The government has initiated the process of amending the IPC, CrPC, and Indian Evidence Act to implement comprehensive legal reforms. This move aims to provide affordable and speedy justice, involving extensive consultations with various stakeholders.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a wife cannot claim her husband’s self-acquired property in lieu of unpaid maintenance due to a lack of evidence proving neglect. Read the full details of the case.
The Kerala High Court ruled that remarrying while a divorce appeal is pending does not constitute bigamy, provided the appeal is later dismissed. The decision clarifies legal standing on subsequent marriages during pending appeals.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a wife’s demand for a separate house and her filing of a criminal case do not constitute “cruelty” for divorce purposes.
The Gujarat High Court rejected a father’s petition for custody of his children, finding no evidence that the mother’s alleged extramarital affairs harmed the children.
The Bombay High Court has upheld a lower court’s decision requiring a woman to pay monthly alimony to her estranged husband. The court also instructed the headmaster of her school to deduct unpaid maintenance from her salary.
In November 2019, the Karnataka High Court upheld a divorce granted to a man who submitted video evidence of his wife’s adultery, recorded while he was away. The court emphasized the legitimacy of the evidence and dismissed the wife’s appeal.
The Supreme Court ruled that alimony must be reasonable and realistic, emphasizing that its purpose is not to punish but to ensure financial stability for the spouse after a failed marriage.
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that refusing mental health treatment for the sake of a harmonious marriage constitutes cruelty to a spouse. The court dismissed a woman’s appeal against a divorce decree granted on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that husbands can claim alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court emphasized that this provision is intended to benefit indigent spouses, regardless of gender.
