh Mahodaya

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 214

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a well-qualified spouse, including the wife, cannot sit idle merely to claim maintenance from their partner. It thus reduced the quantum of maintenance awarded to a wife holding Masters degree and having an earning capacity.

    Children's Only Motive To Prolong Proceedings, Cant Be Allowed At Senior Citizen Father's Cost: MP High Court In Property Dispute Case

    Case title: Chakradhar And Others v/s Collector/District Magistrate /Appellate Authority And Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 216

    The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, dismissed a plea moved by the children of a senior citizen father against an order by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Maintenance Tribunal, removing the children from the alleged ancestral property.

    The case pertained to the application of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and the children's claim to ancestral rights.

    Husband Seeks Divorce Over Wife's "Cruelty" In Making False Adultery Allegations: MP High Court Rules Alleged Paramour Not 'Necessary Party'

    Case Title: X v Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 240

    The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to interfere with an order rejecting a woman's plea for impleadment of her husband's alleged paramour in divorce proceedings initiated by him after observing that alleged paramour was not a necessary party.

    The husband had sought divorce from his wife on the ground of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act; subsequently the wife moved a plea seeking to implead his alleged paramour in the case, which was rejected by the family court in its March 17, 2021 order.

    A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi in its order said, "If the wife failed to prove allegation of adultery levelled against the husband and ultimately the Court comes to the conclusion that the wife without having any proof or foundation defamed the husband and his family members, can grant decree of divorce, if according to the Court the said conduct of the wife comes within the ambit of cruelty".

    S.125 CrPC Not Meant To Create An Army Of Idle People Waiting For Maintenance To Be Awarded From Income Of Other Spouse: MP High Court

    Case title: A Versus N And Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 250

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that provision of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was not framed by the law makers to create an "army of idle or inactive people", waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse.

    "It is nowhere manifested that able and well qualified lady has to be always dependent upon her spouse for her maintenance,” Justice Prem Narayan Singh added while reducing the maintenance awarded to Petitioner's post-graduate estranged wife.

    Muslim Law | Father-In-Law Is Not Compelled To Maintain Deceased Son's Widow: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reiterates

    Case Title: Bashir Khan Versus Ishrat Bano

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 285

    The Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that under Muslim Law, a father-in-law is not required to provide financial support to his deceased son's widow.

    In doing so the high court set aside the orders of the trial court and sessions courts, which had directed the petitioner father-in-law to pay monthly maintenance to his daughter-in-law after the death of his son.

    A single judge bench of Justice Hirdesh said, "In the present case, it is not in dispute that respondent is the widow of petitioner's son and according to Maohmedan Law cited above, the father of widow's husband is not compelled to maintain her. The Calcutta High Court has specifically in the case of Shabnam Parveen (supra) observed that as per DV Act, the father-in-law of the son's widow is not bound to give maintenance to her”.

    Husband Forcing Wife To Leave Job And Live As Per His Wish, Style Amounts To Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court In Divorce Case

    Case title: X v Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 295

    Allowing a woman's plea for dissolving her marriage to a man, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that in the case at hand the the husband compelling his wife to leave her government job till he gets the job, and to "live as per his wish and style" amounts to cruelty.

    In doing so the court underscored that whether husband or wife want to live together or not is their "wish" however none of them can force the other to either do a job or not do a job as per the spouse's choice.

    Irretrievable Breakdown Of Relationship, Can't Compel Couple To Live Together Via Judicial Separation: Madhya Pradesh HC Grants Woman Divorce

    Case Title: X v. Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 298

    Finding a woman entitled to a divorce decree, the Gwalior bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court said that once the relationship between the couple had "reached irretrievable breakdown" along with desertion of over five yers, then compelling them to live together won't serve any purpose by granting a "judicial separation" decree.

    In doing so the high court also noted the "erroneous" approach of the family court which had though found that the woman was subjected to cruelty however on possibility of a reunion had passed the order for judicial separation. It also observed that judicial separation can only be granted only if either party has agreed to it.

    Undue Sympathy For Husband In Granting Maintenance Neither In Interest Of Wife & Children Nor In Interest Of Justice: MP High Court

    Case title: Rekha Ahirwar And Others Vs. Nirmal Chandra

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 315

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that while granting maintenance, undue sympathy with the husband for no good reason is neither in the interest of the wife and children who are living a deserted life nor in the interest of justice.

    A bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed thus while enhancing the interim maintenance amount granted by a Gwalior Family Court to a wife and child. The Single Judge enhanced the maintenance for the wife from Rs. 2,000 per month to Rs. 10,000; for the child, it was raised from Rs. 1,000 per month to Rs. 5,000.

    Long Separation, Absence Of Cohabitation, Complete Breakdown Of Bonds Between Spouses Is Cruelty U/S 13(1)(ia) HMA: MP High Court

    Case title – XXX vs YYY

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 324

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that long separation, absence of cohabitation, the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the spouses must be read as 'cruelty' under Section 13(1)(a) of the 1955 Act.

    With this, the Court allowed an appeal filed by the Husband challenging a family court order whereby his application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of ''cruelty suppressing fact of unsound mind of respondent and desertion'' had been rejected.

    Husband, In-Laws 'Falsely Implicated' By Wife In View Of Matrimonial Dispute Between Parties: Madhya Pradesh HC Quashes Rape, Dowry FIR

    Case Title: Aman & Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 326

    While quashing a rape and dowry FIR against a husband and his kin, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that the petitioner and his family members were "falsely implicated", adding that the lodging of the FIR at the wife's instance appeared to be an act of "wreaking vengeance".

    The court said this after noting that there existed a pending civil suit filed by the petitioner husband against the complainant wife and another individual seeking a permanent injunction. In thus observed that FIR lodged at the wife's instance appeared have to be filed only to counter the civil suit which existed between the parties.

    Madhya Pradesh HC Permits Wife To Terminate Pregnancy Due To Matrimonial Dispute, Alleged Domestic Violence By Husband And His Family

    Case Title: X v/s State of M.P & others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 331

    The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in a recent ruling allowed the medical termination of a woman's pregnancy on account of matrimonial dispute and alleged domestic violence by her husband and his family members.

    Madhya Pradesh High Court Aids Interfaith Couple, Says There's No Bar On Muslim Boy Marrying Hindu Girl U/S 4 Of Special Marriage Act

    Case Title: X Versus Y & Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 332

    Coming to the aid of an interfaith couple, the Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the state to facilitate the marriage of a Hindu girl and a Muslim boy before the marriage officer.

    In doing so, the court said that there is no prohibition to inter-faith marriage under Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

    A division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain observed, “…there is a prohibition in the personal law that under the Mohammedan Law, a mohamendan boy cannot perform marriage with a Hindu girl. However, there is no bar, if the marriage is taken place under Section 4 of the Act of 1954.”

    Wife's Patience & Silence To Save Marital Life Reflects Her Sincerity, Not Weakness: Madhya Pradesh High Court

    Case Title: Dicky Ram Tiwari And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 334

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that if a wife maintains patience and silence with the sole intention of saving her matrimonial life, it cannot be said that it is her weakness; on the contrary, it shows her sincerity towards her marital life.

    A bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia added that if, after realising that her in-laws have gone to such an extent where reconciliation is not possible, a daughter-in-law decides to lodge an FIR complaining about cruelty meted out to her, then it cannot be said that said FIR is a counterblast to the petition for divorce.

    MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Removal Of Wife's Uterus Due To Ovarian Cancer Not Mental Cruelty To Husband: Madras High Court Bins Plea For Divorce

    Case Title: ABC v XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 3

    The Madras High Court recently observed that the removal of a wife's uterus after being diagnosed with Ovarian cancer during the subsistence of marriage and subsequent inability to have a progeny will not be mental cruelty to the husband warranting dissolution of marriage.

    The bench of Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji thus confirmed an order of the Family Court dismissing the Husband's plea for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of mental cruelty, desertion and suppression of material fact.

    Husband Not Including Wife And Children In Service Register, Denying Financial Assistance Is 'Cruelty': Madras High Court

    Case Title: ABC v XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 22

    The Madras High Court recently observed that a husband who was not interested in living with his wife and children by not giving them any financial assistance and not including their names in the Railway Service register would be committing cruelty.

    Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji were dealing with an appeal preferred by a wife challenging a Family Court order granting divorce to the husband on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

    The court however noted that none of the reasons stated by the husband were proved as per law and in fact, the wife was able to show that it was the husband who had not discharged his duties even while the wife was willing to lead a peaceful life.

    Wife Entitled To Know Husband's Salary Details To Make A Rightful Claim Of Maintenance: Madras High Court

    Case Title: VA Anand v State Information Commission and Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 27

    The Madras High Court recently upheld an order of the State Information Commission directing an employer to furnish the salary information of an employee sought by his wife.

    Justice GR Swaminathan observed that when the matrimonial proceedings were pending between the husband and the wife, the quantum of maintenance would depend upon the husband's salary and the wife could make a rightful claim only when she knew the details of the salary.

    Any Person Can File Plea U/S 125 CrPC Seeking Maintenance On Behalf Of A Minor: Madras High Court

    Case Title - R. Ochappan vs. Keerthana

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 36

    The Madras High Court has observed that Section 125 of CrPC does not prohibit any person from filing a maintenance petition on behalf of a minor.

    The bench of Justice KK Ramakrishnan opined thus while holding that a married woman is not barred from filing a plea on behalf of her minor brother seeking maintenance from their father.

    The Court found justification in the revision court's order to grant maintenance to the minor brother, even though only the married sister had initiated the revision against the dismissal of the maintenance claim concerning her, and no revision had been filed by the minor brother.

    Marital Relationship Not Worth Saving When It Has Become Worthless & Deadwood, Both Parties Engaged In Abuse & Cruelty: Madras High Court

    Case Title: ABC v XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 88

    The Madras High Court has recently observed that when husband and wife were engaged in a war of words, abuse and vulgar criticism of family members, there was no point in saving such a marital relationship as the marital tie would have become worthless and deadwood.

