This Family and Personal Law July 2025 Roundup provides an overview of important cases and key legislative updates of family law that made headlines this month, such as the Supreme Court’s view on secretly recorded conversations in matrimonial disputes, Chhattisgarh HC’s decision to uphold wife’s right to privacy, Calcutta HC’s order to enhance interim maintenance paid by Mohd. Shami and Bombay HC’s take on mother’s guardianship, and more. These decisions, among others, offer valuable insights into the evolving legal landscape concerning divorce, maintenance, adoption, custody, guardianship and other aspects of family law.
HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH
SECRETLY RECORDED SPOUSAL CONVERSATIONS
SUPREME COURT | Privacy vs. Evidence: Supreme Court allows secretly recorded spousal conversations as admissible evidence in matrimonial disputes
In an appeal against the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the High Court had ruled that recorded conversations between a husband and wife could not be the basis for deciding a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. held that spousal communications were deemed privileged under Section 122 for the purpose of protecting the sanctity of the marital relationship, and not for safeguarding individual privacy rights. As a result, the Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restored the Family Court’s order. [Vibhor Garg v. Neha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1421] Read More HERE
SPOUSE’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Husband compelling wife to share phone or bank account passwords amounts to violation of privacy: Chhattisgarh HC
In a writ petition filed by a husband challenging the order passed by the family Court wherein his application seeking a direction to produce call detail records (‘CDR’) of his wife’s phone number was rejected, the Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J., rejected the petition, holding that allowing the husband’s application would lead to a violation of the wife’s right to privacy and the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 7394] Read More HERE
INVOCATION OF ARTICLE 142 OF THE CONSTITUTION
SUPREME COURT | SC directed wife & her family members to tender apology to husband & in-laws for cases filed
In a divorce case, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ., and Augustine George Masih*, J., deemed it fit to invoke the power under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolved the marriage between the parties and directed the wife, an IPS Officer, and her parents to tender unconditional apology to the husband and his family members for physical and mental trauma caused to them due to cases filed by the wife, which led to the husband and his father languishing in jail for 109 days and 103 days respectively. The Court further held that guidelines framed by Allahabad High Court in Mukesh Bansal v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 395, vis-a-vis ‘Constitution of Family Welfare Committees’ for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A of the IPC, shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities. [Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1494] Read More HERE
CRUELTY
DELHI HIGH COURT | Making derogatory and defamatory complaints to spouse’s employer amounts to cruelty: Delhi High Court
The Division Bench of Renu Bhatnagar* and Navin Chawla JJ., stated that the complaints made by wife to her husband’s employer, especially those involving unsubstantiated claims of adultery, could not be treated to address the issues of any wrong done to her, as the husband’s employer had nothing to do with all such wrongs. The Court stated that irrespective of the merits of these complaints, making such derogatory and defamatory remarks in the form of complaints to the spouse’s employer were nothing but cruelty. Thus, the Court stated that there was no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. [A v. B, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 160 of 2025] Read More HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Refusing physical relations, accusing husband of affairs and humiliating him in front of his friends/employees is cruelty: Bombay HC
In the present appeal, the appellant-wife challenged the judgment passed by the Family Court on 28-11-2019, whereby her petition for the restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and the counterclaim of the respondent-husband for divorce was allowed and the divorce was granted. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale*, JJ., opined that the wife’s behaviour with his husband’s employees, humiliating him in front of his friends, refusing sexual relations, and accusing him of extra-marital affairs were all instances of ‘cruelty’ that her husband was subjected to. The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the judgment passed by the Family Court was well-reasoned because the wife subjected her husband to cruelty and had deserted him. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2665] Read More HERE
MAINTENANCE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Calcutta High Court enhances interim maintenance; Orders cricketer Mohammed Shami to pay ₹4 lakhs monthly to ex-wife
A revisional application was filed by the ex-wife of cricketer Mohammed Shami challenging the judgment and order dated 18-01-2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Alipore, in Criminal Appeal arisen from an order passed by the Magistrate in her application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, wherein the Magistrate had refused her prayer for interim monetary relief, granting such relief only to her minor daughter. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J., held that a sum of ₹1,50,000/- per month to be paid by the opposite party to the wife and ₹250,000 to the daughter as monthly maintenance to ensure financial stability for both the petitioners, till disposal of the main application. [Hasin Jahan v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 5452] Read More HERE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Maintenance is no longer a mere handout for subsistence, but rather a tool to maintain/preserve lifestyle: Calcutta High Court
