Jharkhand High Court
Blackmailing Wife with objectionable Photos and threat amount to Cruelty
X VS. Y
Decided on:07/01/2026
The marriage between the parties was solemnized in March 2020 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, thereafter the Husband got the access of wife’s phone and transferred private photos of her and started blackmailing her that he will upload the photos on social media, also assaulted her physically and mentally, forced to have sex, if opposed he showed that objectionable photos to his parents and family members. The wife was forced to sign a letter, was thrown out of the matrimonial home along with her father. Also, the stridhan was snatched by the In-laws.
Prompting her to approach the family court, wherein the Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that the wife failed to establish her case against the husband even to the extent of preponderance of probabilities.
In an Appeal Before the High Court, the High Court has dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty and referred to Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988)1 SCC 105, wherein the Supreme Court has emphasized that Cruelty has no fixed definition, is stated it can be mental, physical, intentional and unintentional and includes conduct adversely affecting the spouse’s dignity and reputation. The Court on the basis of testimonies of wife revealed that she was blackmailed on the ground of her past relations and showing those objectionable photographs to his family members by the husband and she was subject to humiliation by the family members of the husband, which amounts to character assassination of the wife by her own husband.
The Court highlighted that the husband’s conduct has shown that it is the humiliation caused by him and his family members that has caused mental agony to the wife to such an extent that it is almost impossible for the wife to live with the husband, where the thread of trust has already been broken. The Court reiterated that marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust and respect, and once broken, it is non-repairable. It was observed that the Family Court had not properly considered the element of cruelty and its judgment suffered from perversity.
Law Point:
Mental cruelty includes conduct that causes deep emotional or psychological distress to a spouse, including humiliation, harassment, threats, character assassination, persistent verbal abuse, or conduct that destroys mutual trust and dignity within marriage. Whether conduct amounts to cruelty depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the impact of such conduct on the aggrieved spouse.
Delhi High Court
Custody of one child does not evade husband’s duty to maintain wife and another child living with her
Pankaj Vs. Archana and Another
Decided On: 05/01/2026
The parties were living separately since January 2021 due to matrimonial discord. The wife alleged that she was subjected to physical assault and cruelty, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside in rented accommodation. She sought maintenance for herself and the minor daughter, contending that the husband had rental income, property dealings, and contractual employment with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The husband denied the allegations and claimed that he earned only ₹13,500/- per month from contractual employment with the MCD.
Family Court’s Order
Upon examining the income affidavits, expenditure statements, and bank records, the Family Court observed that the husband’s expenditure pattern did not correspond with his claimed income of ₹13,500/- per month. The Court found that his withdrawals, bank transactions, and overall lifestyle indicated a substantially higher earning capacity. Accordingly, the Family Court assessed his income at approximately ₹60,000/- per month and directed him to pay interim maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month to the wife and minor daughter under Section 125 CrPC.
The High Court partly modified the Family Court’s order and reduced the interim maintenance from ₹20,000/- to ₹17,500/- per month. While doing so, the Court held that the mere fact that one child was residing with the husband did not absolve him of his statutory obligation to maintain the wife and the minor daughter residing with her. The Court reiterated that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are intended to provide immediate relief and prevent destitution and vagrancy, and therefore, courts are not required to conduct a detailed trial at the interim stage.
The Court further upheld the Family Court’s approach of drawing reasonable inferences regarding income from bank statements, expenditure patterns, and surrounding circumstances, particularly in cases where exact proof of income is unavailable. However, considering that the husband was also maintaining the minor son in his custody, the Court reassessed his income at ₹50,000/- per month and accordingly reduced the interim maintenance amount.
Law Point:
The obligation of a husband under Section 125 CrPC to maintain his wife and minor children is a statutory and social obligation aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy and ensuring basic subsistence. Mere custody of one child with the husband does not absolve him of his obligation to maintain the wife and the other child residing separately with her.