    Justice G Jayachandran and Justice C Kumarappan were hearing a challenge against an order from the Family Court refusing to dissolve the marriage between the parties. The court, after going through the exchanges between the parties, which were bordering vulgarity and obscenity, noted that the marriage was bound to be dissolved. The court observed that the cruelty committed by the parties against each other had injured the marital bond.

    Grandparents Can't Be Denied Visitation Rights To Meet Child, Affectionate Relationship With Them Beneficial For Grandkids: Madras High Court

    Case Title: A Aashifa Begum v Khader Beevi and Another

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 109

    The Madras High Court has recently emphasized that an affectionate relationship with grandparents is beneficial for a child's development.

    The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that in custody and guardianship matters, the child's welfare had to be given paramount consideration. The court further noted that there was a need to safeguard the fast-eroding family system in the country and to ensure that the child's overall development is taken care of in the right environment. The court was thus of the opinion that the courts should not deny reasonable access/ visitation rights to the grandparents.

    S.24 Hindu Marriage Act | Interim Maintenance Order Is Interlocutory In Nature, Can Only Be Reviewed Not Appealed: Madras High Court

    Case Title: S Menaka v KSK Nepolian Socraties (batch case)

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 126

    The Madras High Court on Thursday ruled that orders of interim maintenance passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are only interlocutory orders and thus, an appeal against such orders will not lie either under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act or under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

    The bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice Govindarajan Thilakavadi however added that a revision against the order of interim maintenance is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution irrespective of whether it was made by a regular civil court or a Family Court.

    Madras High Court Refuses To Handover 3-Yr-Old Son's Custody To Biological Mother Considering Child Has Never Lived With Her

    Case Title: D Madhumithra v The State and Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 186

    The Madras High Court recently refused to hand over a 3-year-old minor boy's custody to his biological mother considering the child's welfare.

    The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the child had never lived with his biological mother, who was infected with HIV and was handed over to the private respondent when he was born. The court thus opined that it would be in the welfare of the child to continue being in the custody of the private respondent.

    Delay In Disposal Of Matrimonial Cases: Madras High Court Suggests Fixing Period Of Limitation For Filing Counter Relief

    Case Title: ABC v XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 207

    The Madras High Court has suggested prescribing a period of limitation for filing counter reliefs of divorce or restitution of conjugal rights in matrimonial disputes.

    Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji noted that in the last few years, it had become a trend for parties to file applications seeking counter-relief for divorce petitions or counter-relief of restitution of conjugal rights towards the fag end of the trial thereby delaying the disposal of the case. The court thus suggested a period of limitation of 9 months to 1 year for filing applications for counter relief.

    The court thus directed the registry to place the recommendations before the Administrative Side of the High Court for amending the rules under Section 123 of the CPC which empowers the High Court Rule Committee to make rules regarding the limitations governing the field under the Family Court Act.

    Wife Merely Filing Dowry Demand Complaint Against Husband Not Cruelty Unless Shown That It Is False: Madras High Court

    Case Title: ABC v XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 232

    While denying relief to a husband seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty, the Madras High Court has observed that a wife merely filing a complaint in the police station would not amount to cruelty, unless the husband proves that the complaint was a false dowry demand complaint.

    Justice R Subramanian and Justice R Sakthivel thus observed that they could not find fault with the conduct of the wife, filing a police complaint with the intention of living together with her husband.

    The court further noted that there was no evidence available on record to show that the wife had committed cruelty. The court held that the husband had failed to establish “animus deserendi” of wife and thus, finding no fault with the order of the trial court, dismissed the appeal.

    Marital Status Of Woman Cannot Be Determining Factor For Giving Up Her Child In Adoption: Madras High Court

    Case Title: Ashok Kumar v The Inspector General of Registration and Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 247

    The Madras High Court has observed that a woman's marital status should not be a determining factor while considering her child's adoption.

    Justice GR Swaminathan observed the proviso to Section 9(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 which mandates consent of the other parent would not apply when the mother/father of the child to be given in adoption is absent.

    The court added that when the father was wholly indifferent to the minor's matter and the mother was exclusively in charge the father could be considered to be absent as was the present case.

    Live-In Relationship With Married Man Cannot Be Treated As Relationship "In The Nature Of Marriage": Madras High Court

    Case Title: P Jayachandran v A Yesuranthinam (Died) and Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 248

    The Madras High Court has recently observed that a live-in relationship between a married man and an unmarried woman was not one "in the nature of marriage" giving rights to the parties. The court added that in the absence of any codified law, the live in partner could not seek any succession or inheritance of the property of the other part.

    Justice RMT Teekaa Raman thus refused relief to a man who had entered into a live-in relationship with a woman despite being married. The court noted that a relationship in the nature of marriage required that the couple held themselves out in the society akin to spouses, voluntarily cohabited, must be of legal age to marry, and must be otherwise qualified to enter into marriage. The court noted that since the man's marriage with his wife still existed at the time of the live-in relationship, the live-in relationship could not be termed as one in the nature of marriage.

    Biological Siblings Can't Claim Heirship Of Adopted Child; Adoption Severs Ties With Biological Family: Madras High Court

    Case Title: V Sakthivel v The Revenue Divisional Officer

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 254

    The Madras High Court has recently observed that when a child is adopted, all ties of the child with his or her biological family is deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family.

    Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus noted that the biological family of the adopted child cannot be called the legal heirs of the adopted child and have a claim over the property inherited by him/her from the adoptive family.

    Nullity Of Marriage Doesn't Bar Wife From Claiming Maintenance: Madras High Court

    Case Title: Sathiyamurthy v Arputha Mary

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 320

    While refusing to interfere with an order granting maintenance to the wife, the Madras High Court said that it was a settled position that even if a marriage was declared null by a competent court, it would not bar the wife from claiming maintenance.

    Justice G Ilangovan was hearing a plea by a husband to recall an earlier order of the High Court fixing maintenance of Rs5000/- to his wife. The court observed that if the husband had any grievance over the order, he should have taken recourse through proper proceedings. The court, thus denied to interfere with the order stating that the petition filed without following the procedure was not maintainable.

    Muslim Wife Who Files For Divorce Is Entitled To Claim Interim Maintenance U/S 151 CPC: Madras High Court

    Case Title: ABC v XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 336

    The Madras High Court has ordered that courts have power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant interim maintenance to a Muslim woman who has filed for divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act 1939.

    Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that though the Act does not have a provision for granting interim maintenance, the court cannot shut its eyes when the wife comes to the court saying that she has no means. The court added that the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act was introduced to ameliorate the status of Muslim women and thus had to be given a purposive interpretation.

    Wife Threatening To Commit Suicide, Filing False Dowry Harassment Case Would Amount To Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court

    Case Title: ABC v XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 363

    Granting divorce to a husband, the Madras High Court recently observed that a wife threatening to commit suicide would amount to cruelty.

    Justice S Srimathy noted that in the case, the husband had written letters to his mother, within 8 months of marriage indicating his agony wherein he had stated that the wife was threatening to commit suicide. The court noted that there was an element of mental cruelty present in the case.

    The court also noted that the wife had filed false dowry harassment case against the husband and his family which had tarnished the family's image. The court thus noted that the wife had used the false dowry harassment case as a tool to threaten the husband which amounted to cruelty.

    If DNA Test Reveals Husband Is Not Child's Father, He Need Not Implead Wife's Paramour In Proceedings Under Indian Divorce Act: Madras HC

    Case Title: ABC v XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 365

    The Madras High court recently observed that not impleading wife's alleged paramour as a co-respondent is not fatal to a plea for divorce on the ground of adultery, when the DNA test already proves that the husband is not the father of the child.

    Justice P Velmurugan and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that once it is proved that the wife was leading an adulterous life, the husband would be entitled to divorce on that ground.

    The court noted that the medical evidence and the expert advice clearly showed that the child was not born to the husband. The court also noted that the wife had not disputed the DNA test or the expert report on the DNA test. Thus, the court noted that even though there was no direct evidence, the expert advise would indicate that the wife had illegal intimacy with another man.

    Family Courts Should Not Insist On Physical Presence Of Parties While Presenting Petition And For Future Hearings: Madras High Court

    Case Title: G.Shrilakshmi v Anirudh Ramkumar

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

    In a significant decision, the Madras High Court has held that the Family Courts should not insist on the physical presence of the parties/spouses at the time of presenting the petition and for future hearings.

    Justice M Nirmal Kumar observed that virtual proceedings provided an opportunity to modernize the system and make it more affordable and citizen-friendly. The court thus held that family courts should make use of the video conferencing facilities without insisting on the physical presence of the parties and should not raise technical objections by insisting on the physical presence at any stage.

    The court noted that Section 530 of the BNSS emphasized holding even criminal trials through electronic mode. The court added that recently, the justice dispensation system has seen much advancement in the use of technology, and the family court's insistence on physical presence would defeat the very purpose of the video conferencing facility.

    When Muslim Wife Disputes Issuance Of Talaq, It Is Upon Husband To Obtain Judicial Declaration For Dissolution Of Marriage: Madras High Court

    Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 407

    The Madras High Court recently held that when a wife disputes the issuance of talaq by the Muslim husband, it is upon the husband to obtain a judicial declaration that marriage was validly dissolved.

    Justice GR Swaminathan noted that Talaq under Muslim personal laws involved a certain procedure which had to be strictly complied. The court thus observed that if the husband claimed to have given talaq to the wife, and the same was disputed by the wife, the only appropriate and legally permissible course would be for the husband to obtain a judicial declaration that marriage is validly dissolved.

    Fundamental Right Of Privacy Includes Spousal Privacy, Law Cannot Permit Snooping By Spouses: Madras High Court

    Case Title: R v B

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 414

    The Madras High Court has observed that the fundamental right of privacy includes spousal privacy. The court noted that the law could not permit or encourage snooping by one spouse on another. The court thus observed that the evidence that was obtained by invading the privacy of the partner was inadmissible in the court.

    Justice GR Swaminathan thus came to the rescue of a wife against the order of the Paramakudi Subordinate Court refusing to reject the call records of the wife that was submitted by the Husband during the trial of a marital dispute. The court noted that the husband had stealthily obtained the information pertaining to the call history of his wife and thus had breached the wife's privacy.

