Family Law January 2026 Roundup: Key Supreme Court & High Court Judgments on Divorce, Custody, Maintenance and More

Here’s a curated Family Law January 2026 roundup of major Supreme Court and High Court judgments across matrimonial disputes, custody battles, maintenance claims, succession issues and personal law developments. Key rulings clarified access to IVF despite having one child, recognised modern forms of mental cruelty, prioritised child welfare in custody disputes, reaffirmed continuing maintenance obligations, and expanded the rights of dependants under personal law.

Courts also reinforced women’s autonomy in marriage, upheld biological parental rights, clarified the legal consequences of void marriages, and addressed succession and testamentary disputes shaping family law jurisprudence in 2026.

Assisted Reproductive Technology & IVF Law Updates

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | No bar for couple with one child to opt for IVF

In an important Family Law January 2026 ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that there is no bar in the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (‘ART Act’) for a couple to opt for In Vitro Fertilization treatment (IVF), when they have one living child. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition and set aside the said order. [Sarbjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 689, decided on 22-1-2026] Read more HERE

Mental Cruelty & Matrimonial Offences — Key High Court Rulings

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Forced unnatural sex by husband is cruelty under S. 498A IPC, not rape”: Rape, Section 377 IPC charges quashed

In a petition filed by a husband for quashing a rape case filed against him by his wife, the Single Judge Bench of Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J., partially allowed the petition, holding that forced unnatural sex by a husband is cruelty, but cannot be prosecuted as rape. [Shubham Mangal v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine MP 177, decided on 07-01-2025] Read more HERE

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Divorce granted as husband’s blackmail with objectionable photos and threats to upload them on social media amounted to mental cruelty

In appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging dismissal of a petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), the Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad* and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., held that the conduct of the husband in blackmailing and humiliating the wife using her past history and objectionable photographs is mental cruelty. The Court emphasised that such conduct broke the trust essential to marriage, and therefore quashed the Family Court’s judgment, granting dissolution of marriage. [X v. Y, 2026 SCC OnLine Jhar 24, decided on 07-01-2026] Read more HERE

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Concealment of age and murder conviction before marriage amounts to mental cruelty, destroys trust

In an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging a decree of divorce granted under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), the Division Bench comprising Sujit Narayan Prasad* and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., held that concealment of material facts, namely the wife’s actual age and her prior conviction for life imprisonment in a murder case, amounted to mental cruelty. The Court observed that such concealment destroyed the trust which forms the foundation of marital life and accordingly upheld the Family Court’s judgment dissolving the marriage. [Ranthi Kumari Devi v. Suresh Kumar Sahu, F.A. No.137 of 2022, decided on 08-01-2026] Read more HERE

Also Read: Cruelty to Women [S. 498-A IPC and allied sections]

Child Custody & Welfare Principles in Recent Judgments

DELHI HIGH COURT | Custody of one child does not dilute husband’s duty to maintain wife and other child living with her

In a significant family law maintenance ruling of January 2026, the Family Court’s order of assessing the husband’s income and directing payment of interim maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month to the wife and minor daughter under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) was under challenge. A Single-Judge Bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., modified the impugned order and reduced the interim maintenance from ₹20,000/- to ₹17,500/- per month, payable to wife and the minor daughter. The Court held that custody of one child does not dilute husband’s maintenance obligation under Section 125 CrPC to maintain wife and other child living with her. [A v. B, CRL.REV.P. 409/2024 & CRL.M.A. 9309/2024, Decided on 05-01-2026] Read more HERE

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Child’s Welfare over Father’s financial capacity; Custody denied to Father Living with Second Wife without Divorce

In an appeal filed by a father who was denied custody of his minor son because he was living with a second wife without a divorce from the mother, the Division Bench of Sanjay K. Agrawal* and Arvind Kumar Verma, JJ., rejected the appeal and upheld the impugned order. The Court held that it could not be oblivious to the uncertainty that the child would receive better love, affection, and a good atmosphere from his step-mother, in comparison to what he had been receiving from his mother since birth. The Court stated that giving sole or more importance to the superior financial capacity of the father would not be proper and hence, denied custody to father living with second wife without divorce. [Laxmikant Joshi v. Lokeshwari, 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 915, decided on 14-01-2026] Read more HERE

Also Read: Custody of Children

Maintenance — Supreme Court and High Court Decisions

SUPREME COURT | Widowed daughter-in-law a ‘dependant’ under HAMA, 1956; Entitled to claim maintenance from deceased father-in-law’s estate

