{"id":355828,"date":"2025-08-06T14:30:26","date_gmt":"2025-08-06T09:00:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=355828"},"modified":"2025-08-07T09:31:33","modified_gmt":"2025-08-07T04:01:33","slug":"legal-roundup-family-and-personal-law-july-2025-roundup-custody-divorce-maintenance-guardianship-scc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/legal-roundup-family-and-personal-law-july-2025-roundup-custody-divorce-maintenance-guardianship-scc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Family and Personal Law July 2025: Major Judgments and Legislation Updates!"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

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\u2019s<\/span> view on secretly recorded conversations in matrimonial disputes, Chhattisgarh HC\u2019s<\/span> decision to uphold wife\u2019s right to privacy, Calcutta HC\u2019s<\/span> order to enhance interim maintenance paid by Mohd. Shami<\/span> and Bombay HC\u2019s<\/span> take on mother\u2019s guardianship, and more.<\/span> These decisions, among others, offer valuable insights into the evolving legal landscape concerning divorce, maintenance, adoption, custody, guardianship and other aspects of family law.<\/p>\n

HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH<\/span><\/p>\n

SECRETLY RECORDED SPOUSAL CONVERSATIONS<\/span><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Privacy vs. Evidence: Supreme Court allows secretly recorded spousal conversations as admissible evidence in matrimonial disputes<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/a> of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna<\/span>* 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\u2019s order. [Vibhor Garg v. Neha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1421<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SPOUSE\u2019S RIGHT TO PRIVACY<\/span><\/p>\n

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT<\/span> | Husband compelling wife to share phone or bank account passwords amounts to violation of privacy: Chhattisgarh HC<\/span><\/p>\n

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 (\u2018CDR\u2019) of his wife\u2019s phone number was rejected, the Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Mohan Pandey<\/span>, J., rejected the petition, holding that allowing the husband\u2019s application would lead to a violation of the wife\u2019s right to privacy and the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 7394<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

INVOCATION OF ARTICLE 142 OF THE CONSTITUTION<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | SC directed wife & her family members to tender apology to husband & in-laws for cases filed<\/span><\/p>\n

In a divorce case, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ., and Augustine George Masih<\/span>*, J., deemed it fit to invoke the power under Article 142<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> 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<\/span><\/a>, vis-a-vis \u2018Constitution of Family Welfare Committees\u2019 for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>, shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities. [Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1494<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CRUELTY<\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Making derogatory and defamatory complaints to spouse\u2019s employer amounts to cruelty: Delhi High Court<\/span><\/p>\n

The Division Bench of Renu Bhatnagar<\/span>* and Navin Chawla JJ., stated that the complaints made by wife to her husband\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Refusing physical relations, accusing husband of affairs and humiliating him in front of his friends\/employees is cruelty: Bombay HC<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/span>*, JJ., opined that the wife\u2019s behaviour with his husband\u2019s employees, humiliating him in front of his friends, refusing sexual relations, and accusing him of extra-marital affairs were all instances of \u2018cruelty\u2019 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<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MAINTENANCE<\/span><\/p>\n

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Calcutta High Court enhances interim maintenance; Orders cricketer Mohammed Shami to pay \u20b94 lakhs monthly to ex-wife<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/a> of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a>, wherein the Magistrate had refused her prayer for interim monetary relief, granting such relief only to her minor daughter. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee<\/span>, J., held that a sum of \u20b91,50,000\/- per month to be paid by the opposite party to the wife and \u20b9250,000 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<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Maintenance is no longer a mere handout for subsistence, but rather a tool to maintain\/preserve lifestyle: Calcutta High Court<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/span>, 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<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Granting interim maintenance to qualified unemployed wife doesn\u2019t mean breeding a class of idle woman: Delhi HC dismisses plea against maintenance order<\/span><\/p>\n

In the present case, a revision petition was filed under Section 438<\/a> read with Section 442<\/a> of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (\u2018BNSS\u2019) and Section 397<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019) by the petitioner-husband, challenging the order dated 9-5-2025 of the Family Court, New Delhi (\u2018the Trial Court\u2019), which granted ad-interim maintenance of Rs 1,00,000\/- per month to the respondent-wife. A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna<\/span>, J., observed that raising objections at this stage to the grant of maintenance despite the wife\u2019s 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<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PATNA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Section 125<\/a> CrPC<\/a> | Levirate Marriages validated by custom, cohabitation, social acceptance, and the birth of children, must be treated as valid: Patna High Court<\/span><\/p>\n