    Hindu Succession Act |2005 Amendment Giving Equal Rights To Daughter Resulted In Reducing Shares Of Mother & Widow: Madras High Court

    Case Title: Vasumathi and Another v R Vasudevan and Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 439

    While discussing the 2005 amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, Justice N Seshasayee of the Madras High Court observed that while the amendment ensured that daughter's got a share in the ancestral property, it also took away the quantum of property that would otherwise vest with the widow and the mother of a deceased.

    The court added that the effect of a notional partition was two fold. Firstly to interfere with the right of the surviving coparceners to succeed to the share of the deceased coparcenor by survivorship and secondly to reduce the combined holding to the extent of the property that became allottable to Class I female heirs.

    Discussing the observations of the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma, the court added that the intent of the legislature while bringing in the 2005 amendment was to provide security and dignity to a certain class of female heirs of a deceased coparcener. The court observed that the notional partition under Section 6 of the Act engineered a vertical and horizontal division of ancestral property among the coparceners, as a vehicle to grant some right in the ancestral property to a class of female heirs.

    Advocates Should Try To Resolve Matrimonial Disputes 'Without Adding Fuel To Fire': Madras High Court Suggests BCI To Form Guidelines

    Case Title: ABC v XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 444

    The Madras High Court recently suggested the Bar Council of India to formulate guidelines ensuring that Advocates resolve matrimonial disputes amicably without adding fuel to the fire.

    The bench of Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan and Justice KK Ramakrishnan remarked that lawyers had an enormous social responsibility to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. The court added that legal professionals should ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents are not reflected in criminal complaints and must maintain the noble traditions of the profession.

    The court thus suggested that advocates should follow ethical standards when parties solicit their advice and never misguide the parties. The court added that advocates should not give unprofessional advice to implicate persons who are not even remotely connected to the alleged occurrences. The advocates were also asked to advise the clients to not rope in unconnected persons and inform the clients about the legal consequences of giving false complaint against unconnected persons. The court suggested that in cases involving two individuals, especially a family, the advocates should try to advise for an amicable settlement as far as possible.

    Registration Of Adoption Deed 'Futile', Has No Legal Sanctity And Does Not Give Any Right To Parties Irrespective Of Religion: Madras HC

    Case Title: C Pakkir Maideen and Others v The Principal Secretary To Government and Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 472

    The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has made it clear that the registration of an adoption deed is a futile exercise as it does not confer any rights on the parties to adoption and does not have any legal sanctity. The court thus observed that the registration of adoption deed could not be asked as a matter of right before the registering authority.

    Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus directed the Inspector General (IG) of Registration to issue necessary circulars to all registrars asking them to refrain from registering any deed of adoption, irrespective of their religion.

    No Fixed Parameters For Cruelty In Matrimonial Case, Rude Language And Ill-Treatment Wouldn't Per Se Constitute Legal Cruelty: Madras HC

    Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 476

    The Madras High Court recently highlighted that the concept of cruelty under matrimonial cases has undergone substantial change and there could not be any fixed parameters for determining what constitutes acts of cruelty.

    A division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice R Kalaimathi said that what amounted to acts of cruelty would differ from person to person, man to woman and thus, a broad approach was needed. The court also added that the matters had to be dealt with latitudinarianism in the modern era.

    The high court, while making the observations, refused relief to a husband who had claimed divorce on the grounds of physical and mental cruelty. The court noted that though the husband had made allegations of physical and mental cruelty, he had not specified even one instance or given evidence in support of the same. The court noted that it could not infer anything from the facts of the case which could prove that there were alleged acts of cruelty by the wife and thereby dismissed the husband's plea.

    Hindu Succession Act Doesn't Disqualify Widows From Inheriting Deceased Husband's Property After Remarriage: Madras High Court

    Case Title: Malliga (Died) and Others v. S Shanmugam (Died) and Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 482

    The Madras High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Hindu Succession Act that prohibits a widow from inheriting or taking share in the property of her deceased husband, upon remarriage.

    The bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that though the Hindu Remarriage Act, 1856 disqualified a widow from inheriting properties upon remarriage, this Act was repealed after the Hindu Succession Act came into effect. The bench further noted that as per the Hindu Succession Act, only the widow of a pre-deceased son or widow of a predeceased son of the predeceased son or widow of the brother was disqualified upon remarriage. However, by way of the 2005 amendment, even this provision was repealed.

    ORISSA HIGH COURT

    Joinder Of Wife's Paramour As 'Defendant' Not Mandatory In All Cases Of Divorce On Ground Of Adultery: Orissa High Court

    Case Title: HB v. MJ

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 2

    The Orissa High Court ruled that joinder of paramour of the wife as 'defendant' is not mandatory in all cases of divorce on the ground of adultery. While interpreting Rule 5 of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce (Orissa High Court) Rules, 1956, the Division Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo held:

    “Though the rule mandates making of the paramour as a necessary party but exceptions have been provided where such person may not be made a party. Therefore, the mandate of the paramour 'shall' be made a party is to be interpreted as to be made party where possible.”

    S.12 DV Act | 'Domestic Incident Report' By Protection Officer Not Mandatory To Grant Interim Maintenance: Orissa High Court

    Case Title: Sk. Sadab Kadir & Ors. v. Saher Saniya

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 5

    The Orissa High Court held that 'Domestic Incident Report' (DIR) from the 'Protection Officer' is not mandatory and hence, not a pre-requisite to grant relief to an aggrieved woman under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act'). Interpreting the above provision of the Act, the Single Bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed:

    “Section 12(1) requires the Magistrate to take into consideration the Domestic Incident report. However the Domestic Incident Report is not mandatory for passing orders and/ or shall be taken into consideration only in cases where it has been filed.”

    PATNA HIGH COURT

    Minor Girl Fearing Life In Parents' Custody Can Be Sent To Shelter Home Till Adulthood; 'Husband' Lacks Right To Claim Her Custody: Patna HC

    Case Title – Nitish Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 10

    The Patna High Court has observed that when a girl is not a major and expresses fear of life in the custody of her parents, the Court may exercise the jurisdiction to send her to an appropriate home meant to give shelter to women till she becomes a major.

    The Court added that there is no inherent right vested in the husband to claim custody of such a girl by filing a writ of habeas corpus alleging illegal detention.

    Contracting Second Marriage May Be Lawful For A Muslim Man But It Causes 'Enormous' Cruelty To First Wife: Patna HC

    Case title - Md. Irshad Kuraishi vs. State of Bihar

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 38

    The Patna High Court has observed that while it may be lawful for a Muslim male to contract a second marriage, however, it causes enormous cruelty to the first wife.

    A bench of Justice Purnendu Singh further added that it is a matter of common knowledge that women, regardless of their religion and socio-economic conditions, detest their husbands contracting a second marriage.

    Patna HC Denies Retiral Benefits To Second Wife Whose Husband Performed Second Marriage During Subsistence Of First Marriage, Without Permission From Govt

    Case Title: Baby Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.

    LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 71

    The Patna High Court observed that the second wife of the deceased government employee would not be entitled to receive the pension benefits if the employee solemnized a second marriage during the substance of the first marriage and without due authorization from the government. The Court said that only the first wife is entitled to receive the pension benefits.

    PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

    Interim Maintenance Order U/S 24 Hindu Marriage Act Not Interlocutory, Appealable U/S 19 Family Courts Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that pendente lite maintenance passed by Family Court under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is amenable to an appeal before High Court under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act. For context as per Section 19(1) of the Family Court, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court. Section 19(5) states, "Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgement order or decree of a Family Court."

    [S.498A IPC] Non-Recovery Of Dowry Articles Cannot Be Only Ground For Denying Anticipatory Bail To Husband: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    Title: XXX v. XXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 43

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that non-recovery of dowry articles cannot ordinarily be the only grounds for declining a plea for grant of anticipatory bail to a husband or his relatives, accused of cruelty. These observations came in a plea by the husband who was seeking anticipatory bail for the offenses of allegedly committing cruelty upon his wife under Sections 406, 498-A IPC. Opposing the bail, the wife argued that the entire dowry articles were yet to be recovered from the petitioner who is intentionally avoiding handing them over.

    P&H HC Lays Down Guidelines For Invoking S.340 CrPC In Matrimonial Disputes, Says Surge In Cases Motivated By 'Vexatious Spirit' Has Considerably Increased Pendency

    Title: XXX v.XXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 136

    Observing that "the recent surge in matrimonial disputes motivated by litigious and vexatious spirit, has left the Courts with considerable pendency," the Punjab & Haryana High Court has laid down guiding principles for invoking the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. in matrimonial cases While setting aside the order of a Family Court which directed to file complaint under Sections 191, 193, 199 and 209 IPC read with Section 340 CrPC, against a wife accused of committing perjury by filing a false affidavit which stated she is an unemployed, the Court observed that, "this Court has recently seen an increase in initiation of perjury proceedings in matrimonial disputes."

    'No Succession In Marital Union': Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Mother's Plea To Represent Deceased Son Seeking Divorce

    Observing that "the marriage between partners, is a personal contract", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to allow a mother to represent his deceased son in a divorce plea. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "the marriage between marital partners, but obviously is a personal contract entered into between the spouses. The said contract remains alive only during the life span of the contracting parties, therebys the said contract terminates on the demise of one of the parties to the marital union."

    Husband Denies Marriage, Punjab & Haryana HC Allows Major Child's Paternity Test To Determine Maintenance Liability Towards Alleged Wife

    Title: XXXX v. XXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 224

    In connection with a woman's maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed DNA test of her major son to determine his paternity which will assist the Court in determining "whether an intimate relationship, in the nature of marriage", existed between the contesting husband and wife. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "this Court is of the considered view that where being labelled as illegitimate or unchaste is not a concern, there is no reason for the Courts not to rely on dependable and accurate science in order to arrive at the truth and do complete justice instead of taking recourse to presumptions. At the time of making of statutes such as the Evidence Act, the science and the technology were not as advanced as they are today."

