{"id":383673,"date":"2026-05-09T12:00:19","date_gmt":"2026-05-09T06:30:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=383673"},"modified":"2026-05-09T10:42:00","modified_gmt":"2026-05-09T05:12:00","slug":"family-and-personal-law-april-roundup-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/09\/family-and-personal-law-april-roundup-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Family and Personal Law April 2026: SC Quashes 80+ Litigations; HC Invokes “Ardhangini” to Appoint Wife as Guardian, Bars RTI for Spousal Tax Details and More"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The April 2026 Roundup on Family and Personal Law gives an insight into how the family and personal law evolved in the month, through various judgments and rulings. The Courts pronounced judgments on various facets of family and personal law such as custody of children where multiple courts pronounced on the issue of custodial and visitation rights, right of maintenance of wife and parents-in-law, law related to marriage in the context of polygamy under muslim personal law, divorce and other matrimonial disputes. Moreover, a significant ruling related to Civil Court’s jurisdiction related to succession of the spiritual office of a waqf institution was also given by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Civil Court Can Decide Appointment of Sajjadanashin in Waqf Institutions<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a long-standing dispute related to the succession to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah, (popularly known as the “Big Makan”) situated at Channapatna, Ramanagara District, where the Karnataka High Court by common judgment dated 16 December 2024 set aside concurrent findings of the trial court and First Appellate Court on the ground that civil courts lacked inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to the office of Sajjadanashin of a notified wakf institution as such jurisdiction was exclusively vested in the Wakf Board, the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., set aside the impugned judgment of High Court and restored the concurrent findings of the trial court and First Appellate Court, holding that civil court has jurisdiction to decide appointment of Sajjadanashin of Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah.<\/span><\/p>\n

[Syed Mohd. Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohd. Adil Pasha Khadri, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 518, decided on 2-4-2026]<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read<\/span>:<\/span> Succession to office of Sajjadanashin governed by custom and valid nomination, not mere lineal inheritance: Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>\n

CUSTODY OF CHILDREN<\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span>|<\/span> Child’s Right to Stay with Mother is a Civilizational Norm, Not Just a Modern Legal Construct<\/span><\/p>\n

In a writ petition of habeas corpus, filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, for production and custody of the minor children, a Division Bench of Vijay Kumar Shukla and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ., refused to enforce the foreign court order granting the custody of minor children to petitioner father, considering the “welfare” and “best interest” of the minor children. The Court held that the custody cannot be handed over to the petitioner father on the basis of a foreign decree as the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration.<\/p>\n

[Ankur Joshi v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine MP 6298, decided on 20-4-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span> Here<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/span>:<\/span> SC stays Andhra Pradesh HC’s order granting 4.5-year-old child’s custody to father and allowing to take him back to USA<\/a><\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span>|<\/span> Father’s Forceful Custody of Minor Does Not Amount to Illegal Detention<\/span><\/p>\n

In a habeas corpus writ petition filed seeking production of children alleging forceful custody by father, the Single Judge Bench of Anil Kumar-X, J., held that such petitions are not maintainable in ordinary inter-parental custody disputes unless the custody is shown to be illegal or without authority of law. Finding no exceptional circumstance to warrant interference, the Court dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n

[Anjali Devi v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 2865, decided on 10-4-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span> Here<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/span>: Gujarat High Court quashes rigid custody & visitation directions; Reiterates need for humane and child-centric approach<\/a><\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span>|<\/span> Grants Custody of Infant Child after Mother’s Death to Father, Said Child’s Overall Development outweighs Relative Care<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a habeas corpus writ petition filed by the father seeking custody of infant child after the mother’s death, the Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Jain, J., granted custody to the father with visitation rights to the maternal relatives., holding that the father, being the natural guardian, is the most suitable person for custody and denying custody at this stage may result in the child growing up without any emotional attachment to the father, which would be detrimental to the child’s overall development.<\/span><\/p>\n

[Akshit Pandey v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 3131, decided on 21-4-2026]<\/span><\/p>\n

