#family court procedure

Allahabad HC set aside a maintenance order and directed the Family Court to follow Supreme Court’s Rajnesh vs. Neha guidelines requiring parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities before interim relief is granted. The court ordered compliance within 15 days and adjudication within 30 days, emphasizing procedural fairness in Section 125 CrPC applications.

Allahabad High Court rules that imposing 50% of maintenance arrears as a precondition for restoration applications under Section 126 CrPC is arbitrary and illegal. The Court reduced the cost to Rs. 1,00,000, reinforcing that procedural requirements must align with principles of natural justice and cannot impose undue financial burdens on litigants.

MP High Court rules that divorce petitions must allow amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to include subsequent cruelty events, such as a 498A IPC FIR filed during pendency. The court held that denying such amendments would prejudice the petitioner's case, reinforcing the principle that matrimonial cruelty must be assessed holistically, including post-filing incidents.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that Family Courts cannot shut down a petitioner’s right to present evidence in maintenance proceedings merely for non-appearance, without verifying legitimate hardship or offering a meaningful opportunity to be heard. This reinforces natural justice under BNSS and protects vulnerable litigants from summary dismissal in long-pending family disputes.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the mandatory six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act can be waived when mediation has conclusively failed and the marriage is irretrievably broken, aligning with the Supreme Court’s precedent in Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal. This sets a clear precedent for family courts to prioritize judicial efficiency and当事人的实际困境 over rigid procedural timelines in mutual consent divorces.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a Family Court's dismissal of a Section 144 BNSS maintenance application is illegal when the respondent fails to cross-examine witnesses or present rebuttal evidence. The court emphasized that unrebutted testimony must be accepted as proof, remanding the case for fresh consideration without requiring prior police complaints.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a litigant’s delay in submitting documents under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC cannot override the fundamental right to defend, especially when evidence has not yet begun. This reinforces procedural fairness in family court proceedings and ensures that substantive justice prevails over technical non-compliance.

Bombay HC quashes ex-parte maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC where the husband was not properly represented due to non-filing of vakalatnama. The court mandates a fresh hearing, reinforcing that procedural fairness is essential even in interim maintenance proceedings affecting livelihood and child welfare.

MP High Court rules that waiver of the 6-month cooling-off period under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act requires a specific, explicit application before the Family Court. Mere inference or urgency pleas are insufficient. The Court directed parties to file a formal application within 15 days, aligning with Supreme Court rulings in Amit Kumar and Amardeep Singh. This decision reinforces procedural compliance for divorce by mutual consent, impacting litigants and practitioners in matrimonial disputes.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that a reply to an interim maintenance application under BNSS Section 144 cannot substitute as a reply to the main application, ensuring fair opportunity to contest claims. The judgment reinforces that procedural fairness requires distinct filings, impacting maintenance proceedings under family law.

The Madras High Court ruled that the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory, not mandatory, and can be waived where reconciliation is impossible. Courts must consider separation duration, failed mediation, and settlement of issues to avoid prolonged agony for parties seeking divorce by mutual consent.

Uttarakhand High Court holds that when reconciliation efforts fail, courts may direct spouses to file mutual consent divorce petition, with alimony terms binding upon decree.

Bombay High Court holds that dismissal of maintenance petition for non-service of summons cannot override prima facie evidence of marriage, especially when petitioner seeks restoration same day.