Supreme Court
Widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from her deceased father-in law’s estate
Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma
Decided on:13/01/2026
In a significant ruling the Supreme Court has held that Section 21(vii) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956, a widowed Daughter in law falls within the definition of “Dependent” and is therefore entitled to seek maintenance from the estate of her deceased father-in-law provided that if is unable to maintain herself from her husband’s estate or from her children. The court clarified that statue deliberately uses the phrase “any widow of his son” and not “widow of a predeceased son”. Therefore, the benefit cannot be restricted only to women whose husbands died before the father-in-law. Applying the principle of literal interpretation, the Court observed that courts cannot add words into a statute when the language is clear and unambiguous.
The Court further explained that Section 22 of the Act casts a legal obligation upon the heirs inheriting the estate of the deceased Hindu to maintain such dependents out of the inherited property. It held that making a distinction between widowed daughters-in-law based solely on whether the husband died before or after the father-in-law would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as both categories of women are similarly placed and equally vulnerable. The Court also observed that denying maintenance on such a narrow interpretation would undermine the woman’s right to live with dignity under Article 21. Emphasizing a purposive and socially beneficial interpretation of the law, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the widowed daughter-in-law’s right to maintenance.
Law Point:
The Widowed daughter-in-law is a ‘dependent’ under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; and is Entitled to claim maintenance from deceased father-in-law’s estate, if she is unable to maintain herself.
Bombay High Court
Biological Parents Unknown? Adopted Child Entitled to Adoptive Parents’ Caste Status
Geeta Dattatray Achari Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
Decided on:29/01/2026
An Adoptive child was issued with the caste certificate on the basis of the caste of the adoptive parent belonging to the Special Backward Category. Subsequently, a complaint was made alleging that the caste certificate was obtain on the basis of false documents, and accordingly, the Sub-divisional officer conducted enquiry, resulting in cancellation of the caste certificate. The appeal before the Caste Scrutiny Committee got dismissed, prompting the Applicant to approach the High Court.
The High Court had revisited the provisions of Caste Certificate Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and observed that neither the Act nor the Rules specifically deal with determination of caste of an adopted child. Thus, the Court looked upon the Adoption order passed by the District Magistrate, which was not in dispute and held that the issue needs to be decided by examining the Adoption order and consequent entry in the birth register which constituted sufficient material. The Court observed that although the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 did not expressly contain a provision similar to Section 63 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 regarding the effect of adoption, the definition of “adoption” under Section 2(aa) of the 2000 Act clearly indicated that adoption creates a complete legal relationship between the child and the adoptive parents with all rights, privileges and responsibilities attached to that relationship..
Law Point:
Once the process of adoption is completed, the adopted child attains the status of a legitimate child of the adoptive parents and acquires all rights, privileges, and responsibilities attached to that relationship. Denial of such status would leave the adopted child’s future uncertain and defeat the very purpose of adoption laws.
Allahabad High Court
Wife’s Earning or Employment Status is not a ground to deny maintenance
Ravinder Singh Bisht Vs. State of U.P
Decided on: 05/02/2026
The Allahabad High Court held that the mere fact that a wife is educated, employed, or earning does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court emphasized that the object of maintenance is not merely to prevent destitution, but to ensure that the wife is able to live with dignity and maintain a standard of living similar to that enjoyed during the matrimonial life. While the wife in the present case was earning, the Court noted that there existed a substantial disparity between the financial status and earning capacities of the parties, particularly in light of the husband’s previous annual salary of around ₹40 lakhs. The Court further observed that the husband had failed to place any material on record to establish that he lacked sufficient means to pay maintenance. Relying on the principles laid down in Shailja v. Khobbanna and Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court upheld the Trial Court’s order awarding ₹15,000 per month to the wife, holding the amount to be just and reasonable.
Law Point:
Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is meant to ensure that the wife lives with dignity in accordance with the husband’s status and financial capacity, not merely to prevent destitution.
