The Rajasthan High Court granted divorce to a woman by overturning a Family Court order and criticised the customary “Atta-Satta” marriage system, especially involving minors, while holding that the lower court wrongly viewed the arrangement dispute as the sole cause of marital breakdown.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a husband’s matrimonial appeal, ruling he could not penalize his wife for delayed defence filing after failing to deposit litigation expenses on time, observing that a party cannot create disadvantage for the respondent and later claim benefit from it.
Telangana High Court set aside family court order restraining wife, calling it stigmatic and baseless. Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar held mental disorder finding lacked evidence.
The Delhi High Court directed professional counseling for both parents and their minor daughter to help start unsupervised visitation with the father. The Court said the child’s welfare is the most important and both parents must work together to make the child comfortable.
The Allahabad High Court partly allowed a criminal revision, reducing maintenance awarded to a wife and child from Rs 11,000 to Rs 7,500 monthly. The Court held maintenance must be “reasonable and proportionate” to income, considering the husband’s assessed monthly earnings of Rs 30,000.
The Gujarat High Court partly allowed a husband’s revision plea, reducing monthly maintenance from Rs 14,000 to Rs 12,000, with Justice P. M. Raval holding that while inflation matters, maintenance must match the parties’ status and payer’s capacity, not become excessive.
The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside a Family Court order rejecting a mutual-consent divorce petition because the husband belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, ruling that Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 protections cannot bar couples married under Hindu customs.
The Delhi High Court set aside a Family Court order denying waiver of the mandatory one-year waiting period for mutual consent divorce. A bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar held that forcing a non-consummated marriage causes hardship.
The Delhi High Court held that a wife cannot be presumed to be earning for interim maintenance without proof. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the husband’s claim of nursery teacher employment, noting absence of documentary evidence supporting alleged income.
Delhi High Court ruled that a healthy man can’t avoid paying maintenance by citing joblessness. Rs 50,000 monthly support upheld for wife and child under Section 125 CrPC.
