The Supreme Court recently emphasized that marriage is not a casual commitment, urging a couple to attempt mediation. The court refused to invoke Article 142 to dissolve the marriage, stating the relationship had not irretrievably broken down.
The Delhi High Court ruled that rejecting a maintenance application in divorce proceedings does not prevent a wife from seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as the provision is distinct in its scope and purpose.
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 Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that minor differences between a husband and wife do not amount to cruelty. Overturning a Family Court’s divorce decree, the court emphasized that marriages need time to grow, and couples cannot expect immediate change.
The Delhi High Court has clarified that a wife can still seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even if her maintenance application is rejected in a divorce case. The Court ruled that the husband’s payment of school fees does not eliminate his obligation to provide maintenance.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a spouse who can earn but chooses to stay unemployed should not place the burden of maintenance on their partner. The court reduced the maintenance amount from ₹30,000 to ₹21,000 and set provisions for future adjustments.
The Karnataka High Court ordered a husband to pay Rs 25,000 to his wife for litigation expenses, allowing her to engage an advocate and contest the divorce proceedings initiated by him.
The Delhi High Court ruled that rejecting a maintenance application in a divorce case doesn’t prevent a wife from seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, emphasizing her rights despite divorce proceedings.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a divorce decree, ruling that minor differences between spouses do not constitute cruelty. Discover the details of this significant case.
The Uttarakhand High Court fined a husband for misleading his wife to sign divorce summons. The court ruled that the husband acted unfairly by living with his wife during the divorce process and obtaining an ex-parte divorce.
