{"id":362530,"date":"2025-10-04T12:00:33","date_gmt":"2025-10-04T06:30:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=362530"},"modified":"2025-10-04T12:30:54","modified_gmt":"2025-10-04T07:00:54","slug":"family-law-roundup-september-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/04\/family-law-roundup-september-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Family Law September 2025 | Important Case Law and Judicial Updates"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

September 2025 saw a series of diverse and impactful decisions in Family Law from the Supreme Court and High Courts. The rulings covered critical areas of matrimonial and child-related law, including the Bombay High Court granting the annulment of a marriage due to the suppression of information about cerebral palsy, and the Supreme Court clarifying the power of the Maintenance Tribunal to order the eviction of children from a senior citizen’s property. This quick legal roundup presents the month’s most significant stories on adoption, custody, divorce, and maintenance, etc.<\/p>\n

ADOPTION<\/p>\n

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Biological father’s consent for adoption from his refusal to take a definite stand<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by the petitioners against the communications from the Central Adoption Resource Agency (‘CARA’) and State Adoption Resource Agency (‘SARA’) insisting on the consent of the biological father in case of adoption of minor child, a Single-Judge Bench of B.M. Shyam Prasad, J.<\/span>, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to complete the adoption process. The Court held that when the biological father has not taken a definite stand on the issue, despite an opportunity being given to him, consent could be inferred in favour of the adoption, as the best interest of the minor child is paramount. [X v. Central Adoption Resource Agency, Writ Petition No. 15957 of 2025 (GM-RES), decided on 22-08-2025]<\/p>\n

Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Non-disclosure about cerebral palsy by wife’s family, entitles husband to annul marriage<\/p>\n

The present writ petition was filed by the appellant-husband challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition which was filed on the ground of suppression of the disease of cerebral palsy by the family members of the respondent-wife. The Division Bench of Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar C. More*<\/span>, JJ., opined that the Family Court erred in dismissing the petition of the husband on the ground that cerebral palsy only restricted the bodily movements and did not affect the behaviour of the person especially whether certificate obtained from the medical board clearly stated that it was a non-progressive intellectual deformity. The Court held that the Family Court ought to have considered the aspect of suppression of an incurable disease by the family members. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Family Court and declared the marriage between the couple as null and void as the couple had only stayed together for 6 months and the wife was unable to perform her marital duties due to her medical conditions. [X v. Y, Family Court Apl. No. 92 of 2023, decided on: 22-9-2025]<\/p>\n

Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

CUSTODY<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Emotional bond does not confer superior right to custody over that of biological parents’: 5-year old’s custody to grandmother, denied<\/span><\/p>\n

In a habeas corpus petition filed to seek the custody of child from her paternal grandmother, by the petitioner-biological father of the child, the Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge and Gautam A. Ankhad*<\/span>, JJ., opined that welfare of the child is of paramount importance in the custody dispute therefore, emotional bond with the child does not confer upon her a superior right to custody over that of the biological parent. Thus, the Court directed the police to take the custody of the child from the grandmother and hand him over to the father. The Court also gave directions to smoothen transition for the child while giving visitation rights to the grandmother for three months. [Pravin Nathalal Parghi v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3100<\/span><\/a>, decided on: 4-9-2025]<\/p>\n

Read<\/span> more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Refusal to allow brother’s widow to reside in shared household constitutes Domestic violence<\/p>\n

In the present revision application, the applicant challenged the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby the non-applicants were allowed to reside in the shared household with costs of Rs 20,000 to be paid to the applicant. The applicant alleged that the non-applicant never shared or resided in the house with her husband. A Single Judge Bench of Urmila Joshi Phalke, J<\/span>., while partly allowing the application to the extent that the non-applicant, along with her son, was entitled to reside in the shared household, held that the words “has lived together at any point of time” covered past cohabitation, and any other interpretation would defeat the object of the provisions. The Court emphasised that, as long as the relationship existed and the parties had lived together at any point, the application was maintainable. [Ashish v. Mohini, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3206<\/span><\/a>, decided on 16-09-2025]<\/p>\n

Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

DIVORCE<\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | “In despair, the wife set fire to herself and later blamed in-laws”: Divorce granted to man whose wife attempted self-immolation<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal filed against the Trial Court’s judgment wherein the appellant- husband’s divorce plea was dismissed, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat and Anuradha Shukla*<\/span>, JJ., allowed the appeal, holding that the dreadful act of self-immolation was sufficient to hold that the respondent-wife committed mental cruelty against the husband and the Trial Court erred in not appreciating the evident facts and even more so, in replacing them with its own perceived notions. [H v. R, First Appeal No. 133 of 2007, decided on 26-08-2025]<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

GUJARAT HIGH COURT<\/span> | Divorce proceedings cannot be initiated in Australia, if marriage has been solemnized in India<\/span><\/p>\n

In a common judgement adjudging two appeals filed by the appellant (‘wife’) against the Family Court order dated 31-3-2023 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Family Court had rejected the wife’s plaint for declaration of a divorce decree passed by Australian Court as null and void and for restitution of conjugal rights; the Division Bench of A.Y. Kogje and N.S. Sanjay Gowda*<\/span>, JJ, set aside the impugned order and held that the respondent (‘husband’) could not have initiated divorce proceedings in an Australian Court when the marriage had been solemnized in India even though the parties had acquired foreign domicile. [X v. Y., 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 3730<\/span><\/a>, decided on 8-8-2025]<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MAINTENANCE AND ALIMONY<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Children can be evicted from senior citizen’s property in case of breach of obligation to maintain<\/p>\n

While considering this appeal wherein a senior citizen (appellant) was aggrieved by Bombay High Court’s decision to set aside the eviction order passed against his eldest son by the Maintenance Tribunal (the Tribunal); the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.<\/span>, reiterated that the Tribunal is well within its powers to order eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen. [Kamalkant Mishra v. Additional Collector, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2077<\/span><\/a>, order dated 12-9-2025].<\/p>\n

Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

ORISSA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Educated Wives cannot be generalised as idle women burdening husbands with maintenance.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the present revision, the petitioner husband sought to challenge the order passed by the Family Court, which had allowed the petition filed under Section 125<\/a> of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/doclink><\/a> (‘CrPC’) by the opposite parties, his wife (OP 1) and daughter (OP 2), for maintenance at Rs 5,000 each per month. The husband alleged that the wife was earning more than him and had voluntarily deserted him without any cause and therefore was not entitled to maintenance. A Single Judge Bench of G. Satapathy, J<\/span>., while dismissing the revision, emphasised that it could not have universal application in all cases that a wife with high qualification was intentionally avoiding work to harass the husband and saddle him with liability, unless there was material evidence to that effect. [G. Debendra Rao v. G.Puspa Prabha Rao, RPFAM No.18 of 2021, decided on 16-09-2025]<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

PATNA HIGH COURT<\/span> | Maintenance order of ‘qualified’ wife who concealed facts about alimony from previous marriage, quashed<\/span><\/p>\n

In a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging a final order of maintenance passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, a Single-Judge Bench of Bibek Chaudhuri, J.<\/span>, while quashing and setting aside the maintenance order, held that the trial court failed to consider suppression of material facts, income of the parties, their source of income, their assets and liabilities and other similar factors, which are required to be considered for determination of maintenance allowance. [Ravi Prakash Saxena v. Priyanka Rani, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2793<\/span><\/a>, decided on 04-09-2025]<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT<\/span> | ‘Alimony not intended to penalize husband or wife but to ensure child’s well-being’: Father ordered to pay Rs 40 Lakh alimony for daughters<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal filed under Section 19(1)<\/a> of the Family Courts Act, 1984<\/doclink><\/a>, by the wife demanding alimony for her two daughters from her husband, the Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad*<\/span> and Arun Kumar Rai JJ., ordered the husband to pay Rs 40,00,000 (Rs 20,00,000 each for two daughters) within four months considering the needs of two daughters and their future survival including food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, extracurricular activities as well as marriage. Further, the Court disposed of the appeal and opined that the alimony was not intended to penalize the husband or the wife but to ensure the child’s well-being and financial security. [Vandana Kumari v. Greesh Babu Mathur, F.A. No. 230 of 2019, decided on 4-9-2025]<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADRAS HIGH COURT<\/span> | No interim maintenance for “affluent” wife with sufficient dividend income and assets<\/span><\/p>\n

