The July 2026 Roundup on Family and Personal Law gives an insight into how the family and personal law evolved in the month, through various judgments and rulings. The Courts pronounced judgments on various facets of family and personal law such as preferential rights under Hindu succession law, inheritance rights under Oraon customary law, wife allowed to obtain hotel and call records to prove adultery for divorce, validity of marriage performed via a notarised agreement, shariat law versus child marriage law and law related to maintenance.
HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH
SUPREME COURT | Preferential Right of Class I Heirs Under Section 22, Hindu Succession Act Extends to Agricultural Property: Supreme Court
In an appeal, revolving around long-standing question of whether the preferential right conferred upon Class I heirs under Section 22, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Hindu Succession Act) extends to inherited agricultural land, wherein the First Appellate Court upheld the plaintiff’s preferential right and the High Court affirmed the First Appellate Court’s judgment, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and N. Kotiswar Singh**, JJ., upheld the impugned judgments, holding that:
-
Section 22, Hindu Succession Act applies to inherited agricultural land.
-
Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh, (2019) 14 SCC 162, correctly states the law and does not require reconsideration by a larger Bench.
-
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, (1986) 2 SCC 249, does not invalidate Section 22, Hindu Succession Act.
-
Parliament possessed legislative competence under Entry 5, List III to enact Section 22.
-
Since the plaintiff asserted his preferential right before execution of the sale deed, no separate challenge to the sale deed was necessary.
[Mahinder v. Puran Singh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1335, decided on 14-7-2026]
Read more Here
DIVORCE
SUPREME COURT | SC Upholds Delhi HC’s Order Allowing Wife to Obtain Husband’s Hotel and Call Records to Prove Adultery In Divorce Proceeding
In a civil appeal challenging Delhi High Court’s judgment dated 10 May 2023, wherein it upheld the Family Court’s directions for preservation and production of the hotel records and call detail records in sealed cover, holding that seeking hotel stay and call record details to prove the charge of adultery would not violate right to privacy, the Division Bench of Manmohan and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., upheld the impugned judgment.
[Sachin Arora v. Manju Arora, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1298, decided on 2-7-2026]
Read More Here
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Can Marriage or Divorce Be Performed Via a Notarised Agreement Under Hindu Law? Madhya Pradesh HC Answers
In a writ appeal filed by a man claiming benefits of his deceased wife, the Division Bench of Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia* and Anuradha Shukla, JJ., dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to any benefits on account of the deceased as he was never married to her and his relationship with her did not have any legal status as she divorced the first husband via a notarised agreement, which was not a valid divorce. Reiterating that long cohabitation can be presumed to be a valid marriage, the Court stated that since the first marriage of the deceased was never severed, and if the long cohabitation (if any) is treated as a presumption of a valid marriage, then such presumption would be contrary to Section 5, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). Under Section 11 HMA, any marriage solemnised in contravention of any of the conditions specified in sub-sections (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 would be a void marriage.
[Ram Kripal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 22161, decided on 1-7-2026]
Read More Here
INHERITANCE RIGHTS
SUPREME COURT | Uncle-In-Law Cannot Make Niece’s Husband a “Ghardamad” to Claim Inheritance Rights Under Oraon Customary Law: Supreme Court
In a significant ruling on the proof of customary law governing Oraon tribal succession, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and N.K. Singh, JJ. held that an uncle-in-law cannot induct his niece’s husband as a ghardamad (resident son-in-law) under the recognised customary law of the Oraon tribal community to confer inheritance rights over ancestral property. The Court reiterated that the party relying upon a custom bears the burden of proving its existence, antiquity, certainty, and continuous observance, and that courts cannot recognise or enforce an unproved custom. Accordingly, finding that the respondents had failed to establish the alleged custom, the Court set aside the concurrent judgments of the trial court, the First Appellate Court, and the Jharkhand High Court, and allowed the appeal.
[Bejla Oraon v. Kali Das Oraon, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1302, decided on 9-7-2026]
Read More Here
MARRIAGE
Marriage Doesn’t Sever a Daughter’s Ties To Her Family; Restricting Compassionate Jobs to “Divorced or Deserted” Daughters Violates Article 14: Supreme Court
In an appeal from an order of the Patna High Court, which upheld the rejection of the appellants’ request for compassionate appointment of her daughter following the death of her husband, the Division Bench of MM Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. held that a policy restricting compassionate appointment to only divorced or deserted daughters is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed that a married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration based on stereotypical assumptions that marriage severs her relationship with her parental family. It reiterated that any classification between sons and daughters based solely on gender or marital status is constitutionally impermissible and that a daughter’s entitlement to consideration for compassionate appointment cannot be denied merely because she is married.
[Sayara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1466, decided on 23-7-2026]
Read more Here
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT| Shariat Law Cannot Override Child Marriage Prohibition: Allahabad HC Dismisses Fir Quashment Bid by Family That Attacked Police While Stopping 16-Year-Old’s Marriage
In a petition filed seeking quashing of an FIR filed against the accused persons for stopping Police and Child Line Team from rescuing a minor girl from child marriage, the Division Bench of J.J. Munir* and Achal Sachdev, JJ., dismissed the petition, holding that the nature of the allegations and the corpus delicti were such that it was not a fit case to injunct the investigation at an initial stage by quashing the FIR and disregarding the process of investigation. The Court also held that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 (Shariat Law) providing for puberty as the competent age under the law, permissible for a girl to marry or be married, violates the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), i.e., child marriage could not be permitted under Shariat Law.
[Rubi v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 21146, decided on 1-7-2026]
Read More Here
MAINTENANCE
Husband Must Prove Wife’s Adultery “Ex-Facie” to Deny Interim Maintenance: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of S. 125(4) CrPC
While deciding a case wherein the Court had to consider the husband’s obligation to pay maintenance on account of wife’s adultery, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., clarified that since the stipulation in Section 125(4), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is that if adultery is proved, then the wife would neither be entitled to interim nor final maintenance; therefore, Court opined that if a husband files an application under Section 125(4) CrPC and is, at the first instance, able to establish the charge of adultery through evidence ex facie, then only, there can be said to be a bar to interim maintenance.
[Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1461, decided on 31-7-2026]
Read more Here
Wife Who Obtained Custody Asserting Financial Capacity Cannot Burden Husband Alone with Minor’s Maintenance: Allahabad HC
In a revision petition filed by a wife seeking maintenance, the Single Judge Bench of Lakshmi Kant Shukla, J., dismissed the petition, holding that in the absence of any cogent material showing a substantial increase in the actual and reasonable expenses of the minor daughter, any material enhancement in the income of the husband, or any subsequent deterioration in the financial condition of the wife, no sufficient ground was made out either to grant interim maintenance to the wife in her individual capacity or to enhance the maintenance already awarded to the minor daughter. Thus, the Court denied maintenance to the wife and refused to enhance the minor daughter’s maintenance.
[Roji Bano v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 22081, decided on 14-7-2026]
Read more Here
Also Read