Allahabad High Court
Daughter in Law is not liable to maintain parents-in-laws
Rajesh Kumar and Another Vs, State of UP and Another
Decided on: 04/02/2026
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court held that a daughter-in-law cannot be legally obligated to provide maintenance to her parents-in-law in the absence of an express statutory provision. The Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the Family Court’s order, which had rejected the maintenance claim of the parents-in-law. The Bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh clarified that the right to claim maintenance under the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is purely statutory and limited to the categories expressly mentioned therein. Since parents-in-law are not included within its ambit, no liability can be fastened upon a daughter-in-law.
Addressing the contention of moral responsibility, the Court observed that while a moral obligation may exist, it cannot be enforced as a legal duty without legislative backing. The judgment reiterates that courts cannot expand the scope of maintenance provisions beyond the intent of the legislature.
Law Point:
Maintenance is a statutory right confined to expressly recognized relationships; moral obligations, however compelling, do not translate into enforceable legal duties in the absence of a clear statutory mandate.
Allahabad High Court
Earning Capacities of the Both the parties should be considered while deciding the maintenance case
Arvind Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Decided On:10/03/2026
In a Matrimonial Dispute, while rejecting the Husband’s Contention for impleading his wife as a party to the proceedings, the court stated the principle of law that the parties seeking to initiate a legal proceeding has the absolute prerogative to choose the parties against whom they seek relief should be added in the proceedings. But merely because wife is earning does not evade husband’s statutory liability to maintain the child.
The Court held that the liability of the father to maintain his minor child is a legal and moral obligation, thus the father cannot avoid the liability by insisting that the mother must first be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The Court further stated that it cannot lose sight of the legal position that when both parents are earning members, the responsibility of maintaining the child is a shared and joint responsibility, as observed in Chandu Sridevi v. Chandu Sesha Rao.
Accordingly, the Court while remanding the matter back to Family Court, clarified that while deciding the main application under Section 144, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Family Court should take into consideration the income and financial capacity of both parents and determine the amount of maintenance in a just and reasonable manner keeping in view the principle of shared parental responsibility and the welfare of the minor child.
Law Point:
When both the parents are earning, the responsibility of maintaining the child is shared and joint and accordingly the quantum of maintenance should be decided in the maintenance cases.
Kerala High Court
Court must adopt “Child Centric approach” while deciding the custody matter
X v State of Kerala and Ors.
Decided on: 05/03/2026
The High Court heard a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother alleging that her two children (aged 10 and 12) were illegally kept by their father amid marital disputes. The Court interacted directly with the children, who expressed emotional distress and said they wanted both parents together, not separation. During the proceedings, both parents reached a consensual arrangement, which the Court accepted:
- Father → primary custody
- Mother → custody every weekend (Saturday morning to Sunday evening)
- Both parents → equal sharing of school vacations and holidays
- Free communication with either parent at any time
- Neutral place fixed for child exchange (mother’s residence gate)
The Court further held that while deciding the custody matters, the Courts must move from a “parent-centric” to a “child-centric”. Children are the real victims of parental conflict and litigation. The Court held that Decisions should not rely only on children’s statements but on a holistic assessment of their welfare. The Court emphasized that both parents are equally important in a child’s life. It highlighted the psychological harm caused by prolonged custody battles and even advised avoiding court premises for child exchanges by referring to Indu S v. Thomas @ Manoj.
Law Point:
Custody is not about choosing one parent over the other, but about ensuring the child’s fundamental right to love, care, and presence of both parents.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Child cannot be used as Evidence in Matrimonial Dispute, the husband must prove adultery through other evidence, and cannot rely on DNA Testing for this purpose.
