The Madras High Court observed that voluntary removal of the thali may, depending on the facts of a case, cause emotional anguish and amount to mental cruelty. However, the Court clarified that removal of the thali is not automatically a ground for divorce and must be assessed in context.
The Allahabad High Court criticized the Lucknow Cyber Cell for its handling of a complaint arising from a matrimonial dispute and asked the husband to explain why damages should not be imposed for an allegedly bogus complaint that led to the prolonged blocking of his wife’s mobile number.
The Allahabad High Court held that Lok Adalats and District Legal Services Authorities cannot grant divorce decrees, ruling that only family courts possess jurisdiction to dissolve marriages, while Lok Adalats are limited to facilitating settlements and lack authority to exercise judicial powers in matrimonial disputes.
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 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.
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.
Allahabad High Court held that a husband cannot avoid his legal obligation to maintain his wife on grounds of financial difficulty. Court observed that a person who cannot maintain spouse should not marry in first place at all.
The Delhi High Court held that an unfavourable judgment cannot be treated as proof of judicial bias.
It clarified that aggrieved parties must seek legal remedies instead of demanding transfer of cases.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad ruled that filing matrimonial cases by a wife cannot alone amount to abetment to suicide. The court emphasized necessity of proving mens rea under Section 306 IPC for criminal liability.