In a Civil Revision Petition initiated by the petitioner-husband, challenging an order of the Family Court, which had directed payment of interim maintenance to his “affluent” respondent-wife and minor son under Section 24<\/a> of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/doclink><\/a> (‘HMA’), a Single Judge Bench of P. B. Balaji, J.<\/span>, while partly allowing the revision, held that the wife did not require any further amounts by way of interim maintenance to lead a comfortable lifestyle. The husband had alleged that the wife was affluent and the Family Court had mechanically passed the order without considering the pleadings in the maintenance application. The High Court emphasised that it could not sustain the order of the Family Court awarding interim maintenance to the wife, which was wholly unnecessary considering the substantial income that had accrued to the respondent by way of dividends and her ownership of valuable immovable properties. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 5294<\/span><\/a>, decided on 22-08-2025]<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT<\/span> |<\/span> ‘Able-bodied husband’s unemployment no excuse to evade legal duty to maintain wife’; Calcutta HC sets aside Family Court’s order.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the present petition, the wife challenged the Family Court’s judgment rejecting her request for maintenance under Section 125<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/doclink><\/a> (‘CrPC’). The husband argued that he was unemployed after being dismissed from his job and claimed that the wife earned enough to cover her daily expenses. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J., while allowing the petition, held that Section 125<\/a> CrPC<\/doclink><\/a> aims to ensure the wife’s sustenance at the same status and strata as the husband, not merely animal sustenance. The Court observed that the wife’s earning of Rs 12,000 per month could not justify refusal of maintenance, especially since the husband admitted his economic status was higher. [Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 7647<\/span><\/a>, decided on 12-09-2025]<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

NOMINEE UNDER SUCCESSION ACT<\/doclink><\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | “Nominee doesn’t receive benefits in own capacity, rather as trustee with liability”: Relief denied to deceased CRPF Gunner’s family in succession case<\/span><\/p>\n

In a civil revision application filed under Section 384 (3)<\/a>, of the Indian Succession Act, 1925<\/doclink><\/a> (‘ISA’), read with Section 115<\/a> of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/doclink><\/a> (‘CPC’), against the Civil Court’s judgment denying appellant 1, mother of the deceased, a share in the property, the Single Judge Bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J.<\/span>, dismissed the petition, holding that no illegality was committed by the Civil Court and the Appellate Court as merely because a person has been made a nominee, he would not receive the benefits in his own personal and individual capacity, rather he would receive it as a trustee with liability to return the amount to those in whose favour the law creates a beneficial interest. [Sudha Tomar v. Neha Tomar, Civil Revision No. 142 of 2020, decided on 03-09-2025]<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | States\/UTs directed to frame rules under Anand Marriage Act<\/doclink> to facilitate registration of marriages solemnised by Anand Karaj<\/p>\n

In a significant decision, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ<\/span>., while considering this petition seeking directions for the States and Union Territories (Respondents) to frame and notify rules under Section 6<\/a> of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909<\/doclink><\/a> (as amended in 2012) to facilitate registration of marriages solemnised by the Sikh rite commonly known as Anand Karaj, laid down the general directions for the States and Union Territories. [Amanjot Singh Chadha v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2017<\/span><\/a>, decided on 4-9-2025]<\/p>\n

Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span> | Hindu Marriage valid even if unregistered; Family Court cannot mandate registration certificate for mutual divorce<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition challenging the order passed by the Family Court, wherein the Court rejected the petitioner’s application for a waiver from submitting the marriage registration certificate, a Single Judge Bench of Manish Kumar Nigam, J.<\/span>, held that a Hindu marriage does not become invalid merely because it is not registered. Therefore, the Family Court cannot insist on the production of a marriage registration certificate in a mutual divorce petition. The Court clarified that the petition for divorce had been filed under Section 13(B)<\/a> of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/doclink><\/a> (‘the Act, 1955’), seeking divorce by mutual consent. There was no dispute between the parties regarding the fact of the marriage, as both parties had admitted it. The Court found the insistence of the Family Court for the filing of the marriage registration certificate, based on Sub-rule 3(a) of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956<\/doclink> (‘Rules, 1956’), to be unnecessary and unwarranted. The Court emphasised that such a requirement applied only when the marriage had been registered under Section 8<\/doclink> of the Hindu Marriage Act<\/doclink>, which was not the case here.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/span> HERE<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/p>\n