The Delhi High Court dismissed a man’s plea seeking an Income Tax investigation into his wife’s family over a ₹2 crore dowry claim. The court ruled that the complaint arose from a marital dispute and did not violate any statutory rights.
The Kerala High Court ruled that a wife’s convenience should be prioritized in matrimonial dispute transfers. It moved a divorce case from Ernakulam to Thrissur, citing legal provisions and the need to avoid conflicting judgments.
A Mumbai court rejected a dentist wife’s request for ₹1 lakh maintenance from her husband, stating she is capable of finding a job. The court granted ₹20,000 monthly maintenance for their two children.
The Allahabad High Court criticized the misuse of mediation in matrimonial disputes, where the wife’s parents prioritized collecting the husband’s deposit over resolving conflicts. The Court issued guidelines to prevent such practices.
Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, advised a highly qualified woman to seek a mutual consent divorce to avoid a long legal battle. He also encouraged her to find a job, given her strong academic background, emphasizing that lengthy disputes only benefit lawyers.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld a man’s divorce after his wife refused to live with his elderly mother and sister-in-law with mental health issues. The court ruled that her actions amounted to cruelty and granted the husband interim alimony, allowing the wife to claim permanent alimony later.
The Bombay High Court quashed a Section 498A IPC case filed by a judicial officer against her husband and in-laws, ruling that there was no evidence of cruelty or obstruction in the discharge of her judicial duties.
The Bombay High Court ruled that for an offense under Section 498A, a woman must prove continuous cruelty, quashing an FIR against elderly in-laws involved in a matrimonial dispute.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud urged a couple to settle their divorce by mutual consent, advising the woman to find a job and avoid a prolonged legal battle that would primarily benefit lawyers.
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 377 IPC after the husband paid ₹74 lakhs to settle all disputes with his wife. The court highlighted the importance of letting both parties move forward with their lives.
