The September 2026 Roundup on Family Law gives insight into the development of family and personal law through various judgments and rulings. The Courts pronounced judgments on several facets of family law, including relocation of minor children where the father was facing POCSO prosecution, assessment of child welfare in custody disputes, custody of a minor under Mohammedan Law, validity of Talaq-e-Hassan, applicability of Section 498-A IPC to relationships in the nature of marriage, proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the rights of wives in matters concerning maintenance and marital obligations.
CUSTODY
SUPREME COURT | Mother permitted to relocate minor children to UK; Father facing POCSO prosecution, held disentitled to custody
The Supreme Court held that the appellant-mother’s frequent changes of employment and residence could not be characterised as a “nomadic life” and that the paramount consideration in determining custody was the best interest and welfare of the children. The Court took note of the disclosure made by the minor son before the psychiatrist at NIMHANS, the consequent registration of the POCSO FIR and the charge-sheet filed after investigation and held that granting custody to the respondent-father, who was facing POCSO prosecution, would be unwarranted. The Court further held that the observations made by the High Court on the veracity of the POCSO allegations were premature and uncalled for and accordingly expunged the same. Considering the mother’s financial standing, employment in the United Kingdom, the pending criminal proceedings and the children’s continued reluctance to be in the father’s company, the Court permitted the appellant-mother, for the present, to relocate the children to the United Kingdom and get them admitted to a good school, subject to the directions issued by the Court.
[X v. Y, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1979, decided on 23-9-2026]
Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Pious wife’ and ‘Bahu’ remarks unwarranted and regressive, cannot replace child-welfare assessment: Family court’s interim custody order set aside
The Bombay High Court held that the Family Court had not identified any imminent danger, neglect or circumstance demonstrating that continuation of the child in the mother’s custody was detrimental to him. The Court observed that the Family Court had failed to carry out an independent assessment based on the record of the case to determine the physical, emotional, educational or psychological welfare of the child. The Court further held that the impugned order was based upon irrelevant and extraneous factors, inherent contradictions, preconceived and stereotypical notions of matrimonial relations and assumptions of human behaviour and was therefore untenable in law.
[Kshitija Anup Gogate v. Anup Anil Gogate, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 11690, decided on 1-9-2026]
Read more HERE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Custody of minor daughter with her grandparent not wrongful confinement under Mohammedan Law
The Gujarat High Court allowed the petition, holding that both the courts below had failed to examine the actual question before them and instead wrongfully interpreted the Mohammedan Law to hand over the custody of the minor girl to her mother.
[X v. State of Gujarat, 2026 SCC OnLine Guj 7008, decided on 1-9-2026]
Read more HERE
Also Read: Pending Dues of spouse cannot bar election: Rajasthan HC | SCC Times
DIVORCE
GAUHATI HIGH COURT | Talaq-e-Hassan a valid form of divorce; registration must be sought before competent authority
The Gauhati High Court held that Talaq-e-Hassan is a valid and recognised form of Talaq and is not prohibited under law. The Court noted that the authority approached by the petitioner for registering the divorce was functioning under the repealed Assam Moslem Marriages and Divorces Registration Act, 1935. Therefore, it directed him to approach the jurisdictional Marriage and Divorce Registrar under the Assam Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024 to complete the mandatory registration process.
[X v. State of Assam, WP(C) No. 4163 of 2026, decided on 08-09-2026]
Read more HERE
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Section 498-A IPC prosecution maintainable in relationships in the nature of marriage, where formal marriage is absent
The Calcutta High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to quash a case under Sections 498-A, 420 and 384, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with the charge-sheet dated 28 August 2022, Uday Kumar, J., dismissed the petition as being devoid of merits.
[SK Azharuddin v. State of W.B., 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 12953, decided on 2-9-2026]
Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | DV Act prescribes no limitation period for approaching Magistrate under Section 12; Mere delay does not warrant quashing of proceedings
The Kerala High Court held that mere delay in approaching the Magistrate, the timing of the proceedings, or the existence of disputed allegations cannot, by themselves, justify quashing proceedings under the PWDV Act.
[X v. Y, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 14871, decided on 10-9-2026]
Read more HERE
Also Read: Guj HC: IVF age limit under ART Act applies to individuals, not couple | SCC Times
MAINTENANCE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Need permission to visit her parents but commanded to care for in-laws and do chores? Marriage isn’t a relationship between unequals
The Karnataka High Court held that a wife cannot be compelled to seek permission to visit her parents’ house or be forced to perform household activities and look after her in-laws. Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned order.
[Sathish v. Jyothi G. R., 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 11710, decided on 3-8-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Husband cannot have “another bite at the cherry” and re-agitate a settled marital status dispute to escape maintenance liability
The Delhi High Court reaffirmed the finality of earlier judicial findings and held that husband cannot have “another bite at the cherry” and reopen a previously decided martial status issue in a subsequent proceeding merely to escape a maintenance liability, a legal obligation arising from that determination. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition holding that the husband had failed to establish grounds warranting interference in revision.
[A v. M, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6759, decided on 31-8-2026]
Read more HERE
Also Read: Ker HC: Wife’s Kidney Donation Not Ground to Reject Husband’s Application | SCC Times