In a notable Supreme Court family law judgment of January 2026, the Court held that “any widow of the son” of a deceased Hindu is a dependant within the meaning of Section 21(vii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (the Act) and is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 22 of the Act. The Court pointed out that Section 22 contemplates “maintenance of dependants” including “widowed daughter-in- law” from the estate of her father-in-law meaning thereby that a claim under Section 22 can be raised only after the death of the father-in-law. The Court emphasised that a son or the legal heirs are bound to maintain all the dependant persons out of estate inherited i.e. all persons whom the deceased was legally and morally bound to maintain. Therefore, on the death of son, it is the pious obligation of the father-in-law to maintain widowed daughter-in-law, if she is unable to maintain herself either on her own or through the property left behind by the deceased son. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act does not envisage to rule out the above obligation of the father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law, irrespective of the fact when she became a widow whether prior or after his death. [Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 59, decided on 13-1-2026] Read more HERE

KERALA HIGH COURT | Hindu wife can claim maintenance from husband’s immovable property beyond HAMA

In a matter addressing whether a Hindu wife is entitled to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband dehors the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘HAMA’), the three-Judge Bench of Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, P.V. Kunhikrishnan and G. Girish*, JJJ., held that a Hindu wife possesses the right to claim maintenance from her husband’s immovable property dehors HAMA, and that such a right transforms into an enforceable claim once legal proceedings are initiated or maintenance is denied.. [X v. Y, ICR (Mat. A) No.23 of 2025, decided on 14-1-2026] Read more HERE

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Women’s sacrifice of gainful employment often portrayed ‘devilish’ to extract money after separation: Maintenance matter remanded to Family Judge

In a revision filed by the Revisionist 1-wife, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (‘CrPC’), against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, whereby her application for maintenance against Opposite Party 2-husband was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Garima Prashad, J., took note of women’s sacrifice of employment for family and held that it is a matter of social reality that women devote themselves to domestic responsibilities and take care of children and are unable to be gainfully employed and when a marital discord arises and parties get separated, then the very sacrifice is often portrayed as a devilish act intended to extract money from the husband. Further, the Court stated that the maintenance of Rs. 3,000 awarded to the minor son under the said order meager amount and set aside the said order remanding the matter to the Family Judge for fresh determination of maintenance. [Suman Verma v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 14, decided on 8-1-2026] Read more HERE

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Granting maintenance would be grave injustice’; Woman’s claim denied after her brother shot her husband, leaving him incapacitated

In a revision application filed by a woman whose maintenance application was rejected, the Single Judge Bench of Lakshmi Kant Shukla, J., dismissed the petition and denied maintenance to wife whose brother shot her husband. The Court held that the husband suffered a grievous firearm injury caused by the wife’s family, which rendered him incapable of earning his livelihood. Thus, the husband, was not liable to pay maintenance. [Vineeta v. Dr Ved Prakash Singh, Criminal Revision No. 8658 of 2025, decided on 19-01-2026] Read more HERE

Women’s Autonomy & Choice in Marriage ORISSA HIGH COURT | Forced marriage not conducive to healthy society; Major girl can decide for herself: Protection ordered

In writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court considered the issue of a major girl being compelled into marriage without her consent. The Division Bench of Harish Tandon, CJ., and M.S. Raman, J., held that the decision of the girl is paramount and her consent must be respected. The Court emphasised that when a girl is not ready for marriage, giving her in marriage by using extraneous force is not conducive for a healthy society. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with directions to ensure her safety and freedom. [Ajay Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, WPCRL No. 120 of 2025, decided on 06-01-2026] Read more HERE

Also Read: Maintenance — Wife

Parental Rights & Identity of Children

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Biological father’s parental rights can’t be undermined due to matrimonial discord”: Insertion of father’s name in son’s school records, directed

In a writ appeal filed by a father seeking insertion of his name in his child’s school records, the Division Bench of Anand Pathak* and Anil Verma, JJ., allowed the appeal, holding that the parental rights of a biological father cannot be undermined at the altar of dispute between the couple. [Vickramh Kkalmady v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 9895, decided on 17-12-2025] Read more HERE

Marriage Validity, Divorce & Annulment Developments

DELHI HIGH COURT | Marriage in law, not in substance; One-year bar under Section 14 HMA waived for couple who never cohabited

