November 2025 saw a series of diverse and impactful decisions in Family Law from the Supreme Court and High Courts. The rulings covered critical areas of matrimonial and child-related law, including the Delhi High Court holding that the senior citizens’ right to live peacefully with dignity in their own home could not be subordinated to the residence right of the daughter-in-law, and the Allahabad High Court stating that pprotection granted to live-in couple without dissolution of marriage would amount to protection against bigamy This quick legal roundup presents the month’s most significant stories on cruelty, divorce, and maintenance, etc.
CRUELTY
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Allegations of spending habits, household contribution, or mobile usage, without proof of severe mental harassment, not cruelty”: Madhya Pradesh HC
In an appeal filed by the husband against the Family Court’s judgment whereby his application for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was rejected, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat and B. P. Sharma*, JJ., upheld the impugned judgment, holding that there was no error or perversity warranting interference and the Family Court correctly held that the husband had failed to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion. [C v. D, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 8458, decided on 06-11-2025] Read More HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Mere statements by parents about daughter’s emotional distress not sufficient to establish cruelty under Section 498A IPC
In an appeal wherein the appellant-husband challenged his conviction and sentence under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, on the ground that the evidence on record did not establish cruelty or abetment to suicide beyond reasonable doubt, a Single Judge Bench of M. M. Sathaye, J., quashed the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, and held that the necessary ingredient of cruelty likely to drive a woman to suicide or harassment to coerce unlawful demands was not clearly spelt out, much less proved. The Court noted that no instance of instigation was attributable to the husband and that there was also no proximate link between the event of suicide and the alleged demand for money. [Ramprakash v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4226, decided on 04-11-2025]. Read More HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Elderly wife’s silent suffering is not consent, marriage doesn’t entitle men to unquestioned authority
In an appeal filed under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the wife, an octogenarian, challenged her husband’s acquittal by the Appellate Court, seeking restoration of the Trial Court’s conviction and six-month sentence. It was alleged that the conviction was based on a misreading of evidence and failure to consider sustained mental and emotional cruelty, A Single Judge Bench of L. Victoria Gowri, J., while allowing the criminal appeal, held that the Appellate Court misapplied the law by assuming that the absence of a dowry demand forecloses Section 498-A IPC. The Court emphasised that Explanation (a) of Section 498-A IPC covers wilful conduct causing grave mental injury, and the Trial Court rightly convicted the husband based on sustained cruelty such as isolation, denial of food, religious obstruction, and financial coercion, corroborated by the police compromise. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9367, decided on 31-10-2025]. Read More HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Mere taunts, casual references, vague assertions or general family friction not “cruelty” under Section 498A: Delhi High Court
In a petition filed seeking quashing of FIR dated 13.05.2022 registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the petitioners, Amit Mahajan, J., quashed FIR and all consequential proceedings as the allegations against them were vague, general, and lacked material particulars, the petitioner’s non-residence in the matrimonial home and absence of specific acts of cruelty or misappropriation ruled out any prima facie case; and continuing proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of process. [Shashi Arora v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8282, decided on 03-11-2025]. Read More HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Deriving pleasure from difficulties & tension of other is cruelty”: Madhya Pradesh HC grants divorce to woman after husband’s refusal despite irretrievably broken marriage
In an appeal filed by the wife against the Family Court’s judgment whereby her divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was rejected, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat* and B.P. Sharma, JJ., allowed the appeal as well as the divorce petition, holding that the husband was treating the wife with cruelty by not giving her an option to live her life freely according to her choice and unnecessarily opposing the divorce when she was already living with another man. However, their marriage was invalid. [D v. E, First Appeal No. 789 of 2022, decided on 14-11-2025]. Read More HERE
DIVORCE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Unjust benefit given to husband”: Madhya Pradesh HC deprecates Family Court for granting divorce without framing issues and recording evidence
In an appeal filed against the order passed by the Family Court whereby the suit was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”) holding that divorce between the parties had already taken place as the divorce notice annexed to the plaint had been received by the wife, the Division Bench of Vivek Rusia* and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ., allowed the appeal, holding that the Family Court gave unjust benefit to the husband by granting divorce without framing issues and recording evidence and treating the notice of divorce as served. [Y v. Z, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 8064, decided on 14-10-2025]. Read More HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Trial Court cannot grant divorce merely for wife’s absence’; Bombay HC sets aside ex parte divorce granted on Husband’s unchallenged testimony
In the present appeal, the wife challenged the divorce decree passed by the Family Court, Thane, which allowed the husband’s petition under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 alleging cruelty. The decree was granted ex parte, solely on the husband’s unchallenged testimony, as the wife failed to file her written statement or lead evidence. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Sandesh D. Patil*, JJ., while allowing the appeal, held that the Trial Court should have analysed the husband’s evidence and recorded its findings on the issue of cruelty, but instead answered the issue solely on the ground that the wife was absent. The Court emphasised that the Trial Court ignored the well-settled legal position that proceedings are not to be decreed automatically merely because a party did not lead evidence or file a written statement. [Riya Suralkar v. Rahul Suralkar, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4106, decided on 01-10-2025]. Read More HERE
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
DELHI HIGH COURT | In -law’s’ right to residence is not subordinate to that of daughter-in-law: Delhi High Court