X Vs.Y
Decided On: 12/03/2026
The petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. During the pendency of these proceedings, he filed an interlocutory application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking a DNA test of the children, contending that they were not born out of the wedlock between him and the respondent. The trial court, however, rejected the application vide order dated 10.07.2024. In its reasoning, the court observed that directing a DNA test could have serious social consequences for the children, potentially subjecting them to stigma and ridicule. It further relied on the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that children should not be routinely or mechanically subjected to DNA testing in matrimonial disputes as a shortcut to prove allegations of infidelity.
The Petitioner has approached the HC challenging the said order of Trail Court, wherein he has argued that DNA Testing is a Scientific method of uncovering the truth and denying the same would curtail his rights to produce vital evidence and fair trial. He also claimed that right to privacy should be balanced with the need for justice. However, the Court relied upon settled principles and Supreme Court’s Judgement and held that “Argument is attractive as it may seem at first blush, the said argument does not carry any legal weight. The lis in these cases is between the parties to a marriage. The lis is not between one of the parties to the marriage and the child whose paternity is questioned. To enable one of the parties to the marriage to have the benefit of fair trial, the Court cannot sacrifice the rights and best interests of a third party to the lis, namely, the child.”
Children cannot be used as evidence in matrimonial disputes, especially when they are not parties to the case or claiming maintenance. The husband must prove adultery through other evidence, and cannot rely on DNA Testing for this purpose.
Law Point:
This judgement reinforces a child-centric approach, placing dignity and privacy above evidentiary convenience. It Also restricts the misuse of scientific tools as litigation tactics in matrimonial disputes.
Gujarat High Court
Wife’s earning not a ground to enhance / deny maintenance
Lalitkumar Jivrajbhai Vaghela Vs. State of Gujarat
Decided on: 17/03/2026
The High Court upheld a Family Court order enhancing maintenance payable to a wife from ₹5,000 to ₹15,000 per month. The Court has dismissed the husband’s revision application, holding that no error or perversity existed in the Family Court’s decision. The case arose from an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement on the ground of increased income of the husband. The husband argued that the wife had independent earnings through tailoring work and that he had financial liabilities. However, the Court found these claims were unsupported by evidence. The Court relied on the Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha and Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, wherein it states that mere earning or qualification of the wife does not disentitle her from maintenance if she cannot maintain herself in a manner consistent with the marital standard of living. The Court held that Husband Cannot escape from his liability to maintain wife and children, because it is the legal and ethical duty of the husband to maintain them.
Law Point:
The husband’s duty to maintain his wife is both a legal and social obligation, rooted in principles of social justice. Maintenance aims to ensure that the wife can live with dignity and a standard comparable to that during marriage.
Kerala High Court
Best interest of Child would be with the Father not in the Hostel meant for orphans
XY Vs. State of Kerala
Decided On: 30/03/2026
In a Custody matter, wherein the wife got remarried and started leaving separately, leaving behind the child with maternal grandmother, who is aged, having several health issues, thus could not take of the child properly who is suffering from asthma and have got no proper food and medication.
The Court reviewed the DCPU report which revealed that the strained relations between the mother and grandmother and confirmed that the child had been rescued by the Juvenile Wing and placed in the hotel. The child had also informed the Child Protection Officer that he shared a good relationship with his father and expressed a desire to reside with him. The court interacted with the Child wherein he stated that he is not being properly looked after while staying with the grandmother. He is not being giving adequate food in the Home and the Lunch in the schools is the only substantial meal he is getting. Consequently, while giving the custody of a minor child to the father, the court held that placing the child in a hostel meant for orphans by the mother was not in his best interests. Further, the Court also directed regular inspections by the District Child Protection Officer and if the child’s welfare is found to be at risk, the said officer must inform the CWC, which would take appropriate remedial measures or report the matter before the Court.
Law Point:
In the custody matters always the best interest and overall welfare of child is looked after while giving custody of the child to one of the parents.