In two revision applications filed by the husband and the wife, assailing the order dated 30-12-2023, wherein the Judicial Magistrate reduced the quantum of maintenance granted to the wife from Rs. 30,000 per month to Rs. 20,000 per month, the Single Judge Bench of Bibhas Ranjan De, J, through a common judgement, held that maintenance is not merely a handout for subsistence but rather a tool to maintain lifestyle. The Court further directed the husband to pay Rs. 25,000 per month as maintenance with a 5 per cent hike every two years to account for inflation. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 5923] Read More HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Granting interim maintenance to qualified unemployed wife doesn’t mean breeding a class of idle woman: Delhi HC dismisses plea against maintenance order
In the present case, a revision petition was filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) and Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) by the petitioner-husband, challenging the order dated 9-5-2025 of the Family Court, New Delhi (‘the Trial Court’), which granted ad-interim maintenance of Rs 1,00,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., observed that raising objections at this stage to the grant of maintenance despite the wife’s earning capacity, and stating that it would be like breeding a class of idle women dependent on their husband, was premature and unwarranted. The Court stated that the order dated 9-5-2025 was only ad-interim in nature, which was meant to provide immediate relief until the interim maintenance application was finally decided. The Court, thus, dismissed the petition for devoid of merits and stated that both the parties were at liberty to make contentions before the Trial Court during the consideration of the interim maintenance application. [Gurpratap Singh v. Aashna Kaur, Crl. Rev. P.(MAT.) 266 of 2025] Read More HERE
PATNA HIGH COURT | Section 125 CrPC | Levirate Marriages validated by custom, cohabitation, social acceptance, and the birth of children, must be treated as valid: Patna High Court
In a criminal revision petition challenging the Family Court’s order that dismissed petitioner’s maintenance application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) on the ground that she was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent (being the widow of his brother), a Single-Judge Bench of Bibek Chaudhuri, J., set aside the Family Court’s order and observed that the glaring inconsistency in disowning the petitioner solely because the marriage was a levirate marriage, while simultaneously accepting her children as part of the family, reflected not just a legal contradiction but also a moral and social injustice. The Court remanded the matter to the Family Court, directing it to restore the maintenance petition and proceed in accordance with law, giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence, particularly on the question of custom and cohabitation. [Sangeeta Devi v. Pawan Kumar Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2383] Read More HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Domestic Violence Act does not distinguish between first and subsequent marriage for maintenance’; Delhi HC upholds Rs 1 lakh per month maintenance
In a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-husband for setting aside the judgment dated 6-4-2024 (impugned judgment), wherein the Additional Sessions Judge had directed payment of Rs. 1 lakh per month as maintenance, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., while upholding the impugned judgment, had stated that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’) did not distinguish between first and subsequent marriage for purposes of entitlement to maintenance. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4923] Read More HERE
SHARED HOUSEHOLD
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Under construction flat is not ‘shared household’ under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court
The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’), seeking to direct the respondent-husband to pay the remaining two instalments for the “shared household” while the divorce proceeding was undergoing. A Single Judge Bench of Manjusha Deshpande, J., while dismissing the petition of the wife, held that since the property/flat, was still under construction and not in possession of either of the parties, therefore, it would not fall within the purview of “shared household”, as defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and, further the kind of relief claimed by the wife, unfortunately did not fit under any of the reliefs provided under Section 19 of the DV Act. [X v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2571] Read More HERE
WOMEN’s RIGHT TO PROPERTY
KERALA HIGH COURT | No Strict proof needed for married woman claiming return of gold from In-Laws: Kerala High Court
In a matrimonial appeal filed by the husband’s family challenging the Family Court’s order directing the return of 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent, the Division Bench of Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha*, JJ., made significant observations regarding the evidentiary challenges faced by women in such domestic contexts. The Court held that, due to the inherently domestic and informal nature of such transactions, a newly married woman would not be in a position to produce documents or independent witnesses to prove the entrustment of her gold ornaments to her in-laws. [X v Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4900] Read More HERE
GUARDIANSHIP
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Mother is natural guardian after father’s death unless proven unfit or adversely interested: Bombay HC