    Love Of Father Cannot Be Better Than Mother's Love': Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Father To Hand Over Custody Of 2 Yr-Old To Mother

    XXXX v. State of Haryana and others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 223

    Observing that "love of father cannot be better in any manner from mother's love", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed to hand over the custody of 2-year-old son to his mother, who was allegedly detained by his father from his mother's residence. Justice Gurbir Singh said, "A mother's love is the very definition of sacrifice and dedication. At the age of 2 1⁄2 years, the bondage between child and mother is more than bondage with the father. Although feelings of father towards his child are always strong but those cannot be more than the feelings of mother at this tender age. A child who does not get mother's love may be unaffectionate and uncaring in his life. For becoming healthy citizen, it is necessary that one must have love for family, for humanity and also for his friends which is only possible if child at tender age gets love of mother. At such a tender age, there is no substitute for mother's love."

    General Tendency For Wife To Amplify Needs & For Husband To Conceal Actual Income; Quantum Of Maintenance Must Be Balanced By Court: Punjab & Haryana HC

    Title: XXXX v. XXXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 120

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the quantum of maintenance granted to the wife under Section 125 CrPC must be justifiable and realistic to avoid hardships to either of the spouses. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "there is a general tendency on the part of the wife to amplify her needs and the husband to conceal his actual income, making it difficult to determine the earning capacity of the rival claimants with exactitude. The rival claimants must scrupulously bring on record their actual respective earning capacities in order for the Court to arrive at quantum of maintenance which is just and fair in terms of principle of equistatus."

    Failure To Fulfill Basic Financial Responsibilities By Husband Amounts To Cruelty, Desertion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    Title: XXX v. XXX

    2024 LiveLaw (PH) 162

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the ex-parte dismissal of a divorce plea filed by a husband, observing that the husband failed to fulfil basic financial responsibilities which amounts to cruelty and desertion.

    The husband alleged that wife has left her matrimonial house along with their child, which amounts to cruelty. However, the Court found it is husband who had deserted and committed cruelty by failing to maintain her and the child.

    Conviction Of Wife For Murdering Minor Son With Alleged Paramour Amounts To Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    Title: XXX v. XXX

    2024 LiveLaw (PH) 170

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld divorce granted to ahusband on the ground of cruelty committed by wife wherein she was convicted for committing murder of her minor son along with her alleged paramour. Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Harsh Bunger said, "The involvement and ultimate conviction and sentence of the appellant in such a gruesome crime along with her accomplice i.e. said Gautam (respondent No.2 in the divorce petition) is sufficient to hold that the respondent-husband has been treated with cruelty by her."

    'Traumatic Situation', False Allegations Of Sexual Assault By Wife Against Husband's Relatives Amounts To Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    Title: XXXX v. XXXX

    2024 LiveLaw (PH) 159

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a false allegation of sexual assault by a wife against a husband's relatives amounts to cruelty and can be a ground for divorce.

    A division bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Harsh Bunger said, "Levelling the allegations of sexual assault against all the male members of the family and the factum of them having been found innocent during the investigation, clearly amounts to cruelty."

    Wife Not Serving Tea To Husband's Relatives Is Normal Wear & Tear Of Married Life, Not A Ground Of Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana HC

    Case: XXXX v. XXXX

    2024 LiveLaw (PH) 201

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that merely because the wife did not serve tea to the relatives and friends of the husband, or that the she quarreled over petty matters, cannot be constituted as cruelty to form ground for divorce.

    These observations were made while dismissing an appeal filed by the husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty .

    Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Estranged Wife's Plea For Enhanced Maintenance, Says Not Far Fetched To Assume Adult Sons Will Support Her

    Title: XXX v. XXX

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea for enhancement of Rs.7,500 monthly maintenance amount granted to a woman by the trial court, who has been living separately from her husband.

    Justice Nidhi Gupta noted, "it has...been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the two sons of the parties had attained majority and are currently living with the petitioner. It would not be far-fetched to assume that the sons of the petitioner would also be supporting her."

    Depriving Father From Meeting Daughter On Account Of Marital Discord Is Cruelty: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    XXX v. XXX

    2024 LiveLaw (PH) 241

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that depriving a father from meeting his daughter on account of marital discord amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. While dismissing refusing to interfere in divorce granted on the ground of cruelty, division bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Harsh Bunger said, "that depriving the father of meeting his daughter, by her mother on account of marital discord between the spouses, would constitute an act of mental cruelty."

    Filing Plea For Judicial Separation After Dismissal Of Divorce Petition Is 'Gross Abuse Of Process': Punjab & Haryana High Court

    XXXX v. XXXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 162

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that filing of the plea for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) after dismissal of divorce petition under Section 13 of HMA is "gross abuse of the process of law." Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "...Hindu Marriage petition under Section 10 of the HMA, post the rendition of a binding and conclusive dismissal decree on the earlier Hindu Marriage petition filed under Section 13 of the HMA, but necessarily is merely a gross abuse of the process of the law, besides is a cleverly deployed stratagem by the present appellant to untenably circumvent the previous binding and conclusive verdict made on the petition cast under Section 13 of the HMA."

    'FIR Lodged With Sadistic Intent': Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes 1 Lakh Cost On Woman For Filing Cruelty Case Against 100% Disabled In-Laws

    XXX v.XXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 166

    Expressing "shock at the utter callousness of the complainant", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs.1 lakh on a woman for lodging a complaint of physical cruelty against 100% disabled mother-in-law and father-in-law.

    The Court noted that the woman alleged that her in-laws who were found to be completely disabled, ran after her and hit her with a stick.

    Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes 50K Cost On Woman For 'Harassing' Estranged Husband By Filing Complaint After Mutual Divorce

    Title: XXX v. XXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 176

    Observing that the surreptitious attempt "needs to be curbed with iron an iron hand", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 on a woman for harassing her former husband by filing a complaint "to seek personal vengeance" that divorce by mutual consent was obtained by fraud. Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The inevitable conclusion that emerges is that the impugned criminal complaint is nothing but aimed at harassing and wreaking vengeance upon the petitioner by the respondent (herein) – complainant. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings qua the impugned criminal complaint would amount to sheer harassment of the petitioner and hence the same deserves to be quashed. the filing of the criminal complaint by the respondent (herein) complainant reflects abuse nay gross abuse of process of law and Courts at her instance on account of the nature of allegations made as also lack of territorial jurisdiction."

    Wife Lodging FIR Against Husband Leading To His Conviction Is 'Mental Cruelty', Doesn't Deserve Alimony: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    Title: XXX v. XXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 191

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that wife's action of lodging FIR against the husband in which he is convicted amounts to mental cruelty inflicted on husband. It thus dissolved the marriage of a couple upon the convicted husband's plea. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "...wife lodged an FIR against the appellant/husband, resulting in the appellant's conviction. This action of respondent/wife constitutes cruelty, as it is practically impossible for the party against whom FIR is lodged or case is registered to live together under one roof. Consequently, this situation amounts to mental cruelty inflicted on the appellant/husband by the respondent/wife."

    Couple Divorced By Mutual Consent Can Marry Again But Cannot Challenge Divorce Decree In Appeal Under HMA: Punjab & Haryana HC

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 189

    Title: XXX v. XXX

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an appeal against the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) would not be maintainable on the ground that the couple wants to live together as husband and wife again. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "Permitting parties to subsequently retract their sworn statements and assert a desire to reconcile, by stating that they have realised their mistake and now they want to live together, would amount/constitute Contempt of Court and perjury. Additionally, this behavior would undermine the authority of the Court. Insult its proceedings and make a mockery of its verdict."

    Court Can Grant Ex-Parte Interim Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC Or Section 144 BNSS When Accentuating Facts Are Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    Title: XXXX v. XXX [CRR(F)-643-2024]

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 213

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the Court can grant "ex-parte ad-interim maintenance" under Section 125 CrPC or Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Justice Sumeet Goel clarified that "The Court ought to consider a plea, for grant of ex-parte ad-interim maintenance/ad-interim maintenance, in accordance with the well-established norms of judicial discretion and justice. No universal exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid-down for the exercise of such power & the same shall be exercised by the Court in the facts/circumstances of a given case."

    'No Succession In Marital Union': Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Mother's Plea To Represent Deceased Son Seeking Divorce

    Title: XXX v. XXX [FAO-3869-2014 (O & M)]

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 221

    Observing that "the marriage between partners, is a personal contract", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to allow a mother to represent his deceased son in a divorce plea. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "the marriage between marital partners, but obviously is a personal contract entered into between the spouses. The said contract remains alive only during the life span of the contracting parties, therebys the said contract terminates on the demise of one of the parties to the marital union."

    Jurisdiction To Decide Guardianship Of Hindu Child Below 5 Yrs Lies Where Child Actually Resides, Not Where Mother Resides: Punjab & Haryana HC

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 231

    XXXX v. XXXX

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that application seeking guardianship of a minor, particularly one aged below 5 years of age, will lie to the district where the child actually and physically resides. Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said merely because as per Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 custody of a minor who has not completed five years of age will "ordinarily" be with the mother, it does not imply that the child is always living with the mother.

    Unfortunate That Wife Is Granted Alimony Even After Husband Is Convicted In Cruelty Case Filed By Her: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    Title: XXXX v. XXXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 240

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that it is unfortunate that the wife is granted maintenance despite the fact that the husband and his family is convicted for cruelty on her complaint. It was stated the Courts must consider all the aspects before granting alimony.

    These observations were made while allowing the divorce plea filed by the husband against wife on grounds of cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act.

    Adultery Not An Obstacle For Granting Custody To Mother Of Minor Child: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    Title: SXXXX v. VXXXXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 258

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that a mother entering into adultery is not an obstacle for her to receive custody of a minor child as she is still capable of giving motherly love to her children.

    The Court directed the husband to restore the custody of the wife's two minor children during the pendency of the plea while remanding the matter back to the Family Court.

