Though husband paid EMIs, property could not be treated as stridhan but was a joint acquisition. Flat was registered jointly, Under Section 4, Benami Act, husband cannot claim exclusive ownership. Wife entitled to 50% share of proceeds.
| Posted on: October 3, 2025 |
FIR alleging rape on the pretext of marriage should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) because the circumstances indicated that the criminal proceedings were mala fide and instituted for vengeance.
| Posted on: October 2, 2025 |
Even where a wife has accepted a full and final settlement at the time of divorce, such settlement cannot bar the independent and statutory right of a minor child to claim maintenance from the father.
| Posted on: October 1, 2025 |
Comparative Note: Sanjay D. Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2025) in light of Bhajan Lal (1990) and Digambar (2024) Introduction The Supreme Court’s decision in…
| Posted on: September 28, 2025 |
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act can be sustained against the brother-in-law where the FIR contains only vague, omnibus allegations without specific details of cruelty or demand of dowry.
| Posted on: September 25, 2025 |
Wife though qualified in law but without sufficient income is entitled to maintenance according to husband’s status. Mere educational qualification not bar unless adequate income proved. Husband’s remarriage constitutes just ground for wife to reside separately and claim maintenance. Major unmarried daughter entitled to maintenance till marriage under S.20(3) HAMA notwithstanding majority
| Posted on: September 22, 2025 |
This decision marks an important shift in Indian tort jurisprudence by affirming the maintainability of civil claims for alienation of affection, a cause of action long recognised in theory but never squarely tested in civil proceedings. While the Court has cautiously limited its ruling to the threshold of maintainability, the recognition that personal autonomy in intimate matters does not exclude civil liability for wrongful third-party interference could pave the way for an expansion of tort remedies into the marital sphere. However, concerns remain over evidentiary burdens, the quantification of damages, and the potential for such claims to be misused as collateral litigation in matrimonial disputes. The case thus opens a new, albeit contested, frontier in the intersection of family law and tort law in India.
| Posted on: September 22, 2025 |
The Gujarat High Court held that a marriage solemnized in India under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) can only be dissolved in accordance with the provisions of the HMA, irrespective of subsequent acquisition of foreign citizenship or domicile. A foreign divorce decree based on grounds not recognized under Indian law (such as irretrievable breakdown) cannot be treated as conclusive under Section 13 CPC. Accordingly, the rejection of the wife’s suits under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, one seeking restitution of conjugal rights and another challenging the validity of an Australian divorce decree, was set aside, affirming that matrimonial status must be adjudicated by Family Courts in India.
| Posted on: September 8, 2025 |
The Supreme Court of India in A. Ranjithkumar v. E. Kavitha [1] reaffirmed its power to dissolve marriages on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, despite the absence of such a statutory provision in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to bring finality to a matrimonial dispute that had dragged on for more than a decade. The judgment is significant both for its equitable balancing of competing interests and for its reiteration of judicial creativity in family law.
| Posted on: August 20, 2025 |
The provisions of the HSA, 1956 have to be harmonised with the mandate in Section 16(3) of the HMA, 1955 which indicates that a child who is conferred with legitimacy under sub-sections (1) and (2) will not be entitled to rights in or to the property of any person other than the parents. The property of the parent, where the parent had an interest in the property of a joint Hindu family governed under the Mitakshara law has to be ascertained in terms of the Explanation to sub-section (3), as interpreted above
| Posted on: March 10, 2024 |