The Kerala High Court has held that a divorced wife cannot stay in her ex-husband’s home by claiming it as a shared household. The ruling confirmed that eviction orders by a civil court cannot be overridden post-divorce.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that falsely accusing a husband of having an illicit relationship with his own mother is mental cruelty. The court granted the husband a divorce and ordered a monthly maintenance of ₹35,000 for the wife.
The Kerala High Court ruled that a live-in relationship is not legally considered a marriage, and couples living together under an agreement cannot seek divorce under Indian marriage laws.
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a husband has no right to demand his wife’s private information like call records or passwords, stressing that marriage does not override the right to privacy under Article 21.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a wife who lives apart from her husband without a valid reason is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the CrPC. The court set aside a family court order granting maintenance and asked for a fresh hearing.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a man cannot escape his responsibility to pay maintenance to his estranged wife and children, even if he is facing financial difficulties. The court said this is both a moral and legal duty.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a wife cannot stop her husband from selling a flat if he offers similar accommodation nearby. The court said the wife has no right to stay in a specific property if her lifestyle is maintained.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that WhatsApp chats, even if collected without the wife’s permission, can be used as evidence in a family court case. The Court said that relevance of evidence is more important than how it was collected, especially in matters of public justice.
The Uttarakhand High Court held that parties in a mutual consent divorce can be represented through a power of attorney under the Hindu Marriage Act. It overturned the Family Court’s earlier refusal.
The Supreme Court ruled that an able-bodied husband is legally required to earn through legitimate means and provide maintenance to his wife and child. The judgment emphasized that such responsibility cannot be avoided.
