The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a man in a live-in relationship without legally ending his previous marriage may be committing the offence of bigamy under IPC Sections 494 and 495.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a woman cannot claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act if she is living in an adulterous relationship, citing clear evidence of extramarital affairs.
The Supreme Court refused to grant divorce to an 89-year-old man from his 82-year-old wife, saying that irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be a fixed rule and considering the wife’s willingness to care for her husband.
The Kerala High Court ruled that a wife’s inability to cook or her attempt to seek help from her husband’s employer to save the marriage does not amount to cruelty. The Court rejected the husband’s divorce plea and upheld the wife’s right to restore conjugal rights.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a husband’s financial instability, along with failed efforts to earn and resulting abusive behavior, can cause mental cruelty to the wife. The court granted divorce on these grounds.
The Bombay High Court stated that a second marriage while the first marriage is still valid amounts not only to bigamy but also rape if done under false promises, and rejected a plea to dismiss the FIR.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a woman’s earning does not disqualify her from receiving maintenance. If her income is insufficient to maintain the lifestyle she had during marriage, the husband must provide support.
The Supreme Court has implemented a two-month cooling-off period before arrests in Section 498A IPC cases. The aim is to reduce false dowry complaints and allow families a chance for reconciliation. This decision follows the Allahabad High Court’s 2022 directives.
A Pune man approached the court to file a rape case against his wife, accusing her of hiding her previous marriage. He claimed his consent for sexual relations was based on her false claim of being unmarried.
The Supreme Court criticized a woman for demanding ₹12 crore, a Mumbai flat, and a luxury BMW in alimony despite being highly educated. The court emphasized that educated individuals should work and not rely on large maintenance claims.
