In a progressive ruling, Supreme Court held that a wife’s pursuit of professional goals cannot be branded as "matrimonial cruelty," even if it hurts the sentiments of her spouse.

Setting aside a lower court's findings against a woman dentist, the bench criticized the "archaic" assumption that a woman’s identity is a mere appendage to her husband's.

The Bench emphasized that 21st-century marriage must respect individual autonomy and mutual aspirations.

While the Court upheld the divorce due to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, it expunged all allegations of cruelty, affirming that professional success is a right, not a marital offense.

[Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lt. Col. Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt]

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a fresh plea in the bitter legal battle over the estate of late businessman Sunjay Kapur.

The Court remarked that the high-stakes feud between Kapur’s mother, Rani, and his wife, Priya, makes the "Mahabharat look small."

The Court had previously appointed former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud as a mediator to find an amicable settlement. However, Rani Kapur alleged that recent corporate moves, including appointing new directors to a key investment arm, are attempts to circumvent mediation.

The Bench will hear the matter on May 14 to address claims of forged documents and fraudulent property transfers within the family trust.

The Telangana High Court condoned a delay of 3358 days in filing proceedings relating to a specific performance dispute concerning payment of the balance sale consideration.

The Court observed that the dispute involved valuable property rights and noted that procedural delays should not automatically prevent a party from pursuing a claim if sufficient reasons are shown.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that the matter deserved to be decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds of limitation.

Accordingly, the delay was condoned and the matter was permitted to proceed further.

[Shaik Abdul Khader v. G Anil Dutt Kamble]

The Bombay High Court allowed Reliance Industries to cure defects in the pleadings of its commercial suit seeking an injunction against the Punjabi film "Carry On Jatta 4". 

The company had approached the Court alleging infringement of its rights and sought interim relief against the film’s release and exploitation.

During the hearing, the Court noted defects in the plaint and permitted Reliance Industries to rectify them instead of rejecting the suit at the threshold.

The matter was accordingly adjourned to enable the plaintiff to file corrected pleadings and comply with procedural requirements before further consideration of interim reliefs.

[Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Panorama Studios International Ltd.]

The Delhi High Court held that long-term permissive use of a property by a family member does not create any ownership or legal right over the property.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed an appeal filed by a woman and her husband who refused to vacate a flat owned by her brother, claiming it was purchased through joint family funds.

The Court noted that the registered sale deed clearly established the brother’s exclusive ownership and that merely residing in the property with family permission could not confer legal entitlement.

It further held that no ownership claim could succeed without specifically challenging the validity of the sale deed.

[Ms. Anju Chadha & Anr. v. Bhavesh Madan & Ors.]

The Karnataka High Court Division Bench refused to grant divorce to a husband on the ground of mental cruelty, holding that mere allegations unsupported by independent witnesses or documentary evidence are insufficient to dissolve a marriage.

The Court observed that claims of harassment, abusive behaviour, and mental agony must be substantiated through reliable material evidence rather than vague assertions.

It noted that the husband failed to produce corroborative documents, medical records, complaints, or testimony from independent witnesses supporting his allegations against the wife.

Stressing that matrimonial disputes require careful judicial scrutiny, the Bench held that cruelty cannot be presumed solely on the basis of unverified accusations.

[Sudha v. Rajsakar Nelli]

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed against filmmaker Boney Kapoor and his daughters Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor over a property purchased by late actor Sridevi on Chennai’s East Coast Road.

Justice T.V. Thamilselvi termed the claim “vexatious” and held that the cause of action raised by the plaintiffs was unsustainable in law. The dispute related to nearly 4.77 acres of land allegedly purchased by Sridevi in 1988.

The Kapoor family had approached the High Court after a lower court refused to reject the plaint.

The High Court observed that the suit appeared to be an abuse of legal process aimed at grabbing the property.

[Boney Kapoor & Ors v. MC Sivakami & Ors.]

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation to ₹56.83 lakh for a 14-year-old boy who suffered 100% permanent disability in a road accident, observing that the earlier award failed to account for the lifelong impact of his injuries.

The boy had sustained severe head, neck, and spinal injuries after a motorcycle collided with a tractor trolley in Rajasthan in 2016, leaving him hospitalised for over 200 days.

While the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹7.76 lakh and the Rajasthan High Court increased it to ₹12.17 lakh, the Supreme Court held the compensation grossly inadequate and recalculated it using skilled worker minimum wages.

[Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an appeal by a highly qualified gynaecologist seeking interim maintenance from her neurosurgeon husband during divorce proceedings.

The Bench observed that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not intended to support spouses who voluntarily remain idle to burden their partners.

The Court noted that the wife possessed significant earning potential through her specialized expertise. Emphasizing that where a professional is capable of earning handsomely but refrains from doing so, courts can deny maintenance.

While spousal support was rejected, the husband remains liable for his children's monthly maintenance.

[Dr. Garima Dubey v. Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey]

The Bombay High Court disposed of a defamation suit filed by filmmaker Aditya Dhar against Santosh Kumar over allegations that the film Dhurandhar was copied from Kumar’s script D Saheb.

The Court closed the matter after Kumar tendered an unconditional apology for statements made during a press conference.

Accepting the apology, Dhar chose not to pursue damages, leading the Court to hold that nothing further survived in the suit.

However, the Court clarified that Kumar remains free to initiate appropriate legal proceedings to assert any independent claim over the script.

[Aditya Dhar v. Santosh Kumar & Anr.]

The Supreme Court ruled that compensation claims for medical negligence can be pursued against the legal heirs of a deceased doctor.

The Bench clarified that while personal liability for professional negligence does not pass to heirs, financial claims can be satisfied from the assets inherited by them.

The Court distinguished between personal injury claims, which may abate upon death, and claims involving financial liability against a person’s estate.

Under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, proceedings survive if they affect the deceased's property. This principle applies to the Consumer Protection Act, allowing heirs to be impleaded to represent the estate.

[Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy & Ors.]