Delhi High Court
Wife cannot use RTI to access Husband’s Income Tax detail in order to support her maintenance claim
Kapil Agarwal v. CPIO Income Tax Officer, Moradabad
Decided on 28-4-2026
The Delhi High Court while setting aside the order dated passed by the 22/07/2021 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the Second Appeal, held that wife cannot use RTI to access Husband’s income details, as it falls under the ambit of “Personal Information” as per Section 8(1)(j) Right to Information Act,2005 (RTI Act) and therefore exempted from disclosure of such information under the Act. The Court held that the provisions under the RTI Act states that personal information is ordinarily exempt from disclosure unless it satisfies the test of “larger public interest”. The Court clarified that the concept of “larger public interest” must align with the object of the RTI Act, which is to promote transparency in public authorities, not to enable disclosure of private information which is not related to public affairs. The provision cannot be interpreted to permit misuse of the Act for personal disputes.
The Court relied upon Rajnesh v. Neha, (2020), which mandates filing of affidavits of income, assets, and liabilities by both parties in maintenance cases. Thus, it held that wife had an adequate legal mechanism to obtain relevant financial disclosures through the appropriate court.
Law Point:
Disclosure of such Personal Information is unsustainable in law in matrimonial disputes.
Supreme Court
Calling the Matrimonial dispute as “Battle of Mahabharata”
XXY Vs. ZZZ
Decided On.07/04/2026
In a significant ruling concerning abuse of matrimonial litigation, the Supreme Court while quashing 80+ matrimonial litigations exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage that had irretrievably broken down after years of litigation between the parties. The court had observed that the husband, himself a lawyer, had initiated more than 80 vexatious proceedings against the wife, her relatives, and even her advocates, thereby converting the matrimonial dispute into a “matrimonial battle of Mahabharata”. The dispute arose between the parties and thus got separated in 2016 owing to serious matrimonial discord. The wife and two minor children remained separate from the husband and initiated proceedings seeking protection of residence, divorce, and interim maintenance. The Family Court granted interim maintenance and protected her possession in the shared household, but the husband repeatedly defaulted in compliance and continued filing multiple proceedings before different forums. Even after the High Court upheld the maintenance order, arrears remained unpaid and the litigation continued to multiply.
Before the Supreme Court, the wife sought dissolution of marriage under Article 142, contending that the marriage had completely broken down and that the husband was deliberately using litigation as a tool of harassment. The Court found substance in these allegations and noted that the husband had adopted a “hostile, cantankerous and vindictive approach” aimed at frustrating the wife and prolonging the dispute. The Court further held that merely because the wife was educated and professionally qualified, the husband could not escape his legal and moral duty to maintain his wife and children.
Invoking Article 142, the Court dissolved the marriage, granted custody of both children to the wife with visitation rights to the father, quashed all civil and criminal proceedings between the parties and their relatives, and restrained the husband from initiating further litigation against the wife, her family members, or her lawyers. The Court also directed payment of a consolidated amount of ₹5 crores towards permanent alimony, maintenance, child support, and litigation expenses, payable within one year.
Law Point:
The ruling states that Article 142 can be invoked to secure complete justice in exceptional matrimonial disputes where prolonged litigation becomes oppressive and reconciliation is no longer possible.
Supreme Court
After entering into an agreement of settlement, parties cannot back off without valid grounds
Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi
Decided on: 13/04/2026
The parties go married on 19 February 2000 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and two children were born out of the wedlock, a daughter and a son. Owing to certain differences, disputes arose between the parties, which lead to their separation in 2022-2023. Thereafter the husband instituted a divorce petition under Section 13(1) (i-a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Saket, New Delhi. The matter was referred to mediation, where the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage mutually and entered into agreement. As per the terms of the settlement, the husband agreed to pay a sum of Rs 1,50,00,000 as full and final settlement in two instalments, along with Rs 14,00,000 towards purchase of a car and return of jewellery and the wife, agreed to execute a gift deed of Rs 2,52,38,794 in favour of the husband and agreed to transfer the certain immovable properties, shares, policies and other assets. Further, both parties to bring an end to all disputes and refrain from initiating further proceedings against each other.
