{"id":352385,"date":"2025-07-04T14:00:58","date_gmt":"2025-07-04T08:30:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=352385"},"modified":"2025-07-04T14:15:05","modified_gmt":"2025-07-04T08:45:05","slug":"legal-roundup-family-law-roundup-june-2025-maintenance-custody-hindu-marriage-divorce-will-ratan-tata-scc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/04\/legal-roundup-family-law-roundup-june-2025-maintenance-custody-hindu-marriage-divorce-will-ratan-tata-scc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"FAMILY LAW ROUNDUP: A quick recap of the latest Family Law rulings from June 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This Family Law Roundup of June 2025 provides an overview of important cases and key updates of family law that made headlines this month, such as the Supreme Court\u2019s<\/span> decision on permanent alimony<\/span>, Kerala High Court\u2019s<\/span> decision on a wife\u2019s continued right to maintenance<\/span> and the Bombay High Court\u2019s<\/span> interpretation of Ratan Naval Tata\u2019s will and codicils<\/span>. These decisions, among others, offer valuable insights into the evolving legal landscape concerning marriage, divorce, maintenance, custody, and other aspects of personal laws.<\/p>\n

HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH<\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Couples may be divorced as husband and wife, but never as parents, their responsibilities continue for life<\/p>\n

In a contempt case filed by a father under the impression that the mother is not allowing the child to interact with him, in spite of the directions in the judgment earlier delivered. the division bench of Devan Ramachandran* and M.B. Snehalatha, JJ. issued the following directions: (a) The contempt case was closed. (b) The father was granted full liberty to participate in the child\u2019s therapy sessions and to monitor her educational progress and personal life. However, the Court made it clear that this must be done without causing the child any distress, and with the understanding that the father\u2019s obligation was to provide her with the utmost care and protection, free from any threat or intimidation. [Navin Scariah v. Priya Abraham, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3941<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

CUSTODY\/GUARDIANSHIP<\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u201cGender-sensitive, emotionally intelligent, & child-centered judicial approach required in custody of minor girls\u201d: Minor daughter\u2019s custody granted to mother<\/p>\n

In an application filed by the applicant-wife against the rejection of her appeal filed against the Trial Court\u2019s orders granting the wife only visitation rights for her minor daughter (\u2018the child\u2019), the Single Judge Bench of Vinod Diwakar, J., allowed the application, granting the custody of the child to the wife. The Court held that the husband first orchestrated a fabricated story to remove the child from wife\u2019s care and then made the wife move out of the couple\u2019s home solely to connivingly retain custody of the child. [X v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 3269<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Forcible removal of minor child by parent to new place doesn\u2019t make that place an ordinary residence<\/p>\n

In the present case dealing with forcible removal of minor child by parent to new place, an appeal was filed by the wife challenging the order dated 15-4-2024, whereby the guardianship petition filed by the wife under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 25<\/a> of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890<\/a> (\u2018G&W Act\u2019) was rejected. Further, the petition was also filed by the husband praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the production of the male minor child of the parties, and further seeking permission to take the minor child back to Arizona, USA. The Division Bench of Navin Chawla* and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ., stated that merely because the wife had decided to stay back in India and had got the minor child admitted to a school here, would not, make the minor child an ordinary resident of Delhi (India). Such forceful removal\/detention, even by a parent, at a place that is not the natural habitation of the minor child, would not render such other place the ordinary place of residence of the minor child. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal. Further, regarding the petition, the Court passed certain directions and disposed of the petition. [Sunaina Rao Kommineni v. Abhiram Balusu, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4176<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

ORISSA HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Love, company, protection and guidance of both parents are basic human rights and need of child\u2019; Father\u2019s visitation right, upheld<\/p>\n

In a civil writ petition by a woman against Trial Court\u2019s decision granting visitation rights to the father, the Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy, J. prioritising the child\u2019s emotional security and best interests, upheld the Trial Court\u2019s decision. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 1928<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

DIVORCE<\/p>\n

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT<\/span> | [Constructive Desertion] Divorce granted to husband due to his foundational deceit and concealment of prior marriages, set aside<\/p>\n

In an appeal filed by the appellant (wife) challenging the judgment and decree dated 21-11-2019 and 18-12-2019, issued by the Additional District Judge in a matrimonial suit wherein the marriage was dissolved between the parties by divorce, the Division Bench of Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ. set aside the decree of divorce and held that divorce decree cannot be granted to a party (petitioner) who perpetrated foundational cruelty (e.g., deliberate marital deception) of greater magnitude than any alleged misconduct by the other spouse, even if the marriage is irretrievably broken down, as it would constitute a miscarriage of justice and violate the principle of \u201cclean hands\u201d. [Kamalika Majumdar Nee Das v. Subhapriya Majumdar, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 4835<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

ORISSA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Divorce upheld on husband being called \u2018nikhatu, kempa\u2019 by wife for his physical infirmity<\/p>\n

A Division Bench comprising of B.P. Routray* and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ., dealt with a matrimonial application wherein the appellant-wife was accused of using derogatory remarks towards her husband-the respondent ridiculing him over his disability. The Court upheld the Family Court\u2019s decision granting divorce which stated derogatory terms like \u201cNikhatu\u201d and \u201cKempa\u201d constituted mental cruelty, which was a valid ground for divorce. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 2325<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

TELANGANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Muslim Woman have absolute right to demand divorce by khula<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the husband seeking to declare the impugned order passed by Respondent 2, wherein the marriage between him and his wife was dissolved, as null and void, the Division Bench of Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.* and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, stated that the wife\u2019s right to demand khula was absolute and does not have to be predicated on a cause or acceptance of the demand by the husband. Therefore, the Court found the petition to be misconceived and contrary to established legal principles, and accordingly, dismissed the same. [Mohammed Arif Ali v. Smt. Afsarunnisa, 2025 SCC OnLine TS 368<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

STRIDHAN<\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span> | Return of \u2018Stridhan\u2019 must be decided within matrimonial proceedings, not via separate application under Section 27 HMA<\/p>\n

In an appeal filed against the judgment passed by Family Court, wherein, the husband was directed to pay Rs.10,54,364\/- in lieu of returning \u2018stridhan\u2019 articles, the division bench of Arindam Sinha* and Avnish Saxena,JJ. held that the distribution of properties of the parties, including the return of stridhan, must be determined within the framework of proceedings instituted under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> (\u2018HMA\u2019), and not by way of a separate and independent application filed under Section 27 HMA<\/a>. Hence, the proceedings under Section 27 HMA<\/a> cannot be treated as independent or standalone proceedings to result in a decree. [Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta, 2025 SCC OnLine All 3190<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

MAINTAINANCE<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | EMIs, personal loans, or insurance premiums cannot justify evasion of maintenance under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act<\/p>\n

An appeal was filed under Section 19<\/a> of the Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a> by the appellant-husband assailing the order dated 19-04-2025 passed by the Family Court, allowing an application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24<\/a> of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a>, directing the appellant to pay a monthly maintenance of \u20b915,000 split as \u20b98,000 for the respondent-wife and \u20b97,000 for their minor son. A division bench of Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ., held that the findings of the Family Court are based on cogent material on record, including bank statements, tax returns and income affidavits submitted by both parties, and are in accordance with the binding guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903<\/a>. [A v. B, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4088<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

GUAHATI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Relief granted to woman driven out of matrimonial home due to lighter complexion of child<\/p>\n

In an application seeking quashing of the impugned order whereby the Sessions Court denied maintenance to the petitioner-wife for the child, the Single Judge Bench of Parthivjyoti Saikia, J., allowed the application, holding that the wife was driven out of the matrimonial house due to the child\u2019s complexion not matching the parents and thus, the wife had shown sufficient reason for living separately. [Mustt. Lozzatan Begum v. Shahidul Islam, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 2898<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Wife can claim maintenance despite prior compromise agreement if unable to maintain herself<\/p>\n

In an appeal filed against the order rejecting an application for maintenance by the wife and minor child (the appellants) against the husband, the Division Bench of Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar*, JJ. held that a wife who voluntarily relinquished her right to maintenance is not precluded from seeking it at a later stage if there is a change in circumstances. The Court concluded that the wife was entitled to claim maintenance from the husband, notwithstanding the terms of the earlier compromise agreement, either under Section 37<\/a> of the Divorce Act, 1869<\/a> (\u2018the Act\u2019) or under Section 125<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019) provided she was unable to maintain herself during the relevant period. Further, the power to vary, modify or rescind any order passed by the court for permanent alimony and maintenance at the instance of either party inherits in the Court even under Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, when there is a change in circumstances. [Sheela George v. V.M.Alexander, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3501<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

PERMANENT ALIMONY<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Divorced, not re-married & living independently: Permanent alimony enhanced from Rs 20,000 to 50,000<\/p>\n

While considering an appeal wherein a woman challenged the quantum of permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000 fixed by Calcutta High Court; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath<\/span>* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., modified the impugned judgment and determined that a permanent alimony of Rs. 50,000 per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the woman. The Court opined that the woman, who remained unmarried and is living independently, 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. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitated a reassessment. [Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE<\/p>\n

KERLA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Registrar cannot cancel marriage certificate unless registration is proven fraudulent or improper<\/p>\n

In a matter concerning the cancellation of marriage registration as the marriage was not solemnized under any personal or special law, the Single Judge Bench of CS Dias, J. held that a Registrar of Marriages cannot cancel a marriage certificate unless it is proved that the registration was either fraudulent or improperly made. [Hussain v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3811<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

WILLS<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Will and four Codicils of Ratan Naval Tata interpreted<\/p>\n

A Single Judge Bench of Manish Pitale, J., dealt with an originating summon under Rule 238 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 (\u2018the said Rules\u2019), which was related to the Will and the Codicils executed by Ratan Naval Tata (\u2018the deceased\u2019). Though there was no dispute amongst the parties, the Court interpreted the said Will and the Codicils as the parties wanted clarity on few questions as to the effect of the fourth Codicil on the Will and the way the Will was to be read along with the four Codicils. [Shireen Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy v. Jamsheed Mehli Poncha, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2405<\/a>] Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

In News<\/h2>\n