Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Stay informed about the latest rulings from the Supreme Court and various High Courts in June 2025, covering key aspects of family law, including divorce on grounds of cruelty, maintenance rights, child custody, and the interpretation of personal laws.
“The way out in our minds is that the parents must find peace with each other and be involved with the child’s progress together as partners.”
Wife’s behaviour of using derogatory terms for husband’s physical disability discloses her thought and respect to her husband.
“The parties are dark complexioned people, but their child was fair complexioned. That is the reason why the dispute arose, and the husband started to physically harass the wife and drove her out of the matrimonial house along with the child.”
The Court opined that the appellant was entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage, and which reasonably secures her future.
The Family Court while decreeing the dissolution marriage, had directed the appellant-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs towards permanent alimony to the respondent-wife.
“When the parents are in conflict, the child’s well-being should remain of paramount concern, the Court must ensure that the minor child is not treated as an object to be passed back and forth, but rather a person whose stability and security must carefully be protected.”
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“Self-pleasure is not a forbidden fruit, its indulgence shall not lead to a precipitous fall from the Eden Garden of marriage. After marriage, a woman becomes a spouse, but she continues to retain her individuality. Her fundamental identity as an individual, as a woman, is not subsumed by her spousal status”.
As far as the conciliation efforts were concerned, the Court noted that all efforts of mediation/ conciliation to reunite the parties had failed.
“No husband will tolerate that his wife is in undignified or indecent conversation through mobile by way of vulgar chatting.”
“Forcing wife to live with a person who is neither educated nor eager to improve himself certainly amounts to mental cruelty.”
“Women are the primary victims in most situations, but that does not mean that men are not affected by the cruelty of women. Therefore, there is necessity for a gender-neutral society”.
Once the mind of a spouse is corrupted to resort to a false prosecution against a spouse, it is certain that the spouse has lost all reasonableness and rationality to maintain solemnity of the marriage.
“Differences of perception towards life may give rise to different behaviours by individuals. Such a difference of perception and behaviour may be described as cruel by others by observing the behaviour of another. At the same time, such perceptions are neither absolute nor such as may themselves give rise to allegations of cruelty unless observed and proven facts are such as may be recognized in law to be acts of cruelty.”
The wife claimed that her husband’s net worth is Rs 5000 crores, but the Court decided to grant permanent alimony of Rs. 12 crores noting that the wife in the instant case has sought equalisation of status not just with the husband but also with his ex-wife and opined that this cannot be an acceptable approach.
The wife was appointed as Assistant Manager in LIC Housing Finance Ltd., and at time the respondent was doing nothing, this was the reason why husband compelled the appellant to leave the job and stay with him.
The wife claimed that she has a M.Sc. degree in Clothing and Textile but was forced to leave her job as her husband was against her working.
“The marriage between the parties becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties”
“When an application is filed under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the Magistrate is expected to consider and pass an order as provided under Section 3(3) of the Act. There is no provision in the Statute enabling the party aggrieved by that order to prefer an appeal”