The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a husband cannot demand DNA tests of his children to prove his wife’s alleged adultery. The Court stressed that children cannot be used as tools in marital disputes and their rights must be protected.
The Supreme Court of India witnessed a sharp exchange in a matrimonial dispute, as a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta found a husband’s claim of earning Rs 9,000 monthly and inability to pay higher alimony “difficult to swallow”.
Challenging the “idle wife” notion, the Delhi High Court held that a homemaker’s contributions enable the earning spouse’s success and cannot be ignored in maintenance decisions. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said non-employment does not imply idleness or deliberate financial dependence.
The Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench quashed a Section 498-A IPC case, with Justice Pravin Patil citing vague cruelty allegations and warning against misuse of matrimonial prosecutions as coercive tactics in marital disputes.
Indian cricketer Mohammed Shami faces fresh legal proceedings as his wife Hasin Jahan seeks transfer of domestic violence and maintenance cases from West Bengal to Delhi. She claims financial hardship and child welfare concerns as key reasons for the move.
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 Supreme Court of India quashed a criminal case under Section 307 IPC against a husband after he gave a written undertaking to care for his wife and child. Exercising powers under Article 142, the Court held that family welfare and responsible settlement can sometimes serve justice better than continuing criminal trials.
The Jharkhand High Court granted divorce to a woman subjected to repeated humiliation by her husband and in-laws over photographs from a relationship predating her marriage. The Bench found the husband accessed her Google Drive and shared objectionable images.
Invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court dissolved an irretrievably broken marriage, holding that its continuance would only prolong agony. The Court granted divorce despite trial and High Court findings, stressing complete justice over rigid statutory grounds of law.
The Supreme Court observed that no husband or wife can claim to be independent in a continuing marriage, stressing that matrimony means mutual dependence. The bench asked the estranged couple to reconcile for the sake of their young children.
