#Family Law

The court ruled that a natural guardian may directly invoke Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for custody without first obtaining a guardianship declaration under Section 7, setting aside the Family Court's threshold dismissal and restoring the suit for merit-based adjudication. This clarifies that the statutory custody remedy is independently accessible to natural guardians.

The Delhi High Court upheld an adverse inference against a husband who failed to file his income affidavit despite six opportunities over 14 months, affirming Rs.20,000 monthly interim maintenance. It also refused to condone a 222-day delay in filing the revision, as the petitioner's ignorance claim was contradicted by his counsel's recorded presence at the hearing.

The Gujarat High Court ruled that voluntary PF/ESPP deductions cannot be deducted from gross salary for Section 125 maintenance, as they are the husband's assets, not mandatory charges. Applying the Supreme Court's Harpreet Sawhney precedent, it quashed a net-salary-based order and remanded for fresh computation on gross income, safeguarding the wife's maintenance entitlement.

The High Court overturned a family court order awarding custody to a father who had remarried without divorce, abandoned his younger son, and flouted a restitution decree. The father's bigamy and contempt of court orders rendered him unfit; the children's welfare was held paramount, granting custody to the mother with supervised DLSA visitation.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that the twelve-month limitation for recovering maintenance arrears under Section 125(3) CrPC begins from the date of the maintenance order, not from when each arrear accrued. This allows claimants to recover arrears for up to a year preceding the order, even if the arrears span a longer period, benefiting maintenance seekers and defining the liability of payers.

The Calcutta High Court quashed lower maintenance orders, ruling that any award under the PWDV Act must be grounded in sworn affidavits of both parties’ assets and liabilities. The decision forces litigants in domestic violence cases to furnish full financial disclosures before maintenance can be granted, impacting spouses and children seeking support.

A wife's safety apprehension due to brother-in-law's conduct is a lawful cause for withdrawal under Section 281 Mohammedan Law; the Jharkhand HC overturned a restitution of conjugal rights decree, noting threats from in-laws can defeat claims in matrimonial disputes.

A never-consummated marriage with 84 days’ separation and a MOU settlement showing no reconciliation amounts to exceptional hardship, permitting waiver of the one-year period under HMA Sec 14(1) for an immediate divorce petition, as held by Delhi HC.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that overlapping maintenance under the PWDV Act and Hindu Marriage Act must be set-off to prevent double recovery, and that PWDV welfare proceedings cannot be quashed for procedural lapses, protecting recipients and children’s interests.

The Calcutta High Court held that suppression of material facts and lack of clean hands disentitle a wife to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, setting aside the denial and ordering a trial, thus upholding clean hands doctrine in maintenance cases.

Allahabad HC holds child welfare paramount in habeas corpus custody; grants father custody with structured maternal visitation despite mother's unwillingness.

The Orissa HC transferred the family case under Section 24 CPC, noting the wife’s 250 km travel hardship and lack of escort. It allowed the husband’s virtual appearance with safeguards and vacated the 4 Sept 2024 interim order, aiding deserted spouses in remote locations.

The Supreme Court exercised its Article 142 powers to grant a mutual consent divorce, ordering the husband to pay ₹35 lakh alimony in two installments and to quash all existing criminal and civil cases between the parties. This ruling showcases the Court’s ability to deliver complete justice in matrimonial disputes while preventing further litigation.

Unchallenged WhatsApp messages alone can prove mental cruelty under HMA Sec 13(1)(i-a), the Chhattisgarh HC ruled, overturning the Family Court’s denial of divorce. The decision confirms that uncontested electronic evidence suffices for matrimonial relief, impacting spouses seeking divorce on cruelty grounds.

Baseless superior-level complaints shift the burden of proof and render cohabitation impossible, affecting service personnel and their families.