The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that when a husband has custody of minor children, his convenience should be prioritized in matrimonial cases. The Court rejected the wife’s request to transfer the case, ensuring the husband’s responsibility for travel expenses.
The Karnataka High Court granted a divorce, ruling that treating a wife as a “cash cow” constitutes mental cruelty. This decision came after the wife provided evidence of financial exploitation by her husband, leading to emotional distress.
Justice Asha Menon of the Delhi High Court criticized husbands for forcing their wives to file execution petitions to delay maintenance payments, highlighting their malicious intent and neglect towards family responsibilities.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a wife forcing her husband to live in a separate room is considered cruelty. The court granted divorce to the husband, stating that such behavior impacts the husband’s mental and physical well-being.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that fathers cannot deny maintenance to their daughters based on glamorous social media pictures. The court emphasized that such images are not reliable proof of financial independence and ordered the father to continue paying support.
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that unproven allegations of impotency by a wife against her husband amount to cruelty. The court dissolved the marriage, citing the husband’s mental distress caused by the false claims, and awarded the wife alimony.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a husband cannot seek divorce simply because he wants to care for his parents, emphasizing the importance of marital responsibilities.
The Delhi High Court ruled that occasional acts of adultery by a wife do not disqualify her from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) of the CrPC.
In a landmark ruling, the Rajasthan High Court allowed a married woman to live with her lover, emphasizing that an adult woman’s choices must be respected. The court dismissed a petition filed by her husband, affirming her right to decide.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphasized that the term “wife” should be interpreted broadly for maintenance purposes, even in cases where a marriage might be legally invalid. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar clarified that a relationship “in the nature of marriage” is sufficient for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, and the subsistence of a previous marriage does not bar such claims. The court has remanded the matter to determine the maintenance amount.