The present writ petition was filed by the biological mother (Petitioner) of a five and half year-old daughter, challenging the rejection of her interim custody application by the District Judge. A Single Judge Bench of S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J., allowed the petition and granted interim custody of the minor girl to the mother, holding that under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (the ‘Act of 1956’), the mother was the natural guardian after the father’s death, unless it was established that she had an adverse interest or was incapable of securing the welfare of the minor. [Parvati v. Vyankat, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2671] Read More HERE
CUSTODY OF MINOR
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Child’s welfare has upper hand over personal law’; Bombay High Court grants custody of 9-year-old minor to the mother
In a case concerning custody of a 9-year-old son, Single Judge Bench of Shailesh P. Brahme, J. held that when the personal law is pitted with comfort and welfare of the child, latter would have upper hand, quashing the order granting custody to the respondent-father, granting him only visitation rights with temporary custody. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2721] Read More HERE
TELANGANA HIGH COURT | Contemptuous conduct must be purged before contempt can be contested: Telangana HC directs mother to return 3 minor children to custody holder
In a contempt petition filed against the mother of three minor children who, in contempt of the order dated 4-3-2025, had flown off with her children from Hyderabad to Bhopal, the Division Bench of Moushumi Bhattacharya and BR Madhusudhan Rao, JJ, reiterated that the contemptuous conduct must be reversed or undone before contempt may be contested. The Court further held that alleged contemnor must first return the three kids to the contempt petitioner before contesting the contempt petition. [Sujahat Hussain v. Sidra Hussain Sujahat, 2025 SCC OnLine TS 537] Read More HERE
LEGITIMACY OF THE CHILD
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | “Courts must act as custodian of child’s rights”; Bombay High Court refuses DNA Profiling Test to establish paternity
The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner-wife, challenging the order of the Family Court which accepted the respondent-husband’s request for conducting DNA Profiling Test to decide the legitimacy of the child born to them. A Single Judge Bench of R.M. Joshi, J., set aside the Family Court order and held that it was the duty of the Court to consider pros and cons before calling upon the minor to undergo a blood or DNA test. [S v. S, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2623] Read More HERE
ADOPTION
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Gujarat HC: In absence of adoption’s registered document, adoptive parents must establish that child is adopted before 15 years of age with wife’s consent
In a petition filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking declaration of their adoptive son, X as legally valid and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24-11-2017 (‘the impugned order’) passed by the Additional District Judge, Mehsana., a Single Judge Bench of Devan M. Desai, J., stated that the deed was legally invalid, as X was approximately 25 years old, making the adoption itself untenable as per Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘the 1956 Act’). The Court found no reason to interfere in the impugned order and opined that for a valid adoption, in absence of a registered document of adoption, any ceremony performed prior to the registration of a deed of adoption was of no value in the eye of law, unless by a clinching evidence, adoptive parents establish a fact that the child was adopted before the completion of 15 years of age and with wife’s consent. [Patel Sureshbhai Babulal v. Patel Pravinbhai Babubhai, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 2826] Read More HERE
PARTITION
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Madhya Pradesh HC sets aside 25-year-old Trial Court order concerning Saif Ali Khan’s ancestral property; Remands matters for fresh trial
In a set of two appeals filed by actor Saif Ali Khan’s family against a Trial Court judgment which dismissed the partition suits preferred by the appellants, the Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Dwivedi, J., allowed the appeals, holding that the Trial Court had dismissed the suits while placing reliance on an overruled decision of the Allahabad High court without considering other aspects. The Court accordingly remanded the cases to the Trial Court to be decided afresh. [Begum Suraiya Rashid v. Begum Mehr Taj Nawab Sajida Sultan, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 4819] Read More HERE
COUNSELLORS IN FAMILY COURTS
PATNA HIGH COURT | Section 9 Family Courts Act| Appointment of Counsellors in Family Courts mandatory: Patna High Court
In a criminal revision, filed by the petitioner-husband, challenging a maintenance order passed by the Family Court directing him to pay maintenance to the wife, the Single-Judge Bench of Bibek Chaudhuri, J., observed that the Family Court did not send the case record for conciliation through counsellors, nor was there any averment regarding the appointment of counsellors as per the mandatory provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (‘1984 Act’), and rules thereunder. The Court directed the Registrar General to investigate the appointment and functioning of counsellors in Family Courts in the State. [Abdul Rehan Khan v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2424] Read More HERE
LEGISLATION UPDATE ON CARA’S DIRECTION TO STATE FOR COUNSELLING DURING ADOPTION
CARA directs States to implement counselling provisions at all stages of adoption
On 7-7-2025, the Central Adoption Resource Authority (‘CARA’) issued a memorandum for “implementation of Counselling Provisions under Adoption Regulation 2022” directing all the State Adoption Resource Agencies (‘SARAs’) for effective implementation of counselling provisions at the pre- adoption, during adoption, and post adoption stages. Read More HERE