    Husband Can't Make Voluntary Deductions Like EMI From His Income To Grant Less Maintenance To Wife: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    XXXX v. XXXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 273

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while deciding the quantum of maintenance to be granted to a wife, said that the husband cannot be permitted to make voluntary deductions from his gross income which are not legally compulsory.

    The Court enhanced the maintenance amount by modifying the family court's decision wherein it had allowed the husband to deduct an amount of Rs.10,000, which he was allegedly paying for EMI.

    Court Can Assess Materials From Social Media Produced By Husband To Prove Wife's Adultery & Resist Interim Maintenance: Punjab & Haryana HC

    Title: MXXXXX v. XXXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 279

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court had said that husband can raise plea of adultery to resist the interim-maintenance proceedings instituted by the wife and evidence from social media can be considered by the Court at that stage. Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The husband is entitled to raise the plea of adultery by the wife; in proceedings pertaining to adjudication of interim maintenance and expense of proceedings (more commonly referred to as litigation expenses); so as to plead that such prayer by wife be dismissed."

    Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Of Husband's Failure To File Income Affidavit In Wife's Plea For Interim Maintenance: Punjab & Haryana HC

    Title: XXXX v. XXXXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 310

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that the Court is constrained to draw adverse inferences against husband if despite giving ample opportunities, he fails to file Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in wife's interim-maintenance plea. Justice Sumeet Goel said, "In cases where a party fails to file the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, despite being given sufficient opportunities in that regard, the Court is constrained to draw adverse inferences against such party, as per Order IXX Rule 3, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023."

    Wife Must Show Cogent Reasons To Transfer Matrimonial Proceedings Instituted By Her, Mere Transferrable Job Not Ground: Punjab & Haryana HC

    Title: XXX v. XXX

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 364

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that the transfer of matrimonial cases cannot be allowed merely on the ground that the wife being in transferable job has shifted to another place. Justice Sumeet Goel said, "In case; if wife in question is employed in a transferable job, she cannot be permitted to seek transfer nay repeated transfer(s) of the matrimonial related litigation(s) if her job results in her being transfer from one place to another. The latitude required to be exercised in favour of a wife, while dealing with the plea for transfer of a matrimonial dispute, cannot be stretched to such an extent that the Court is approached for transfer of such matrimonial related litigation at the mere asking of the wife."

    RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Widowed Daughter-In Law Also Part Of Family, Can Seek Compassionate Appointment Under 1996 Rules: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Smt. Durga Devi Mairda v. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 20

    In a pertinent decision, Rajasthan High Court held that a 'widowed-daughter-law' comes within the meaning of 'widowed daughter' mentioned as a 'Dependent' in Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996.

    The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni was of the opinion that purposive interpretation has to be relied upon to assess the legislative intent behind such laws.

    “….while upholding the judgment rendered…in the case of Smt. Pinki (supra), for arriving at a final conclusion on the issue, is thus answered in the manner that the said term 'dependent' includes 'widowed daughter-in-law' in the term 'widowed daughter', while emphasizing the need for the State to provide solace to the survivors of the family under bereavement, whose plight is writ large, by giving appointment to the widowed daughter-in-law”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur noted in the judgment.

    Alternate Remedy Available, No Exceptional Circumstance Made Out: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea For Minor Son's Custody

    Title: Dharmendra Choudhary v. The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary- Home Department & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 31

    Rajasthan High Court clarified that habeas corpus petitions in custody disputes of children are usually not maintainable when an alternative remedy under the statute is available and the custody dispute has been persisting for quite a long time.

    “…ordinarily, in relation to a claim for custody of a child, there is effective remedy provided under the Statute, in which the detailed inquiry is to be conducted and final conclusion is to be arrived at while keeping into consideration, in particular, the welfare of a minor child… custody issues which exist for a long period of time, as involved herein, may not be dealt with, in habeas corpus petition, except under certain extraordinary circumstances.”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur observed while delivering the judgment.

    The Division Bench comprising Dr Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed that habeas corpus petitions are maintainable only in 'exceptional circumstances' and would include instances where illegal detention of the minor child is proved substantially. However, the court noted that the petitioner and his wife were living separately for quite some time soon after the birth of their son. After the wife died in 2023, the child had been living with his maternal grandparents. Such a situation doesn't warrant the court's exercise of powers under Article 226, the Division Bench held.

    No Inquiry Or Recovery Proceedings Can Be Initiated Against Legal Representatives Of Deceased Person: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Nand Lal Raigar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 34

    Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that no recovery proceedings can be initiated against the legal representatives of a deceased person, after death, since all connections to worldly affairs are broken upon the death of a person.

    The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand clarified that inquiry against the deceased would abate upon such death, and no other person can be substituted in his place and asked to defend the conduct of the deceased.

    “…No disputed amount can be recovered from the legal representatives of the deceased person until and unless any enquiry is conducted against the deceased and the same cannot be done now because the petitioners were not aware about the irregularities or illegalities committed by their mother”, the bench sitting at Jaipur observed.

    Rajasthan HC Asks Family Courts To Avoid Unnecessary Adjournments, Observe S.21B Hindu Marriage Act Which Encourages Day-To-Day Trial

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 49

    The Rajasthan High Court asked the family courts to sparingly grant adjournments during the pendency of divorce petitions, to realise the objective behind Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

    The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted that disposal of divorce matters shouldn't be delayed unnecessarily and the proceedings should be concluded as expeditiously as possible.

    “Let a copy of this order be sent to all Family Courts through Registrar General with directions to comply with the provisions contained under Section 21-B of the Act of 1955 while deciding all matrimonial matters arising out of the provisions of the Act of 1955”, the bench sitting Jaipur issued appropriate directions.

    Adults Willingly Engaging In Sexual Relations Outside Marital Setting Constitutes No Offence: Rajasthan High Court

    Title - Y and others vs State Of Rajasthan and others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 77

    The Rajasthan High Court observed that if two adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside of marriage, no statutory offence gets constituted.

    A bench of Justice Birendra Kumar opined thus while emphasizing that unless someone marries during the lifetime of his/her spouse, only marriage-like relationships such as living-in-relationship would not come within the mischief of Section 494 IPC (Bigamy).

    These observations were made by the single judge while dismissing an application filed by a Husband seeking to recall the court's order that quashed an FIR against individuals accused of abducting his wife.

    Rajasthan High Court Declines Compassionate Appointment To Son Adopted After Crossing 15 Yrs Age Threshold Under Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act

    Case Title- Narendra Singh v State of Rajasthan, Department of Secondary Education and Ors.

    Case Citation- 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 106

    The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed the plea for compassionate appointment moved by the adopted son of a government servant, citing non-compliance of the provisions for adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

    After hearing the arguments, bench of Justice Arun Monga said the judgment of Mohan Singh Bhati v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. was per in-curium in light of a division bench judgment in Kumari Vinita Sharma v Union of India where one of the reasons to reject the plea for compassionate appointment was Section 10(iv) of the Act. Since the petitioner was 25 years of age at the time of adoption, irrespective of the presumption under Section 16, no compassionate appointment was granted in the case.

    "Cruelty Case By Daughter-In-Law Not Related To Official Duty": Rajasthan HC Grants Retiral Benefits To Deceased Govt Employee's Heirs After 21 Yrs

    Title: Raghuveer Narayan v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 164

    The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the heirs of a deceased government employee whose retiral benefits were suspended by the government pursuant to the filing of a case under Section 498A, IPC against his son and all other family members including himself by his daughter in law.

    The The bench of Justice Sameer Jain held that retiral benefits awarded at the time of superannuation cannot be subject to suspension upon an alleged criminal offence when the said offence was not related to the official discharge of the duties.

    Rajasthan High Court Appreciates Child's Gesture Towards Bench Mediating His Custody Conflict, Calls It 'Symbol Of Strength Of Mediation Law'

    Title: Rajesh Bishnoi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 199

    The Rajasthan High Court while hearing the custody case of a 6-year-old was gifted flowers and a hand-crafted pen stand by the child as a symbol of appreciation for the mediation sessions held with him. While acknowledging the gesture of the boy, a division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman said:

    “This Court acknowledges and appreciates the creativity and positivity of the child and also his sweet gesture and thank him for the wonderful gifts, which he has brought for us. At the end, the child also though in a soft tone, expressed his thanks to the Court. We shall preserve the precious gifts made of craft paper in our Chambers as a 'Symbol of Strength of Mediation Law'.”

    No Provision In Law Prescribing Sisters To Be Legal Representatives When Wife, Son And Daughter (First Class Heirs) Surviving: Rajasthan HC

    Title: Smt. Kherunisa v Lrs of Jai Shiv Singh & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 213

    Rajasthan High Court ruled that sisters cannot be considered legal representatives of a deceased individual especially where the first class heirs including the wife, son and daughter of the deceased were surviving.

    “In the present matter, essentially the estate of the plaintiff would be represented by his first class heirs which undisputedly would be his wife, son and daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out to any provision of law which prescribes for the sisters to be the legal representatives even where the first class heirs of a deceased plaintiff are surviving.”

    Right To Choose Partner: Rajasthan High Court Issues SOP For Police Protection Of Major Couples Facing Threats

    Title: Suman Meena & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 189

    Rajasthan High Court issued a SOP, taking note of multiplicity of pleas filed by major couples apprehending threats of extra-legal harassment and violence at the hands of their families or other social actors or groups and thus seeking police protection.

    The Court highlighted that such threats are a direct attack on the constitutional rights of the major couples, especially under Articles 14 and 21. The Court further stressed upon the institutional role of police in safeguarding the constitutional rights of such couples. In this regard, the Court issued directions to be put in place by the State Government to strengthen the mechanism that could protect not only such couples but any other individual who might be facing extra-legal threats to their lives.

    Right To Life Must Be Protected Regardless Of Validity Of Marriage: Rajasthan HC Grants Protection To Couple Of Non-Marriageable Age

    Title: Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 227

    Rajasthan High Court ruled that the supremacy of fundamental rights seeking protection of life and liberty irrespective of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.

