{"id":377639,"date":"2026-03-07T15:30:24","date_gmt":"2026-03-07T10:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=377639"},"modified":"2026-03-07T16:03:47","modified_gmt":"2026-03-07T10:33:47","slug":"family-law-february-2026-roundup","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/family-law-february-2026-roundup\/","title":{"rendered":"Family Law February 2026 Roundup: Key Rulings on custody, alimony, adoption, succession, and more"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This Family Law February 2026 Roundup highlights key rulings including the Supreme Court’s reminder that custody must balance child welfare with parents’ financial capacity, the Delhi High Court’s transfer of custody to the father citing parental alienation, the Bombay High Court’s holding that adopted children inherit the caste of adoptive parents, and the Jharkhand High Court’s clarification that permanent alimony does not end a husband’s duty of support. Other decisions address maintenance, homemakers’ contributions, DNA testing, and compliance with the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937<\/a>, offering guidance on custody, marriage, maintenance, adoption, succession, and personal laws.<\/p>\n

HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH<\/p>\n

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE<\/p>\n

Gujarat’s Marriage Registration Amendment Bill: What the Bill Proposes<\/p>\n

On 19-2-2026, the Gujarat Registration of Marriages (Amendment) Bill, 2026 was introduced in the Gujarat Legislative Assembly, proposing structural changes to the marriage registration process, including revised procedures for filing the memorandum of marriage, late submissions, and the issuance of certificates. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

ADOPTION & GUARDIANSHIP<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Adopted child entitled to caste status of adoptive parents when biological parents unknown<\/p>\n

In a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a caste certificate issued in favour of an adopted child, the Division Bench of M.S. Karnik and S.M. Modak*, JJ., held that once a valid order of adoption is passed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000<\/a>, (‘Act of 2000’) and the biological parents of the child are unknown, the caste of the adopted child must be treated as the caste of the adoptive parents. The Court observed that the authorities failed to consider the legal effect of adoption and acted contrary to the statutory scheme. Accordingly, the orders cancelling the caste certificate were set aside and issuance of caste validity was directed. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

CUSTODY & CHILD WELFARE<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Child’s welfare paramount in custody disputes; but parents’ financial capacity, living standard, and education also matter<\/p>\n

In a custody dispute involving custody of two minor sons, the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal* and SVN Bhatti, JJ., emphasised that while the welfare of the children is undoubtedly the paramount consideration in custody matters, other child custody factors also carry weight in shaping the final order. These include the parents’ financial capacity, the standard of living, the children’s comfort, and their education. Accordingly, the High Court may not have been entirely correct in holding that such factors are of little relevance and that custody must depend solely on child’s welfare. The Court observed that the High Court had overlooked the material and crucial aspects while passing the impugned order. Thus, the Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and remanded the matter for reconsideration. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Delhi HC upholds custody transfer to father on ground of sustained “parental alienation” by mother<\/p>\n

In an appeal arises out of a protracted custody dispute between estranged spouses concerning their two minor children, further involving allegations and counter-allegations of matrimonial cruelty, parental alienation and abuse of legal process, the Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,* JJ., dismissed the matrimonial appeal and upheld the judgment of the Family Court directing that the custody of both minor children be handed over to the father, along with structured visitation and communication rights for the mother. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

FAMILY PROPERTY & SUCCESSION<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Supreme Court directs Mediation in long-standing property dispute between siblings; appoints Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia to oversee settlement<\/p>\n

In a Special Leave Petition (SPL) arising out of a long-standing property dispute between a brother and his sisters concerning a prime property in Hyderabad, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., appointed Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, former Judge of the Supreme Court, to act as Mediator between the parties and oversee the settlement. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT<\/span> | Read why Chhattisgarh HC upheld cancellation of gift deed to protect senior citizens from cruelty by nephew and daughter<\/p>\n

