alimony
The Supreme Court has encouraged a Bengaluru couple, both software engineers, to reconsider their decision to divorce, suggesting they give their marriage a second chance due to a lack of time devoted to their relationship.
The Delhi High Court has called for curbing false rape charges in matrimonial cases, highlighting concerns over allegations that are later settled, following a recent case involving a husband and his family.
In a rare case, a Pune family court has ordered a 78-year-old woman to pay Rs 25,000 per month as alimony to her 83-year-old husband. The couple, who have been married for 55 years, are seeking a divorce amid allegations of harassment and infidelity.
A Delhi court has ruled that a qualified woman should not rely on alimony alone and must seek employment. The court emphasized that financial independence is crucial, even if the woman has the capacity to earn.
A Delhi district court has ruled that a woman should seek employment instead of depending on alimony from her estranged husband. The decision underscores the importance of financial independence in divorce cases.
A Delhi court has ruled that an unemployed husband can still be required to pay maintenance to his wife. The court affirmed that losing a job does not relieve a husband of his duty to support his spouse, highlighting that he should still contribute financially.
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.
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 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.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that occasional acts of adultery by a wife do not disqualify her from receiving maintenance after divorce, emphasizing that only repeated and cohabitating acts of adultery are grounds for denial.