    The bench of Justice Arun Monga directed the police to grant protection to a major couple, not of marriageable age, facing threats from family and held that regardless of whether a citizen was a minor or a major, it was the constitutional obligation of the State to treat right to human life on a much higher pedestal.

    Rajasthan High Court Asks Police To Consider Protection Plea By Already Married Live-In Partners

    Title: Maya & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 229

    Rajasthan High Court directed the local Police to consider providing necessary protection to a man and woman living in a live-in relationship outside their respective wedlocks.

    The bench referred to Kanti and another Vs. State of Haryana & Ors (2023) where while dealing with similar facts as a puisne Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Monga had ruled that the key issue was not the legality of petitioners' relationship but whether they were entitled to protection in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was ruled that even though the relationship of the couple was prima facie adulterous in nature, in a nation governed by Rule of Law, fundamental right under Article 21 stood on a much higher pedestal and had to be protected irrespective of the legitimacy of relationship between the parties.

    Rajasthan High Court Grants Custody Of 2-Yr-Old Child To Widow Who Was Accused Of Abetting Husband's Suicide By In-Laws

    Title: Kusum Lata v the State of Rajasthan

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 233

    Rajasthan High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed in relation to a 2-year-old by a widowed mother, accused of abetting the suicide of her husband by in-laws.

    The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal ruled that mother being the natural guardian and in sound financial position as opposed to the respondent-grandparents was entitled to the child's custody.

    Separating 7-Yr-Old From Mother & Handing Over To Father Settled In Dubai Not In Child's Best Interest Irrespective Of Father's Finances: Rajasthan HC

    Title: Pratyush Shastri v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 239

    The Rajasthan High Court ruled that the far better financial condition of a father cannot be the decisive factor in affirming that the child's welfare would be best assured if the minor's custody was handed over to the father.

    The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a father who was alleging illegal and wrongful detention of his minor child by his wife who had brought the child to India illegally, without his knowledge, from his native country Dubai where the child was born and ordinarily residing.

    All Female Employees Entitled To Benefit Of 180 Days Maternity Leave Under Maternity Benefit Act: Rajasthan High Court Clarifies

    Title: Minakshi Chaudhary v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 248

    The Rajasthan High Court ruled that granting only 90 days of maternity leave to female employees of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (“RSRTC”) based on Regulation 74 of the RSRTC Employees Service Regulations, 1965 (“1965 Regulations”) instead of 180 days as mandated by the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (“1961 Act”) after the 2017 amendment, was not only discriminatory but also violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

    Accordingly, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand recommended RSRTC to amend the Regulation 74 of 1965 Regulations and increase 90 days maternity leave to 180 days.

    Furthermore, the Court issued a general mandamus to the Government of India, Ministry of Personal Public Grievance and Pension, to issue necessary instructions to all unrecognized and private sectors to make suitable amendments in their provisions for granting 180 days of maternity benefits to female employees.

    Rajasthan High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Husband Accused In Wife's Dowry Death, Cites Delay & Inconsistencies Between Dying Declarations

    Title: State of Rajasthan v Narsi Ram & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 250

    Rajasthan High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against an acquittal order passed 35 years ago in an alleged case of murder owing to unfulfilled dowry demands. The court noted that the implicating dying declaration was made 16 days after the first dying declaration and consequently the report was also lodged after an inordinate delay of 16 days after the incident.

    The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman held that no explanation was put forth for the inordinate delay of 16 days in lodging the report against the accused based on the second dying declaration, and expressed the possibility of influence or tutoring by the relatives of the deceased during this time.

    'Unjust Inclusion In Chargesheet': Rajasthan HC Quashes Corruption Case Against Development Officer's 100 Yrs Old Father, 96 Yrs Old Mother

    Title: Ram Lal Patidar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 256

    The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed a decade old charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a man's 100-year-old father, 96-year-old mother and wife after noting that no significant evidence had been brought out against them by the prosecution in last 10 years, and that they were included in the charge sheet in an unjust manner.

    Taking note of the parents old age, single bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order observed, "Moreover, petitioners No. 2 (father) and No. 3 (mother) are senior citizens, aged 100 and 96 years, respectively. Their advanced age and frail health make their continued involvement in this prolonged trial highly unjust and inappropriate. The burden of the trial on individuals of such advanced age who are not central to the allegations against petitioner No. 1 (primary accused) makes out a case of quashing their involvement in the case on compassionate ground if nothing else, which seems to be a reasonable ground, given that they are, really speaking, not the accused but merely name lenders to their son, if at all".

    Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Husband Noting That His Extra-Marital Affair Would 'Per Se' Not Attract Abetment Of Wife's Suicide

    Title: Meghraj v State of Rajasthan

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 266

    While granting bail to a man accused of abetting his wife's suicide, the Rajasthan High Court observed that solely because a husband was involved in an extra-marital relationship and there was some suspicion in the wife's mind, cannot be regarded as abetment under Section 306 IPC.

    After considering the facts of the case, a single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni said, "This Court is of the opinion that no doubt there is some evidence about the illicit relationship of husband of deceased but in the absence of some other acceptable prima facie evidence on record, the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC, which includes abetment to drive a woman to commit suicide, could not be found prima facie satisfied.

    33 Years Later, Rajasthan High Court Sentences Husband To Life Imprisonment For Wife's Murder; Sets Aside Acquittal Order

    Title: State of Rajasthan v Angrey Singh

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 274

    While overturning a decision acquitting a man accused of murdering his first wife, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the trial court in its 1992 order had ignored the testimonies of the eyewitnesses due to minor contradictions as well as corroborative evidence, which was a patent error in law.

    The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman in its order said, "This Court also observes that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal had clearly ignored the testimonies of the three eyewitnesses, merely on count of some minor contradictions therein, and also ignored the other corroborative evidence produced on record by the prosecution, which is nothing but a patent error of law in the impugned judgment of acquittal. This Court further observes that on the basis of evidence and material available on record, there could have been no other view in the present case, other than the one of convicting the accused-respondent under Section 302 IPC".

    "Family Ties Are Paramount, Courts Can't Perpetuate Discord": Rajasthan High Court While Quashing Cross FIRs Over Family Altercation

    Title: Urvashi Bishnoi & Ors. v State of Rajasthan and other connected petition

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 289

    While quashing cross FIRs registered by family members against one another, Rajasthan High Court ruled that court's primary objective must be to strength family bonds and not to perpetuate discord among family members.

    The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing quashing petition in relation to cross-FIRs for criminal assault and causing hurt, filed by members of the same family owing to an altercation.

    It was opined that continuing the FIRs, would only escalate the family tensions and family ties were paramount, hence priority must be given to maintaining unity within families.

    [IPC 498A] Sister-In-Law Calling Brother's Wife To Her Home, Quarrelling Does Not Amount To Cruelty: Rajasthan HC Upholds Discharge Order

    Title: Gulam Hussain v State and Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 292

    Rajasthan High Court affirmed a 22-year-old order of the Sessions Court to the effect that the act of a woman's sister-in-law calling her home and quarrelling does not amount to cruelty for dowry.

    The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition against an order of the Sessions Court in which the accused was discharged from the alleged offence. The Court perused the reasoning of the Sessions Court which had held that there was no strained relationship between the deceased and her husband or the mother-in-law, neither there was any evidence of the sister-in-law harassing the deceased for dowry except for calling her at house and quarrelling. However, this was not considered sufficient to attract the charges of cruelty for dowry.

    Rajasthan HC Orders Railway To Release Family Pension To Widow Despite Omission In Nomination Form Of "Barely Literate" Husband, Imposes ₹1L Cost

    Title: Smt. Leela Devi v Union of India and Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 302

    Irrespective of not appearing in the nomination form for the insurance scheme, Rajasthan High Court directed Department of Railway to grant family pension to the 'illiterate' widow and daughters of a deceased employee, observing that the substantive right of a citizen could not be denied on account of procedural lapses especially where the aggrieved was an illiterate.

    “It is a settled position of law that in matters where the aggrieved person is illiterate or possess zilch knowledge about the legal formalities, he/she cannot be made a prey to the technicalities and complexities of law.”

    The bench of Justice Sameer Jain also directed the department to pay a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 to the petitioner for the mental distress and financial loss that she had to endure over the years.

    Resolving Family Disputes Using Criminal Law An Abuse Of Legal Processes: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Nephew's FIR Over Property Dispute

    Title: Kishore Singh Mertiya v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 306

    While quashing a nephew's FIR against his uncle for offences of cheating and forgery, Rajasthan High Court reiterated that using criminal justice system to settle family property issues is a misuse of legal process, unless there is a clear prima-facie evidence of criminal intent.

    After hearing both the sides, the bench of Justice Arun Monga highlighted that the core issue between the parties was fundamentally a family property dispute of civil nature concerning inheritance and ownership that needed to be decided based on documentary evidence and applicable inheritance laws. In this light, criminal law could not be invoked.

    “This dispute should be resolved through civil litigation regarding inheritance rights, not through criminal charges. Criminal law cannot be used to settle civil disputes, and the FIR appears to be an attempt to escalate a family property dispute into a criminal case.”

    Father's Protest Petition Against Daughter-In-Law For Abetting Son's Suicide Not Ground To Deny Her Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan HC

    Title: Lal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 318

    While rejecting petition filed by the father of a deceased government employee, the bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that pendency of a protest petition against a negative police report in a case of abetment to suicide filed against the wife of the deceased was not a sufficient ground to deny her compassionate appointment.

    Right To Live With Dignity Includes Being Able To Fulfil Marital Vows Towards Spouse Taken During Saptapadi Ceremony: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Amar Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 321

    The bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity as a human being which necessarily also entailed to act as a good husband in terms of marital vows taken during the saptapadi ceremony as per Hindu rituals.

    Right To Dignity Under Article 21 Includes Being Able To Attend Once In A Lifetime Family Rituals Like Son's Wedding: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Yudhishter Singh Rajpurohit v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 323

    Rajasthan High Court ruled that Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India also includes Right to live with dignity that encompasses attending once in a lifetime family rituals like right of a father to attend son's marriage.

