The Delhi High Court ruled that a parent cannot be denied access to children merely because they reside abroad. The Court granted businessman Amritesh Jatia interim custody of his two children in London during their summer vacation, stating parental time cannot be restricted without justification.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a wife’s transfer plea in an annulment case, observing she had no responsibilities preventing travel, while noting that her estranged husband suffered severe depression and anxiety disorders making independent travel difficult for him during proceedings.
The Allahabad High Court held that calling a husband “impotent” does not constitute defamation when supported by medical evidence, setting aside a summoning order after observing the wife acted in good faith and without malice, while criticising the trial court for inadequate factual assessment.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that maintenance in matrimonial disputes should generally apply from the filing date of the application, but courts cannot retrospectively impose a uniform amount without assessing the husband’s actual income and earnings during different litigation stages.
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 Madras High Court expressed concern over alleged misuse of the 1098 child helpline system, observing that some Child Welfare Committee-linked officials allegedly pressured children into making false abuse allegations against fathers, while directing Tamil Nadu to frame safeguards ensuring fair recording of children’s statements.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to recognise an alleged triple talaq divorce, observing that courts cannot validate a practice declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, while calling the husband’s plea “vexatious and frivolous”.
The Orissa High Court dismissed a husband’s plea challenging a maintenance order, observing that an educated and able-bodied man cannot avoid supporting his wife and minor children by citing financial hardship, as he is presumed capable of earning and fulfilling his legal responsibility.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that a professionally qualified woman pursuing her career and securing stability for her child cannot amount to cruelty or desertion in marriage, criticising lower court observations as “regressive,” “ultra-conservative” and reflective of a “feudalistic” mindset.
Allahabad High Court refused DNA test plea, holding Section 112 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ensures legitimacy if spouses had access. Justice Nand Prabha Shukla stressed social parentage over biological proof.