Subsequently, a joint mutual divorce petition was filed before the court, However, later the wife withdrew her consent for mutual divorce, leading the husband to initiate contempt proceedings in 2025. Thereafter the wife filed a complaint under section 12 of DV Act, 2005. Prompting the husband to file quashing petition before the High court and Contempt petition for breach of the Settlement Agreement by the wife. But the High Court permitted the DV proceedings and directed the wife to deposit Rs 89,00,000 and retain the jewellery.
Being Aggrieved by the said order the husband preferred SLP before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the parties had entered into a settlement agreement during mediation, pursuant to which the husband and the wife both had complied with their obligations as per the terms of settlement agreement. Despite such compliance the wife had withdrawn her consent. The Court held that though it is legally permissible for a party to withdraw consent before grant of divorce by mutual consent, but when parties have entered into a settlement agreement in order to resolve the disputes, it is not open to absolve from its terms except when the agreement is vitiated by force, fraud or undue influence, or on account of non-fulfilment of obligations by the either party.
The Court further stated that DV proceeding by the wife was just an afterthought and intended to prolong the litigation, there are no specific allegation describing the act of domestic violence by the husband or his mother, and that mere reference to names without attributing active involvement cannot sustain criminal prosecution.
The Court while exercising its power under Article 142, held that marriage has been broken down irretrievable, the Court noted that the parties had been living separately since 2023, both children had attained majority, and multiple litigations had since ensued, including the DV complaint, accordingly, the Court was convinced that the matrimonial bond had completely broken down and there was no possibility of reconciliation or peaceful co-existence, thus decree of divorce was granted along with quashing the other civil and criminal proceedings between the parties with a complete bar on any future proceedings.
Law Point:
Under Article 142(1), the Court is empowered to pass such orders which are necessary to do complete justice, and though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, the same has been recognized through judicial pronouncements as a basis for grant of divorce in appropriate cases.
Supreme Court:
The doctrine of comity of courts cannot overwrite the paramount consideration of the welfare of the children
Ankur Joshi Vs. State of M.P.
Decided on: 20/04/2026
The Court held that in the matter custody of minor children, the welfare and best interests of the child override all other considerations, including the legal rights of parents and foreign custody orders. While acknowledging the custody order passed by the Texas Court appointing the father as the sole managing conservator, the Court observed that such an order is only a relevant factor and is not conclusive or automatically enforceable in India. The doctrine of comity of courts cannot supersede the paramount consideration of the children’s welfare.
Considering that the children had been residing with their mother in India, their young age, need for maternal care, emotional security, and educational stability, the Court found that a summary direction to return them to the USA would not be in their best interests. The Court emphasized that Indian courts are not bound to mechanically enforce foreign custody decrees where such enforcement may adversely affect the welfare of the child. Accordingly, it refused to direct transfer of custody to the father solely on the strength of the foreign court’s order and held that the children should continue to remain with the mother. The Court clarified that its findings were confined to the issue of the children’s immediate welfare and did not determine the question of permanent custody.
Law Point:
In the custody matters always the welfare and best interest of child must be giving para amount consideration while giving custody of the child to one of the parents.
Delhi High Court
Proceedings under Maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens Act, 2007 cannot be used for adjudicating proprietary rights.
Ritu Taneja v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Decided on 8/5/2026
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are summary in nature and are intended solely to protect the right of senior citizens to live peacefully and with dignity in their own property. Such proceedings cannot be used to adjudicate complex civil disputes relating to ownership, inheritance, ancestral property, succession or financial entitlements, which must be decided by the competent civil court.
The Court further held that while a daughter-in-law has a statutory right of residence in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, such right is merely protective and does not create any proprietary or ownership interest in the property of her in-laws.