In a petition challenging the cancellation of the gift deed in favour of the petitioner was declared void, a Singh Judge Bench of Narendra Kumar Vyas, J., held that the conditions for providing basic amenities and care to the senior citizen executing the gift deed need not be explicitly written and may be implied and thus, dismissed the petition. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

MAINTENANCE & FINANCIAL SUPPORT<\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span> | Employment or earning of wife alone not a ground to deny maintenance<\/p>\n

Allahabad High Court: In a criminal revision filed by a husband against the Trial Court’s order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife, a Single Judge Bench of Madan Pal Singh, J., dismissed the revision, reiterating that mere employment or earning of the wife is, by itself, not a ground to deny maintenance. The Court held that the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court appeared to be just, reasonable, and commensurate with the status and earning capacity of the husband. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | A homemaker doesn’t ‘sit idle’; Law must acknowledge economic value of her unpaid contribution: Delhi HC grants interim maintenance to wife<\/p>\n

Delhi High Court: In revision petitions arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties and relating to the grant, denial and quantum of interim maintenance to the wife and the minor child under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a> (DV Act) and Section 125<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC), a Single Judge Bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, set aside the Magistrate’s and appellate court’s orders denying interim maintenance to the wife and upheld the Family Court’s order granting ₹50,000\/- per month to the wife, and ₹40,000\/- per month to the child as balanced and reasonable. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT<\/span> | Permanent alimony does not absolve husband’s sacrosanct duty of financial support: Jharkhand HC upholds Rs 24,000 maintenance under S. 125 CrPC<\/p>\n

Jharkhand High Court: While considering criminal revision petitions under Section 125<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a>, (‘CrPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., observed that the wife, who sought enhancement of maintenance, and the husband, who sought quashing of the order, were not entitled to relief. The Court emphasised that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are of a summary nature intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and held that the Family Court had rightly awarded Rs 24,000 per month in favour of the wife. The Court further underscored that permanent alimony does not absolve the husband’s sacrosanct duty of financial support, and accordingly dismissed both petitions. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

MARRIAGE & DIVORCE<\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | DNA test of a child permissible in divorce proceeding on ground of adultery<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the petitioner-wife, challenging the Jabalpur Family Court’s order directing a Deoxyribonucleic Acid (‘DNA’) test of a minor girl child in divorce proceedings to determine if the child is born out of wedlock, a Single Bench of Vivek Jain, J., held that where a divorce petition is founded on allegations of adultery and is supported by specific pleadings of non-access, ordering a DNA test to ascertain the if the grounds hold, does not violate the statutory presumption of legitimacy under the Evidence Act. The Court upheld the Family Court’s direction and dismissed the petition. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | “Invasion of privacy and humiliation”: Madhya Pradesh HC denies relief to husband who sought virginity test of his wife<\/p>\n

In a petition filed by the husband seeking virginity test of his wife to prove cruelty as she allegedly refused to have a physical relationship with him, the Bench of Vivek Jain, J., rejected the present petition, holding that the medical examination or virginity test would be nothing but invasion of privacy of the wife, which otherwise also was not a direct ground to seek divorce, and not essential to adjudicate on the issues arising in the present case. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | Wife’s convenience no longer paramount in matrimonial transfer petitions<\/p>\n

In a matrimonial transfer petition filed by a wife seeking transfer of case filed before Family Court of her husband’s jurisdiction, a Single Judge Bench of Deepak Khot, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the convenience of wife\/lady was no longer the paramount consideration for deciding the transfer applications and alternatives to transfer proceedings have been provided, like through video conferencing. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

PERSONAL LAWS<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Almost 9 Decades on, Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act still without Rules; Supreme Court seeks answer<\/p>\n

During the course of the hearing in a pending civil appeal, the Court’s attention was drawn to the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937<\/a>, particularly Section 4 and the absence of compliance with the said provision. The Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ., impleaded the Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Legislation, and the State of Uttar Pradesh through its Chief Secretary as party respondents and issued notice, so that the appropriate governmental authorities before it could clarify the position regarding compliance. Read more HERE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/h3>\n