    “Right to life does not mean mere right to exist but to live with dignity. Such a right cannot be and ought not be curtailed on the ground that father of petitioner father is since an accused pending cases.”

    The bench of Justice Arun Monga opined that the father of the petitioner was indeed required to be personally present at the time of marriage of his son not only to facilitate marriage arrangement but to also bless the newlyweds to upkeep his dignity with his family and society.

    Principle Of Res-Judicata Not Applicable To Reliefs Of Alimony, Stridhan Which Can Be Claimed At Any Subsequent Stage: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: X v Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 362

    Applying the Golden Rule for purposive interpretation of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court ruled that the Doctrine of Res Judicata is not applicable on the reliefs of permanent alimony and stridhan as provided in the provision.

    In doing so the court underlined that res judicata is not applicable since the reliefs sought under Section 25 could be claimed "at any subsequent stage" as well and could be granted by any Court having jurisdiction under the Act. By way of this ruling the high court underscored that when it comes to welfare provisions like Section 25, the golden rule of interpretation ensures that laws designed to "uplift vulnerable populations are applied in a way that reflects their true intent".

    The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman in its order said that Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act (pertaining to Permanent alimony and maintenance) was a social welfare legislation for securing the rights of women and thus it was Court's duty to advance this cause of social justice by interpreting it in light of its purpose.

    Minor Son Brought To India By Mother In 2018 Is US Citizen, Illegal Migrant In India: Rajasthan HC Allows Father's Habeas Corpus Plea

    Title: X v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 384

    The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowed a habeas corpus plea filed by the father of a minor child was born and earlier residing in the US, was brought to India by his mother in 2018 and had not returned even after expiration of his visa, ruling that the child shall be considered an illegal migrant in India.

    A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta further observed that in light of a prior final custody order passed by the US Court in favour of the petitioner, based on the Doctrine of Comity of Courts, the Family court in India had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Guardians and Wards Act filed by the mother of the child.

    On the question of the welfare of the minor child, the Court said:

    “As an illegal migrant child...is not entitled to many of the Constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and would always be treated as an illegal migrant and would not even be treated as second class citizen as he is not even holding an Overseas Citizenship of India Card. Thus, the welfare of the child is in returning to the place of his birth i.e. United States of America, where all the rights would be available to him.”

    Woman Died Within 4 Walls Of In-Laws' Home And Was Cremated Hurriedly: Rajasthan HC Overturns 22-Yr-Old Acquittal In Dowry Death Case

    Title: State v Ramdin and Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 387

    Overturning a 22-year old acquittal in a dowry death case, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court cancelled the bail bonds of the accused father-in-law and the mother-in-law, noting that they failed to explain the circumstances leading to the woman's death since the alleged crime took place within the four walls of their home.

    The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas said that the duo failed to discharge their obligation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which lays down that when any fact was especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact was upon him.

    "This Court also observes that in the instant case, the crime in question took place within the four-walls of the victim's matrimonial house and therefore, in such a circumstance the burden is upon the in-laws who were present in the house to explain the facts and the circumstances under which the incident in question has taken place, by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act...This Court observes that in the present case the accused respondents upon the death of the victim, performed her cremation in a hurried manner without informing her family members or police and thereby also preventing the post-mortem of her dead body being conducted which speaks volume of their conduct and manifests intention on their part to concoct the story and to destruct the evidence to shield themselves"

    Daughter Who Became Widowed/ Divorced After Death Of Govt Employee Parent Falls Outside “Family” Under Pension Rules: Rajasthan HC

    Title: Sarla Devi Acharya v the District and Sessions judge & Ors. and other connected petitions

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 391

    Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of writ petitions filed by daughters claiming family pension pursuant to their respective parents' death who were government employees, on the basis of them attaining status of a widow or a divorcee, subsequent to their parents' demise.

    The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta ruled that the relevant date for determining family's right to receive family pension was the date of retirement or the date of death of the government servant, and accordingly, for a daughter to be eligible for father's pension, she must have a status of a widow or a divorcee on such a date. Her status subsequent to the father's death would not render her the right to claim family pension.

    S.175 BNSS | Magistrate Can't Order Registration Of FIR Like 'Rubber Stamp' Especially In Complaints Arising From Family Disputes: Rajasthan HC

    Title: Gordhan Lal Soni & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 399

    Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR filed by the police on directions from the CJM based on a complaint under Section 175(3), BNSS, calling it a “rubber-stamp decision making” and observing complete judicial oversight on part of the CJM. It was opined that no judicial mind was applied for making an independent determination regarding prima facie existence of the case against the accused.

    The bench of Justice Arun Monga ruled that in cases of family disputes, magistrates must aim at strengthening familial bonds and fostering harmony, and utmost caution must be exercised by both the law enforcement as well as the magistrates before directing registration of FIRs by meticulous ascertainment of truth and credibility of allegations.

    When Deceased Govt Employee Married Second Wife Without Divorcing First Wife, Only The Latter Will Get Family Pension: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Urmila Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 400

    Rajasthan High Court accepted the petition by the first wife of a deceased government employee for family pension on the grounds that no valid divorce took place between them since “social divorce” was not recognized by our legal system. In this light, since the marriage with the second wife was not valid as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”), she could not be seen as “widow” of the deceased employee for being entitled to the family pension.

    “Thus, the second marriage of anyone, without dissolution of first marriage cannot be treated as a valid marriage and such second wife cannot be treated as a 'widow' of the deceased Government Servant in terms of Rule 66 & 67 of the Rules of 1996…In cases where the deceased employee had a second wife without legally divorcing the first wife, only the first wife would be entitled to the pension benefits”

    Furthermore, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that authorities could not ask for succession certificate for claiming family pension since the certificate was granted for recovery of debt or security and family pension did not fall within that purview.

    Rajasthan HC Junks Man's Plea Seeking Dismissal Of Daughter-In-Law From Service Over FIR For Allegedly Abetting Son's Suicide, Imposes 50K Costs

    Title: Banwari Lal Swami v The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 407

    Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a father-in-law for filing a “baseless” writ petition seeking removal of his daughter-in-law from the post of patwari on the grounds of a pending FIR against her filed by him alleging her of abetting his son's suicide.

    The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that it was a settled position of law that process of law should not be used to settle personal grudges and oblique considerations, and such an act by the petitioner was sheer abuse of the process of law.

    Rajasthan High Court Allows Couple To Cure Defects In Application For 'Inter-Caste Marriage Help Scheme' With Almost 7 Yrs Delay

    Title: Mahesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 408

    The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court granted relief to an inter-caste married couple whose claim under the Dr. Savita Ben Ambedkar Inter-Caste Marriage Help Scheme (“the Scheme”) was rejected for not curing the defect in the application within a period of one month.

    The Scheme was started by the Government of Rajasthan to promote marriages between Hindu and Scheduled Caste girls and boys. As per the Scheme such an inter-caste couple, upto the age of 35 years, was entitled to get Rs. 5 lakhs. Half of the amount was to be given within one year of registration of marriage for purchasing household goods, and the remaining amount was to be kept as fixed deposit in a joint account of the couple that could be claimed only after 8 years of marriage.

    Urdu Language Not Widely Known, 'Nikahnama' Should Also Contain Hindi/ English To Make It Comprehensible: Rajasthan High Court

    Title: Adnan Ali & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 423 

    In relation to Muslim marriages, Rajasthan High Court ruled that a sacred relationship like marriage had to be recognized by a document which was unambiguous, vividly clear, explicit and transparent, and should not be issued in a language like Urdu which was not widely known to a society, especially to public servants and officers of the Court.

    The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that it would help in resolving complexities if the printed proforma of a Nikah Nama contained Hindi or English.

    Furthermore, the Court also observed that the District Magistrate/ Collector of every city should keep a register with a record of individuals who could perform Nikah-Nama and only such people shall be eligible to perform the ceremony of Nikah.

    TELANGANA HIGH COURT

    'Marriage Voidable Under HMA, She Could've Ended It Upon Attaining Majority If Unhappy': Telangana HC Quashes POCSO FIR Against Accused Of Marrying Minor

    Case Title: Nitesh Singh VS. State of TS

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 13

    The Telangana High Court has quashed an FIR registered under section 5 r/w s.6 of the POCSO Act against an accused for allegedly marrying a minor, holding that the marriage is voidable at the instance of the minor upon attaining majority, if she is unhappy under the Hindu Marriage Act.

    Justice T Madhavi Devi has passed the order in a plea filed by the accused under section 482 of IPC to quash the F.I.R registered against him under section 376(2)(n) IPC, 5 r/w 6 of Prevention of Child From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

    "Even if it is found that she was aged below 18 years at the time of marriage, under the Hindu Marriage Act, it is a marriage at the option of the girl after she attains the age of majority. The said Sindhu is happily married with the petitioner and she begot two children out of the wedlock with the petitioner and therefore, no useful purpose would be served at this stage by investigating into her age when there are no allegations of any abuse against her either by the husband or her in-laws. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the aforesaid Crime against the petitioner."

    Daughter's 'Good' Financial Status Can't Be Grounds To Disallow Her From Seeking Share In Self-Acquired Properties Of Her Father: Telangana HC

    Case Title: Tallapelli Kamalamma Died VS. Tallapelli , JannuLudiaBloos

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 37

    The Telangana High Court has held that merely because a daughter is of good financial status, it will not automatically deny her a claim in the self-acquired property of her father.

    The order was passed by Justice M.G. Priyadarshini in an appeal by a brother against his sister after a partition suit was decreed in her favour. The brother had relied upon a will alleged to have been executed by their father, wherein it was stated that the sister was being disallowed from claiming a share in the self-acquired property of her father due to her good financial status. The trial court disbelieved the alleged will and decreed the suit in favour of the sister.

    Family Court Not Strictly Bound By Procedure Laid Down In CPC, Evidence Act; May Lay Down Own Procedure If Required: Telangana High Court

    Case Title: Sri Peechara Venkateshwar Rao vs. Sri Juvvadi Vamshi Krishna

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 48

    The Telangana High Court has held that a Family Court is not strictly bound by the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code and if required may lay down its own procedure in order to arrive at the truth of the matter.