In an appeal filed by the daughter-in-law challenging the judgment passed by the Single Judge whereby the parents-in-law, who were senior citizens, were granted a decree of mandatory injunction directing her to vacate the property while providing alternate accommodation in terms of Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘Domestic Violence Act’), the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Harish Vaidyanathan, JJ., upheld the judgement and stated that the senior citizens’ right to live peacefully with dignity in their own home could not be subordinated to the residence right of the daughter-in-law. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and stated that the right of residence was meant to ensure safety and stability, not to perpetuate the occupation of a large family home at the cost of the lawful owners. [Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7280, decided on 30-10-2025]. Read More HERE
LIVE-IN-RELATIONSHIP
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Protection to live-in couple without dissolution of marriage would amount to protection against bigamy: Allahabad High Court
In a writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking directions for Respondent 4, Petitioner 1’s husband, to not interfere in their peaceful life and to provide protection, a Single Judge Bench of Vivek Kumar Singh, J., held that if the said protection was granted, it would amount to granting protection against commission of offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’). Thus, the Court dismissed the petition. [Sonam v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 7539, decided on 7-11-2025]. Read More HERE
MAINTENANCE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Madras High Court rejects man’s plea seeking grandchild maintenance from former daughter-in-law; affirms father’s duty as natural guardian
While hearing a petition filed under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), wherein the paternal grandfather sought maintenance from the mother for the minor grandson, a Single Judge Bench of L. Victoria Gowri, J., held that since the natural guardian, the father was alive, financially capable, and bound by the divorce decree to maintain the child, the grandfather lacked locus standi to pursue the claim. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasising that former in-laws cannot intrude into the privacy of a remarried spouse by instituting repeated litigations under the pretext of child welfare when the legal guardian is alive and responsible. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9914, decided on 13-11-2025]. Read More HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bombay HC rules wife entitled to dignified living, raises maintenance to Rs 3.5 lakh after finding husband suppressed financial strength
In the interim application filed by a woman seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakhs per month, citing her living expenses and responsibility for the daughter’s upbringing, alleging that the husband was a chronic defaulter and that the amount awarded was unreasonably low compared to the family’s substantial business interests, the Division Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan*, JJ., held that the wife is entitled to lead a life of dignity and provide her daughter a life of dignity. Accordingly, the Court directed aggregate monthly maintenance of Rs 3,50,000, noting that the husband did not come with clean hands, having suppressed financial strength and made misstatements about being a person of poor means. [Purvi Mukesh Gada v. Mukesh Popatlal Gada, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4371, decided on 10-11-2025]. Read More HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Settling family property disputes under Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is against its object: Punjab and Haryana High Court
In a petition filed by a senior citizen under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Maintenance Appellate Tribunal’s (‘Appellate Tribunal’) order remanding the matter pertaining to cancellation of transfer deed executed in favor of the respondents, his grandchildren, to the Maintenance Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) and that of the Tribunal’s rejecting his prayer for cancellation of the said transfer deed, a Single Judge Bench of Kuldeep Tiwari, J., held that this case was an example where the family property dispute was sought to be settled by invocations of provision of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘Senior Citizens Act’) which was contrary to its desired object. Considering the importance of petitioner’s welfare, the Court reverted to the share of Respondent 3 and 4 to the petitioner and affirmed Respondent 5’s obligation to pay the maintenance. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition. [Chattan Singh v. Maintenance Appellate Tribunal, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 13192, decided on 13-10-2025]. Read More HERE
PATERNITY TEST
SUPREME COURT | No DNA Test unless Section 112 Presumption of Legitimacy is rebutted and paternity question linked to offence: Inside Supreme Court Ruling
In a case where the central question was whether to direct DNA testing to establish paternity in a criminal investigation predicated on allegations of an extra-marital relationship between a doctor and his patient’s wife, which purportedly led to the birth of a child, the bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., held that a DNA test to challenge paternity cannot be directed as a matter of routine unless the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has been rebutted. The Court held that in the absence of strong, unambiguous evidence of non-access between a married couple, compelling the third party for DNA testing would be an unjustified intrusion into privacy and dignity, especially when the paternity issue was collateral to the core offences of cheating and harassment. [R. Rajendran v. Kumar Nisha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2372, decided on 10-11-2025]. Read More HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “DNA test cannot be ordered in routine manner”: Allahabad High Court rejects husband’s plea challenging child’s paternity”
In a revision filed by the husband against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (‘Domestic Violence Act’) rejecting the DNA test, a Single Judge Bench of Chawan Prakash, J., held that it is settled principles of law that an order for DNA test could not be given in routine manner and could be directed in specific circumstances where any person proved that there was no chance for cohabitation between the parties during the relevant period. Thus, the Court upheld the impugned order. [Ramraj Patel v. State of UP, Criminal Revision No. — 3271 of 2021, decided on 21-11-2025]. Read More HERE
SURROGACY
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Petitions under Surrogacy Act must be treated with ‘sensitivity, responsibility, and compassion’, not as routine applications: Madras High Court
In a petition filed under Section 4(iii)(a)(II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (‘the Act’) seeking judicial approval for parentage and custody of the child to be born through surrogacy, along with approval of the intended procedure, wherein the arrangement was altruistic in nature and supported by the consent and medical fitness of the surrogate mother, a Single Judge Bench of A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J., held that the Judicial Magistrate had erroneously and repeatedly returned the petition without appreciating the sensitivity involved, thereby frustrating the parties and acting contrary to the intent of the beneficial legislation. Thus, the Court held that the intending couple’s request for parentage and custody of the child born through the surrogate mother, along with approval of surrogacy, was permissible in law, and accordingly allowed the petition. [S. Prasanna v. M. Jothika, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9957, decided on 14-11-2025]. Read More HERE