The Delhi High Court upheld a Family Court’s decision to grant divorce to a wife, emphasizing the importance of both spouses in maintaining family stability and highlighting issues of mental cruelty and non-compliance with maintenance orders.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a man’s financial support for his divorced sister should be considered when determining maintenance amounts. This decision highlights the importance of family obligations and the unique circumstances of each case.
The Bombay High Court ruled that women have the right to choose whether to work or stay at home, even if they are educated. This decision came during a hearing on a maintenance case.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that an able-bodied man with the capacity to earn cannot seek permanent alimony from his wife, upholding a lower court’s decision.
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that Section 498-A IPC cannot be used as a weapon for personal vendetta against in-laws. The court emphasized that false allegations by a spouse amount to mental cruelty, affecting the social standing and future prospects of the accused.
The Delhi High Court condemned the practice of husbands forcing their wives to file execution petitions to delay maintenance payments. Justice Asha Menon highlighted the malafide intentions and egoistic tendencies behind such actions.
The Karnataka High Court granted a divorce to a woman after determining that her husband treated her as a “cash cow,” causing significant mental cruelty. The court highlighted the husband’s materialistic attitude and lack of emotional connection.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that in matrimonial cases, the husband’s convenience should be prioritized if he has custody of the minor children, ensuring he isn’t forced to attend proceedings far from his residence.
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 Bombay High Court highlights the need for greater protection for women, considering them a weaker section of society. The court prioritized the wife’s safety and convenience by transferring a restitution petition.