In an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), challenging the Family Court’s order dated 09-12-2025 wherein it held that parties had failed to establish a case of “exceptional hardship” and that they had not made sufficient efforts to preserve the marriage, a Division Bench of Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ., held that considering the circumstances of present cases insistence on completion of one year would serve no meaningful purpose and would amount to exceptional hardship justifying waiver of one-year bar under HMA. The Court set aside the Family Court’s order and granted leave to the parties to present their joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B(1) HMA. [Nupur Garg v. Dwarkesh Ahuja, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 443/2025, Decided on 20-01-2026] Read more HERE

ORISSA HIGH COURT | Second marriage during subsistence of first remains void despite first wife’s death; Family pension denied to second wife

In a matter concerning entitlement to family pension under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (‘Rules’), the Division Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad* and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ., held that a second wife, whose marriage was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage, is not entitled to family pension, as such marriage is void in law. The Court noted that the Rules are payable to the widow on the death of an employee, subject to compliance with certain terms and conditions, and that to be a widow, a valid marriage between the woman and the deceased employee is a sine qua non; what is void ab initio does not become valid by the happening of a subsequent event. [Kankalata Dwibedi v. State of Orissa, W.A. NO. 1460 of 2025, decided on 13-01-2026] Read more HERE

Succession & Property Rights Under Personal Law

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Karta’s liability for HUF debts is personal and unlimited; ‘Seat Court’ retains jurisdiction to enforce award beyond territorial limits

In an interim application for relief in aid of enforcing a final arbitral award, the Court had to decide whether, as the ‘Seat Court’ under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’), it retained jurisdiction to entertain execution and grant interim relief despite the debtor’s assets lying outside its territory, and whether the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (‘HUF’) was personally liable for execution of the award. A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., held that the Court indeed possessed the jurisdiction, and that the Karta of a HUF bears personal and unlimited liability for HUF’s unsatisfied debts, thereby allowing enforcement of the award against his personal assets. [Manjeet Singh T. Anand v. Nishant Enterprises, Interim Application No. 5306 of 2025, decided on 8-1-2026] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Partition suit pleading acquisition from joint family funds cannot be rejected at threshold, must go to trial

In an appeal arising from a Single Judge’s order dated 10-09-2025, whereby an application filed by appellants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint in partition suit was dismissed, a Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., affirmed the impugned order. And held that such partition suit cannot be rejected at threshold. [Vibhuti Jauhari v. Anita Munjal, FAO(OS) 145/2025, Decided on 24-12-2025] Read more HERE

Also read: Ancestral Property: Key Supreme Court Rulings You Should Know

MADRAS HIGH COURT | Sale deed not binding: Daughter entitled to half share in ancestral property under Hindu Succession Act

In an appeal suit for partition of ancestral properties, a Single Judge Bench of R. Sakthivel, J., held that the daughter is entitled to ½ share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘Hindu Succession Act’). The Court clarified that the father’s presence on 09-09-2005 is not a prerequisite for enforcement of co-parcenery rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (‘2005 Amendment’). Rejecting the defendants’ plea of ouster and adverse possession, the Court observed that mere mutation of records or creation of mortgages cannot dislodge the presumption of joint possession among co-owners. Consequently, the Trial Court’s dismissal was set aside and the appeal allowed, with a preliminary decree recognising the plaintiff’s ½ share in the suit properties. [Sellammal v. Palanisamy, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 12152, decided on 11-12-2025] Read more HERE

Also read: Daughters’ Property Rights under Hindu Law — Before & After 2005 Amendment

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Propounder must dispel suspicious circumstances to sustain will’s validity; Rejection of Mother’s Will, upheld

In an appeal arising from a long-standing family dispute centering around two conflicting wills of the deceased parents, the issue was whether the will executed by the mother was valid. The Single Judge had earlier dismissed the suit citing suspicious circumstances. The Division Bench, upon appeal, initially set aside the dismissal, but the Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Ultimately, the Division Bench of M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna*, JJ., held that although the will was formally proved, the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution were not dispelled by the propounder to the satisfaction of the Court in order to sustain the will’s validity, thereby disentitling her from Letters of Administration. [Myra Philomena Collaco v. Lilian Coelho, Appeal No. 574 of 2003, decided on 30-12-2025] Read more HERE

Also read: Where there is a Will, there is Inheritance Law

CONCLUSION

The Family Law January 2026 rulings reflect the continuing evolution of Indian family law, with courts strengthening women’s rights, prioritising child welfare, reinforcing financial security, and protecting personal autonomy. These judgments provide crucial guidance for matrimonial litigation, maintenance disputes, custody conflicts, and succession battles, shaping the trajectory of family law jurisprudence in India.