Read More<\/span><\/span> Here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/span>:<\/span> Mother is natural guardian after father’s death unless proven unfit or adversely interested: Bombay HC<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span>|<\/span> Clarifies applicability of personal law and general law in custody matters, Said Section 6 Guardianship and Wards Act applies to Muslims<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a writ of habeas corpus filed by a mother seeking production of her children from her husband, the Single Judge Bench of Anil Kumar-X, J., dismissed the petition, holding that it would be appropriate for her to avail the remedy before the Family Court concerned, which is duly empowered to examine all aspects relating to guardianship and custody and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Court also held that Section 6<\/a>, Guardians and Wards Act (GWA), 1890<\/a>, or rather the entire Act, does apply to Muslims as it does not contain any provision excluding such applicability.<\/span><\/p>\n

[Rizwana v. State of UP, 2026 SCC OnLine All 1318, decided on 25-3-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span> Here<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/span>: ‘Child’s welfare has upper hand over personal law’; Bombay High Court grants custody of 9-year-old minor to the mother<\/a><\/p>\n

GUJARAT HIGH COURT<\/span>|<\/span> Quashes rigid custody & visitation directions; Reiterates need for humane and child-centric approach<\/span><\/p>\n

While hearing this writ petition seeking setting aside of orders (impugned orders) whereby, on a pursis not seeking any substantive relief, the Family Court granted visitation rights and directed the petitioner—mother to remain present with two and half-year-old child every Thursday for specified hours, along with other ancillary directions, the Single Judge Bench of J.C. Doshi, J., took note of the impractical and rigid conditions and held that such orders amounted to an overreach of jurisdiction and reflected a failure to adopt a child-centric approach. Emphasising that custody matters require a “sensitive, humane and child-centric approach”, the Court held the directions to be unjustified and contrary to the welfare of the minor child, and accordingly quashed and set aside the impugned orders.<\/p>\n

[Mansiben v. Keshavjibhai Damjibhai Ghetiya, 2026 SCC OnLine Guj 1276, decided on 23-3-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More Here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Father’S Forceful Custody Of Minor Does Not Amount To Illegal Detention: Allahabad High Court<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

KERALA HIGH COURT<\/span>|<\/span> Mother placing child in hostel meant for orphans not in his best interests<\/span><\/p>\n

In a habeas corpus petition claiming custody of a minor who was placed in a hostel by the mother after her second marriage despite the willingness of the biological father to take care, the Division Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and K.V. Jayakumar, JJ., while allowing the writ petition, entrusted the child’s custody to the father holding that placing the child in a hostel meant for orphans by the mother was not in his best interests. The Court also directed the District Child Protection Officer to conduct periodic inspections to monitor the child’s well-being.<\/span><\/p>\n

[X v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 3988, decided on 30-3-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More Here<\/a><\/p>\n

GUARDIANSHIP<\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span>|<\/span> Mother can Sell Minor’s HUF Property Share for Welfare<\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal filed by a mother who was denied permission to sell her minor daughter’s share in the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property for her higher education, the Single Bench of Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J., allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant being the natural guardian under Section 6<\/a>, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956<\/a> (HMGA) can act as a manager of the joint family property and sell the share of the minor girl for her welfare.<\/p>\n

[Doli v. Shakuntla Devi, 2026 SCC OnLine All 1156, decided on 23-3-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More Here<\/a><\/p>\n

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span>| Invokes “Ardhangini” concept to appoint wife as guardian of comatose husband<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a writ petition concerning appointment of a guardian for a person in a comatose state, seeking invocation of the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction in the absence of any statutory mechanism governing such situations, the Single Judge Bench of Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J., held that where an individual was incapable of managing his affairs due to a vegetative condition, the spouse would be the most appropriate person to act as guardian. Invoking the ancient Indian philosophical concept of “Ardhangini”, the Court appointed the petitioner-wife as the legal guardian for the limited purpose of operating the bank account of her husband to meet his medical expenses, subject to safeguards and periodic judicial oversight.<\/span><\/p>\n

[Singavaram Nagamma v. State of A.P., 2026 SCC OnLine AP 914, decided on 6-4-2026]<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read:<\/span> Uttaranchal HC appoints wife as her husband’s guardian who is in a comatose state<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MAINTENANCE<\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span>| Deliberate non-employment by qualified wife to burden husband is a ground to deny maintenance<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