Law Point:
The right of senior citizens to peacefully enjoy their property cannot be defeated by raising disputed claims relating to inheritance, title or family assets in proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
Allahabad High Court
Qualified women presently unemployed not a ground to claim maintenance
Dr Garima Dubey v. Dr Saurabh Anand Dubey
Decided on 21/4/2026
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is intended to support a spouse who is genuinely unable to maintain herself or himself during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings. A qualified and professionally competent spouse who is capable of earning sufficient income cannot claim maintenance merely because she is presently unemployed.
In the present case, the Court held that the appellant-wife, an M.D. (Gynecology), possessed the requisite qualifications and earning capacity to maintain herself. Relying upon her previous income tax returns showing substantial annual income, the Court upheld the trial court’s order rejecting her claim for maintenance under Section 24, while maintaining the award of maintenance granted to the children under Section 26 of the Act.
Law Point:
A qualified and professionally competent spouse who is capable of earning sufficient income to maintain herself is not entitled to maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, merely because she is presently not employed.
Jharkhand High Court
Employment not a ground to deny maintenance
Rahul Kumar v. Deepika Gupta
Decided on:04/05/2026
The High Court upheld the decree of divorce granted under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that the wife had successfully established acts of cruelty, including dowry harassment, physical assault, and continued ill-treatment despite an earlier compromise between the parties. The Court observed that the evidence on record clearly demonstrated an irretrievable breakdown of the matrimonial relationship, and found no perversity in the findings of the Family Court.
The Court further upheld the award of ₹6 lakhs as permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, reiterating that the mere fact that the wife is earning does not by itself disentitle her from claiming permanent alimony. The quantum of alimony must be determined after considering factors such as the status of the parties, their financial capacity, social needs, and other relevant circumstances, and no rigid or mathematical formula can be applied.
Law Point:
A woman earning is not a ground to deny permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the quantum must be determined by considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
Jharkhand High Court
Broken Marriage not a ground to attract “Cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
Husband vs State of Jharkhand & Anr
Decided on: 29/06/2026
Jharkhand High Court held that mere matrimonial discord, separation, silence between spouses, or a husband’s reluctance to continue the marital relationship does not, by itself, constitute “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. To sustain a conviction under Section 498A, the prosecution must establish specific acts of cruelty as contemplated by law through reliable and cogent evidence. In the present case, the Court found that the allegations of dowry demand, physical assault, and harassment were not proved, and that the trial court had erroneously relied only on the wife’s examination-in-chief while ignoring material admissions made during her cross-examination. Holding that the conviction was based on conjectures and surmises rather than legally admissible evidence, the Court set aside the husband’s conviction under Section 498A IPC.
Law Point:
Mere matrimonial discord or reluctance to discharge conjugal obligations, without proof of legally recognized acts of cruelty, does not attract the offence under Section 498A IPC.
Jharkhand High Court
Long Separation or living apart does not itself amount to desertion
Pramod Kumar Vs. Anjana Devi
Decided on: 11 /06/ 2026
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the Family Court’s refusal to grant divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court held that the husband failed to prove the essential ingredients of desertion, namely, that the wife had voluntarily and without reasonable cause abandoned the matrimonial home with the intention of permanently ending cohabitation. On the contrary, the evidence indicated that the wife had alleged dowry harassment, cruelty, and forcible expulsion from the matrimonial home, had consistently pursued maintenance proceedings, and had expressed willingness to reside with the husband if treated with dignity.
The Court further observed that mere long separation does not amount to desertion unless it is proved that the separation was without reasonable cause and against the wish of the other spouse. It also held that under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a spouse cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. Since the husband failed to produce cogent evidence of desertion, made contradictory statements regarding the date of separation, and the material on record suggested that the wife left due to the husband’s conduct, the appeal was dismissed and the Family Court’s judgment was affirmed.
Law Point:
To obtain a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, there has to voluntarily and intentionally deserted the other partner without reasonable cause, without the partner’ s consent, and with the intention to permanently end cohabitation (animus deserendi).
