The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution, holding that the relationship had irretrievably broken down and was “dead for all practical purposes.” The Court set aside decisions of the Family Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court while directing a comprehensive financial settlement.
The Supreme Court held that persistent refusal of sexual relations without reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty and can be a valid ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. Upholding a Rajasthan High Court judgment, the Court dismissed a wife’s appeal challenging the dissolution of marriage.
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 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 Madras High Court ruled that a wife’s act of secretly arranging their daughter’s marriage without informing the father amounts to mental cruelty under matrimonial law, and granted divorce after finding her conduct caused distress preventing continuation thereafter.
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 held that repeated taunts over inadequate dowry, including remarks about a “small car” and insufficient gold, may constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma partly restored charges against a husband in a dowry death case.
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 Delhi High Court has ordered re-training for a Family Court judge who invented a provision to grant a divorce decree. It said, “The manner in which the judge conducted proceedings disturbs judicial conscience and threatens the integrity of justice.”
The Supreme Court held that continuing criminal proceedings after divorce, without specific allegations, only prolongs bitterness and burdens the justice system. The ruling came while quashing an FIR against a man and his family in a matrimonial dispute.