In a first appeal filed by the appellant wife against the order of the trial court partly rejecting their application for maintenance, the Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan and Vivek Saran, JJ., dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant-wife, being an MD (gynaecologist), was fully capable of maintaining herself and thus not entitled to maintenance under Section 24<\/a>, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> (HMA), reaffirming that a qualified wife is not entitled to maintenance where she is able to sustain herself.<\/p>\n

[Dr Garima Dubey v. Dr Saurabh Anand Dubey, 2026 SCC OnLine All 3354, decided on 21-4-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span> Here<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> “Attempt to Extract Pound of Flesh From Husband”: Madhya Pradesh HC Denies Maintenance to Wife Earning Over Rs 1 Lakh a Month<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/span>: Trial Court should consider earning capacity of both parents while determining maintenance: Allahabad High Court<\/a><\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span>|<\/span> Denies Maintenance to Wife Earning Over Rs 1 Lakh a Month, Called it an “Attempt to Extract Pound of Flesh From Husband”<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition filed against the order whereby the Family Court denied maintenance to the wife, citing her income and no responsibilities, the Single Judge Bench of Vivek Jain, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the wife had no child to maintain and there was no such financial disparity between the couple. The Court held that there was no error in the jurisdiction or reasoning in the impugned order because as per admitted income of the wife, her monthly income would be Rs 1.66 lakhs, and even if it had been reduced, it would still be 1.25 lakhs<\/p>\n

[N v. R, 2026 SCC OnLine MP 5790, decided on 31-3-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span> Here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/span>:<\/span> Deliberate Non-Employment By Qualified Wife To Burden Husband: Ground To Deny Maintenance: Allahabad HC<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span>| No liability of maintenance upon daughter-in-law towards parents-in-law<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

While considering a criminal revision challenging the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court whereby the application filed by the parents-in-law seeking maintenance from daughter-in-law was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Madan Pal Singh, J., held that the concept of moral obligation seems compelling, however, cannot be enforced as a legal obligation in the absence of a statutory mandate. The Court dismissed the revision at hand and stated that it was not the scheme of the legislature to fasten liability of maintenance upon a daughter-in-law towards her parents-in-law under the said provision.<\/p>\n

[Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 1482, decided on 4-2-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span> Here<\/a><\/p>\n

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT<\/span>|<\/span> Trial Court should consider earning capacity of both parents while determining maintenance<\/span><\/p>\n

While considering a revision challenging the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court whereby application filed by the father seeking impleadment of the mother of the minor child as a party in the proceedings was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Madan Pal Singh, J., dismissed the revision, however, directed the trial court to consider the financial status and earning capacity of both parent while determining the quantum of maintenance.<\/p>\n

[Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 1683, decided on 10-3-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More Here<\/a><\/p>\n

MARRIAGE<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | <\/span>Invokes Art. 142 to quash 80+ litigations filed by lawyer-husband; grants divorce with ₹5 crore settlement<\/span><\/p>\n

In a long-drawn, bitter matrimonial strife, resulting into multiplicity of litigations instituted across various courts and forums, whereby the wife filed an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court’s order dismissing appellant-wife’s petition seeking expeditious disposal of execution proceedings for recovery of maintenance arrears, invoking Article 142, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., quashed the 80+ vexatious and vindictive litigation including proceedings against wife, her relatives and even her advocates filed by the lawyer husband. The Court dissolved the marriage between the parties, granted custody of both children to the wife, with structured visitation rights to the father and awarded a consolidated sum of ₹5 crores to the wife towards permanent alimony, maintenance, child support, and litigation expenses, payable within one year. The Court further restrained the husband from initiating further litigation against the wife, her relatives, or her lawyers.<\/p>\n

[XXX v. YYY, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 544, decided on 7-4-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span> Here<\/a><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span>| Dissolves Marriage under Art. 142; Party Cannot Back Out from Mediated Settlement Without Valid Grounds<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

In a civil appeal arising out of matrimonial disputes, a Division Bench of Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., exercised its powers under Article 142(1)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and quashed the domestic violence proceedings initiated by the wife. The Court held that while withdrawal of consent in mutual divorce is permissible, a party cannot resile from a duly executed settlement agreement except on limited grounds such as force, fraud, undue influence, or non-fulfilment of obligations.<\/span><\/p>\n

