The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a husband’s false allegations of adultery and doubts about his wife’s character amount to mental cruelty. The court overturned the divorce and imposed ₹10,000 in costs on the husband.
The Supreme Court ordered the sale of six shops owned by a man’s father to clear maintenance dues of Rs 1.25 crore owed to his wife after he abandoned her and remarried abroad.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a woman cannot claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act if she is living in an adulterous relationship, citing clear evidence of extramarital affairs.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a woman’s earning does not disqualify her from receiving maintenance. If her income is insufficient to maintain the lifestyle she had during marriage, the husband must provide support.
The Madras High Court ruled that even if a marriage is not legally valid, a woman and her child from that relationship are still entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if they lived as a family.
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 Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a husband, even if unemployed or a professional beggar, is legally and morally bound to support his wife if she cannot support herself. The Court upheld a ₹5,000 monthly maintenance order passed by a lower court.
The Madras High Court cancelled a Family Court order that asked a wife to pay interim maintenance to her husband. The Court ruled that the husband was not incapacitated and was financially capable of supporting himself.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a husband must earn more if he cannot afford court-ordered maintenance. The Court emphasized that legal, social, and economic duties require men to support their wife and children, even if they face other financial obligations.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a mother, as the natural guardian of her child, can decide the child’s surname, especially after remarriage. The court also criticized a lower court’s directive as harmful to the child’s well-being.
