The Madras High Court has ruled that a wife and children from a second marriage are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, even if the first marriage is still legally valid. This decision came as the court dismissed a petition challenging a Family Court’s order for maintenance.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that not having a physical relationship after marriage does not amount to cruelty under IPC 498A but may be grounds for annulment under the Hindu Marriage Act due to non-consummation.
The Kerala High Court ruled that a mother’s societal morality does not necessarily impact her ability to provide for her child’s welfare, granting shared custody in a case where the family court had favored the father.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that live-in relationships are not legally recognized as marriages. Couples living together through an agreement cannot seek divorce under the Special Marriage Act if their union is not legally formalized.
The Karnataka High Court directed the police to ensure a mother hands over custody of her child to the father and ordered her employer to withhold her pay for failing to comply with a judicial order.
The Kerala High Court clarified that live-in relationships are not recognized as marriages by law, and couples in such arrangements cannot seek divorce under the Special Marriage Act or personal law.
The Kerala High Court emphasized that family courts must establish clear time frames for case disposal when a party requests timely resolution, ensuring swift justice in family disputes.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a man can seek divorce on grounds of mental cruelty if his wife unjustly forces him to live apart from his parents, a practice rooted in Indian culture.
The Bombay High Court denied a woman’s request to dismiss her husband’s divorce appeal after she remarried during the appeal period, citing the Hindu Marriage Act’s restrictions on remarriage.
The Karnataka High Court granted child custody to a father, citing the mother’s neglect due to her illicit relationship. The court emphasized that the child’s welfare should always be the priority in custody cases.