In a criminal revision petition challenging the Family Court\u2019s order that dismissed petitioner\u2019s maintenance application under Section 125<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019) 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<\/span>, J., set aside the Family Court\u2019s 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<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Domestic Violence Act does not distinguish between first and subsequent marriage for maintenance\u2019; Delhi HC upholds Rs 1 lakh per month maintenance<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/span>, J., while upholding the impugned judgment, had stated that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a> (\u2018DV Act\u2019) did not distinguish between first and subsequent marriage for purposes of entitlement to maintenance. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4923<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SHARED HOUSEHOLD<\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Under construction flat is not \u2018shared household\u2019 under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court<\/span><\/p>\n

The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 2(s)<\/a> of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a> (\u2018DV Act\u2019), seeking to direct the respondent-husband to pay the remaining two instalments for the \u201cshared household\u201d while the divorce proceeding was undergoing. A Single Judge Bench of Manjusha Deshpande<\/span>, 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 \u201cshared household\u201d, 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<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

WOMEN\u2019s RIGHT TO PROPERTY<\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span> | No Strict proof needed for married woman claiming return of gold from In-Laws: Kerala High Court<\/span><\/p>\n

In a matrimonial appeal filed by the husband\u2019s family challenging the Family Court\u2019s order directing the return of 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent, the Division Bench of Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha<\/span>*, 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<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

GUARDIANSHIP<\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Mother is natural guardian after father\u2019s death unless proven unfit or adversely interested: Bombay HC<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/span>, J., allowed the petition and granted interim custody of the minor girl to the mother, holding that under Section 6(a)<\/a> of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956<\/a> (the \u2018Act of 1956\u2019), the mother was the natural guardian after the father\u2019s 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<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CUSTODY OF MINOR<\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u2018Child\u2019s welfare has upper hand over personal law\u2019; Bombay High Court grants custody of 9-year-old minor to the mother<\/span><\/p>\n

In a case concerning custody of a 9-year-old son, Single Judge Bench of Shailesh P. Brahme<\/span>, 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<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TELANGANA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Contemptuous conduct must be purged before contempt can be contested: Telangana HC directs mother to return 3 minor children to custody holder<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

LEGITIMACY OF THE CHILD<\/span><\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | \u201cCourts must act as custodian of child\u2019s rights\u201d; Bombay High Court refuses DNA Profiling Test to establish paternity<\/span><\/p>\n

The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner-wife, challenging the order of the Family Court which accepted the respondent-husband\u2019s request for conducting DNA Profiling Test to decide the legitimacy of the child born to them. A Single Judge Bench of R.M. Joshi<\/span>, 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<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

ADOPTION<\/span><\/p>\n

GUJARAT HIGH COURT<\/span> | Gujarat HC: In absence of adoption\u2019s registered document, adoptive parents must establish that child is adopted before 15 years of age with wife\u2019s consent<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the petitioners under Articles 226<\/a> and 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> seeking declaration of their adoptive son, X as legally valid and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24-11-2017 (\u2018the impugned order\u2019) passed by the Additional District Judge, Mehsana., a Single Judge Bench of Devan M. Desai<\/span>, J., stated that the deed was legally invalid, as X was approximately 25 years old, making the adoption itself untenable as per Section 10<\/a> of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956<\/a> (\u2018the 1956 Act\u2019). 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\u2019s consent. [Patel Sureshbhai Babulal v. Patel Pravinbhai Babubhai, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 2826<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PARTITION<\/span><\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | Madhya Pradesh HC sets aside 25-year-old Trial Court order concerning Saif Ali Khan\u2019s ancestral property; Remands matters for fresh trial<\/span><\/p>\n

In a set of two appeals filed by actor Saif Ali Khan\u2019s family against a Trial Court judgment which dismissed the partition suits preferred by the appellants, the Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Dwivedi<\/span>, 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<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

COUNSELLORS IN FAMILY COURTS<\/span><\/p>\n

PATNA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Section 9 Family Courts Act| Appointment of Counsellors in Family Courts mandatory: Patna High Court<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/span>, 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<\/a> (\u20181984 Act\u2019), 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<\/span><\/a>] Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

LEGISLATION UPDATE ON CARA\u2019S DIRECTION TO STATE FOR COUNSELLING DURING ADOPTION<\/span><\/p>\n

CARA directs States to implement counselling provisions at all stages of adoption<\/span><\/p>\n

On 7-7-2025, the Central Adoption Resource Authority (\u2018CARA\u2019) issued a memorandum for \u201cimplementation of Counselling Provisions under Adoption Regulation 2022\u201d directing all the State Adoption Resource Agencies (\u2018SARAs\u2019) for effective implementation of counselling provisions at the pre- adoption, during adoption, and post adoption stages. Read More HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/h3>\n