    The order was passed by Justice T. Vinod Kumar while addressing whether a photocopy of a settlement deed could be introduced as secondary evidence in a family Court petition despite the absence of any foundation laid in the pleadings.

    S.14 HMA | Telangana HC Waives 1-Yr Divorce Waiting Period Noting 40 Y/O Wife's Wish To Urgently Remarry To Avoid Future Pregnancy Risks

    Case Title: Dandamudi Phani Krishna vs. Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 61

    Invoking Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, which bars married couples from seeking divorce before 1-year of marriage except in cases of 'exceptional hardship', the Telangana High Court recently allowed a couple, who lived together for only two months days, to file for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B.

    A bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy passed the order considering the 40-year-old wife's wish to remarry at the earliest to avoid the potential health risks associated with pregnancy at her age.

    S.2(2) HMA | Substantially 'Hinduised' Tribes Cannot Be Relegated To Customary Courts For Attaining Divorce Decree: Telangana High Court

    Case Title: Kadavath Srikanth vs Kadavath Ashwitha

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 85

    The Telangana High Court has held that when recognized Tribes have admitted following Hindu traditions and Customs, and jointly file a petition under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage, the Court cannot relegate them to customary Courts citing the bar created by section 2(2) of the Act.

    Section 2(2) of the HMA says that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to Schedule Tribes. Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty relying on Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi, Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena and Chittapuli v. Union Government, held:

    “Section 2(2) of the Act are meant to protect customary practices of recognized Tribes. However, if the parties are following Hindu traditions, customs and that they are substantially Hinduised, they cannot be relegated to customary Courts, that too, when they themselves admit that they are following Hindu rites, customs and traditions.”

    "Necessary Party For Complete Adjudication": Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Proceedings In Which Adulterer Was Not Made Party

    Case Title: Phani Raghavalu Meduri vs Lakshmi Meduri

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 88

    In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court underscored the importance of including the alleged adulterer as a necessary party in divorce proceedings initiated on the grounds of adultery.

    The court emphasized that the right of the alleged adulterer to be heard is crucial for a fair and just trial, and their absence can lead to an incomplete adjudication of the case. The Court said:

    “It is to be noted that since the finding of adultery would adversely affect the interest of adulterer, opportunity should be given to him to defend himself and to disprove the claim of adultery, the said adulterer should be arrayed in the proceedings which would help the court to effectively and completely adjudicate the controversy.”

    Telangana High Court Reiterates Mandatory Disclosure Of Assets & Liabilities By Both Sides In Maintenance Cases, Calls For Strict Adherence To SC Guidelines

    Case Title: Smt. N. Pravallika vs M. Abhishek Goud

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 97

    The Telangana High Court recently upheld an order by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (appellate court) in a domestic violence case, highlighting the mandatory requirement for both parties to disclose their assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings.

    “The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal observed that though the assets and liabilities statement of respondent No.1 was on record by the date of passing the order, in spite of the same, it was not considered by the trial court making the order erroneous, since the statement would help the Court in deciding the actual amount of relief that was entitled and claimed,” the Bench observed.

    The order was passed by Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani in a Criminal Revision petition. The Bench has heavily relied on the ratio laid down in the Supreme Court case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another.

    Court Is Neither Counsellor Nor Executioner To Compel Parties To Continue With 'Unworkable Marriage': Telangana High Court

    Case Title: D. Narsimha ,iNarsimlu vs, Smt D Anita Vaishnavi

    Citation: 2024 Livelaw (TS) 107

    While allowing a husband's appeal seeking a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Telangana High Court reiterated that marriage cannot be forced on individuals, and the Court must not act as a hangman or a counsellor to compel the parties to continue living as wife and husband in a loveless marriage.

    “The obliteration of marital ties is entirely for the persons in the marriage and upon them to assess and resolve in the best way they think fit. The Court has a limited role in the whole affair and should not act as an executioner (in the sense of a hangman) or a counsellor to compel the parties to continue living as wife and husband, particularly where the meeting of minds between them has irrevocably ended. It is certainly not the Court's work to ferret out faultlines in the evidence in negation of cruelty in an altruistic zeal for preserving the marriage. This kind of exercise is unwarranted and pointless,” said a Division of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshini.

    Telangana High Court Appoints Wife Of Man Who Was In Vegetative State As Legal Guardian Of His Property

    Case Title:Nandyala Vaidehi vs. State of TS

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 121

    The Telangana High Court has appointed the wife of a man who was in a vegetative state as his legal guardian.

    The order was passed by Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy in a writ petition, which was filed raising the parens patriae jurisdiction of the Court. Under parens patriae, the State has a paternal and protective role over its citizens.

    It was pleaded that the petitioner may be appointed as the legal guardian of her husband's property under peculiar circumstances and in the absence of any legislation on the matter.

    Telangana High Court Upholds Right Of Shia Women To Conduct Prayers In Ibadat Khana, Says Holy Quran Does Not Prohibit It

    Case Title: AnjumaneAlavi, Shia Imamia Ithna Ashari Akhbari Regd Society vs. State of TS

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 131

    In a landmark judgment, the Telangana High Court has affirmed the right of women belonging to the Akbhari Sect of Shia Muslims to conduct religious activities in the Ibadat Khana located in Darulshifa, Hyderabad.

    The ruling came in response to Writ Petition, filed by 'AnjumaneAlavi Shia Imamia Ithna Ashari Akhbari Regd Society' challenging the denial of access to women for conducting Majlis, Jashans, and other religious prayers in the premises.

    Telangana High Court Dismisses Wife's Plea To Transfer Divorce Case To Hyderabad, Cites Free Public Transport Facility For Women

    Case Title: X v Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 150

    The Telangana High Court dismissed a woman's plea seeking transfer of the divorce proceedings from Nirmal to Hyderabad after noting that free public transport is available to women in the state.

    The high court passed the order in a petition filed by the wife, seeking transfer of the divorce proceedings from the civil judge's court in Nirmal district to either the family court in R.R. District at L.B. Nagar or the family court in Hyderabad.

    Courts Must Be Cautious In Cases Involving Persons With Unsound Mind, Ensure Their Rights Are Protected: Telangana HC

    Case Title: X v/s Y

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 207

    The Telangana High Court has underscored that courts must proceed with utmost caution in matters involving persons of unsound mind so that their rights are protected, adding that if a party to a suit alleges that the opposing party is of unsound mind held that the court must conduct a judicial inquiry to determine whether the allegation is true.

    Justice K. Sujana while referring to Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Duvvuri Rami Reddi Vs Duvvudu Papi Reddy and others, which lays down certain principles to be followed while declaring a person of unsound mind, said:

    “In matters involving persons of unsound mind, the Court must exercise utmost caution and diligence to ensure that the rights of such individuals are protected. Order XXXII, Rule 15 of C.P.C places persons of unsound mind or persons so adjudged in the same position as minors for purposes of Rules 1 to 14. When a party to a suit alleges that the opposing party is of unsound mind, the Court must conduct a judicial inquiry to determine whether the alleged person is indeed incapable of protecting his interests in the suit. This inquiry should consist of examining witnesses, the alleged lunatic, and seeking medical expert opinion.

    UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

    Child's Custody Has To Be Shared By Both Parents And Grandparents, Follow 257th Law Commission Report: Uttarakhand High Court To Family Courts

    Case Title: Shruti Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Utt) 3

    The Uttarakhand High Court directed the Family Courts to mandatorily follow the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its 257th Report with regard to reforms in guardianship and custody laws, in child custody matters.

    While passing directions, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal observed,

    “This Court is of the view that at this stage, this direction is necessary to be given that the child's custody has to be shared by both the parents as well as by the grand-parents so that his emotional growth is not affected. The child has to bear many peer pressure when he grows up.”

    Issue General Instruction Enabling Live-In/Married Couples To Directly Approach SSP To Get Protection: Uttarakhand HC To State Govt

    Case title - Shubhi Sharma and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and others

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Utt) 4

    The Uttarakhand High Court recently directed the State Government to come up with general instructions, whereby, live-in/married couples can directly approach the Senior Superintendent of Police and get protection.

    A bench of Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Pankaj Purohit issued this direction to the state government while dealing with a protection plea filed by a couple. The couple/petitioners' grievance was that they should not be harmed by the families, who are opposing their relationship.

    Uttarakhand High Court Allows Wife's Plea To Become Guardian Of Comatose Husband

    Case Title: Kamakshee Bisht Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Utt) 20

    In a first-of-its-kind order, the Uttarakhand High Court allowed the application of a wife who sought guardianship of her husband who is in a state of coma and deeply bedridden.

    Since no law is in the field to appoint the petitioner as her husband's guardian, the Single bench comprising Justice Pankaj Purohit justified the petitioner's reference to the Kerala High Court's decision in the case of Shobha Gopalkrishnan & another vs. State of Kerala & others, where the High Court had issued several guidelines to deal with the procedure for appointment of Guardian to a patient lying in comatose state.

    Financial Liabilities Do Not Justify Lowering Maintenance Payments U/S 125 CrPC: Uttarakhand High Court

    Case Title: Mahesh Nath Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Utt) 21

    Addressing a revision petition against an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Judge, Haldwani, the Uttarakhand High Court ruled that existing loans and other financial liabilities do not justify lowering maintenance payments under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

    Not Granting Divorce In A Dead Marriage Is 'Cruelty' To Both Husband And Wife: Uttarakhand High Court

    Case Title: Vishal Upadhaya Vs Arpita Shukla

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Utt) 23

    Noting that not granting divorce when the marriage is a 'dead marriage' would amount to cruelty, the Uttarakhand High Court allowed the dissolution of a marriage wherein both parties had separated 25 days after their marriage.

    The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal added that there was no scope for 'emotional bonding' or 'patch-up' among them since they remained separated for nearly five years.

    Tags
    All India Annual Family Law DigestAnnual Digest 2024Digests 2024#Digests
    Next Story
    X
    x
    IP subscription is detected for  
    Please register yourself for unlimited free access.
    Redirecting to register page...