The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a husband cannot deny maintenance by alleging adultery when the divorce was granted on the ground of cruelty. The Court also enhanced the minor daughter’s maintenance considering education and living expenses.
The Family Court of Indore has dismissed a husband’s divorce petition claiming his wife hid a skin disease, vitiligo. Instead, the court found him guilty of cruelty and adultery, highlighting the falsity of his allegations.
The Delhi High Court ruled that adultery alone doesn’t decide custody, but when coupled with neglect and abandonment, it can. The Court upheld granting the father interim custody, emphasizing the child’s welfare above all else.
The Delhi High Court rules that while adultery is decriminalised, spouses can still sue their partner’s lover for damages, highlighting civil consequences for marital disruption and loss of companionship.
A Delhi family court has ruled that a divorced woman proven to be living in adultery is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC. The court relied on a DNA test and prior divorce judgment to dismiss her plea.
Bombay High Court rules that suspicion of a wife’s adultery is no ground for forcing a minor to undergo a DNA test, prioritizing the child’s rights and welfare in paternity disputes.
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a divorced woman cannot claim maintenance if she was found living in adultery. The Court emphasized that a divorce granted on adultery disqualifies a woman from receiving support under Section 125 CrPC.
An Ahmedabad court ruled that a woman divorced for adultery is still entitled to maintenance. The court cited delayed allegations and evidence of domestic violence.
Delhi High Court strongly criticized the outdated view of women as property while deciding a 2010 adultery case. Referring to Draupadi from Mahabharat, the Court highlighted how such thinking still haunts society.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling denying a husband’s right to a DNA test in cases of adultery is a severe injustice against men, violating their constitutional rights to equality, personal liberty, and legal remedy. By prioritizing the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act over scientific evidence, the judgment forces innocent men into unwanted fatherhood, encourages marital fraud, and deprives them of a fundamental legal defense. This decision contradicts previous court rulings that have allowed DNA tests when paternity is contested, making urgent legal reforms necessary to prevent wrongful paternity claims and ensure justice for men in India.