Emphasising that vague and unsubstantiated allegations cannot sustain criminal prosecution under the Domestic Violence Act, the Court termed the proceedings as an abuse of process of law and an afterthought to prolong litigation. Noting prolonged separation, failure of settlement despite partial compliance, and multiplicity of proceedings, the Court concluded that the matrimonial bond had irretrievably broken down and granted divorce subject to compliance with the remaining settlement terms, while directing closure of all pending and future litigations between the parties.<\/span><\/p>\n

[Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 587, decided on 13-4-2026]<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Also Read<\/span>:<\/span> Supreme Court: Article 142 of Indian Constitution and Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage | SCC Blog<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/span>:<\/span> Mutual Consent Divorce under Hindu Law: Cooling-Off Period and Withdrawal of Consent | SCC Blog<\/a><\/p>\n

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span>|<\/span> Grants declaration to man that woman is not his wife as neither an unproven local custom nor brief cohabitation can confer status of valid marriage<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a second appeal on the limits of customary marriage and the presumption arising from cohabitation, a Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., held that neither an unproven local custom nor brief cohabitation could confer the status of a valid marriage. The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below which had presumed a lawful marriage between the parties and observed that in the absence of proof of an ancient and binding custom and long cohabitation, Defendant 1 had no legal right to project herself as the plaintiff’s wife. The Court consequently granted a declaration negating the alleged marriage and restrained the defendants from making false claims of marital status or entering in the plaintiff’s house.<\/p>\n

[Kailash Chand v. Deepa Devi, RSA No. 173 of 2008, decided on 9-4-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span> Here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Live-in Relationships in India: What Rights Does a Woman Really Have?<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span>|<\/span> Second marriage by Muslim man not bigamy under Section 494<\/a> IPC<\/a>, as Muslim Personal Law permits polygamy<\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition filed by a Muslim man seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him by his first wife, the Single Judge Bench of B.P. Sharma, J., partly allowed the petition, holding that a second marriage contracted by a Muslim male would not be void under Section 494<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC) merely on the ground that the first marriage is still subsisting as Muslim personal law permits plurality of marriages.<\/p>\n

[Mohd. Arif Ahmad Jahagir Khan v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine MP 3553, decided on 18-03-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More Here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RIGHT TO INFORMATION<\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span>| Wife Cannot Use RTI to Access Husband’s Income Tax Details in Matrimonial Disputes as it is not in “Larger Public Interest”<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by the husband-petitioner challenging the order dated 22 July 2021 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in a second appeal, directing disclosure of the petitioner’s net taxable income from the Financial Year 2007—2008 onwards, the Single Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., set aside the impugned order, holding that wife cannot use RTI to access husband’s income details. The Court held that personal financial information, including income details and tax returns, constitutes “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j)<\/a>, Right to Information Act, 2005<\/a> (RTI Act) and matrimonial disputes do not constitute “larger public interest”, therefore exempted from disclosure under the Act.<\/p>\n

[Kapil Agarwal v. CPIO Income Tax Officer, Moradabad, W.P.(C) 8481\/2021, decided on 28-4-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More Here<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> ‘Maintenance has to be proportionate to children’s needs & not husband’s income’: Bombay HC dismisses wife’s claim of Rs 1 lakh per child<\/a><\/p>\n

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

SECTION 498-A RPC MISUSE<\/p>\n

JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT<\/span>|<\/span> Quashed FIR stating that the Husband’s Girlfriend or concubine not a “relative” under S. 498-A RPC<\/p>\n

While considering petitions seeking quashment of charges under Sections 498-A and 506, Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (RPC), arising out of a matrimonial dispute, a Single Judge Bench of Shahzad Azeem, J., held that the allegations of cruelty, harassment or dowry demand were wholesale and omnibus and the continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. The Court further held that a woman alleged to be a girlfriend or concubine does not fall within the definition of “relative” under Section 498-A RPC and cannot be prosecuted thereunder. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and the order framing charges.<\/p>\n

[Mela Ram v. State (UT of J&K), 2026 SCC OnLine J&K 237, decided on 16-4-2026]<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span> Here<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/span>: Bom HC: Dowry remarks, ignoring affair, advice to tolerate abuse not cruelty<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read<\/span>: Section 498-A IPC: A Double-Edged Sword — Protecting Dignity or Enabling Misuse? Supreme Court Rulings explored<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/h3>\n