The Allahabad High Court recently held that a daughter-in-law is not legally required to maintain her parents-in-law under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS).

The Court explained that maintenance is a statutory right, and only those categories specifically mentioned in the law, ike wife, children, and parents, can claim it. Since parents-in-law are not included, no legal duty can be imposed on the daughter-in-law.

The Court also made an important point: a moral responsibility cannot be enforced as a legal obligation.

It dismissed the plea filed by an elderly couple seeking maintenance from their daughter-in-law.

[Rakesh Kumar & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr.]

The Allahabad High Court ruled that paternity must be clearly established before ordering maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

In this case, a Family Court had directed a man to pay maintenance for a minor girl even though he denied being her biological father.

The High Court noted inconsistencies in medical records and doubts about the circumstances of the child’s birth. It held that biological parentage is central to deciding maintenance claims.

Therefore, the Court set aside the earlier order and directed that a DNA test be conducted to determine paternity before deciding the case again.

The Gujarat High Court recently set aside a Family Court order that required a two-and-a-half-year-old child to spend six hours every Thursday on court premises for visitation with his paternal grandfather.

Justice JC Doshi termed the lower court’s approach "unfathomable" and "inhuman," emphasizing that a toddler should not be a victim of rigid litigation.

The Court held that family courts must act as parens patriae, prioritizing a child's emotional and physical welfare over the legal claims of the fighting parties.

Observing that forcing such young children into a court environment for extended periods lacks the necessary sensitivity and empathy required in custody disputes.

[Mansiben v. Keshavjibhai Damjibhai Ghetiya]

The Delhi High Court held that law cannot compel parties to continue a marriage that never truly existed in substance, while waiving the cooling-off period in a mutual divorce case.

The couple had lived together only briefly, and the marriage remained unconsummated with no possibility of reconciliation.

Setting aside the Family Court’s Order, the High Court observed that absence of cohabitation and immediate separation showed that the marital relationship never meaningfully developed.

It ruled that insisting on statutory waiting periods would only prolong hardship, and allowed expeditious processing of the divorce, emphasising a practical and humane approach.

[Paras Jain & Anr. v. Nemo]

The Supreme Court orally observed that a wife's alleged failure to perform household chores, such as cooking, does not constitute cruelty in matrimonial cases.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta emphasized that marriage involves a life partner, not a maid, and that husbands must also contribute to domestic tasks.

The Court noted that societal expectations have evolved, requiring mutual participation in domestic activities such as cooking and washing. These remarks came during a divorce plea filed by a husband who alleged mistreatment and refusal to cook.

The Court has directed both parties to appear in person for further proceedings scheduled for April 27.

The Supreme Court held that a mere quarrel with a daughter-in-law does not by itself amount to cruelty or dowry harassment under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against the parents-in-law after finding that the allegations against them were vague and limited to claims that they used to quarrel with the complainant.

A Bench comprising of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that general and omnibus allegations without specific acts of harassment or dowry demand cannot justify prosecution under these provisions.

[Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court held that matrimonial cruelty cannot be established solely based on WhatsApp chats.

The Court set aside a Family Court’s ex parte divorce decree that had relied mainly on WhatsApp and SMS exchanges to conclude that the wife subjected the husband to mental cruelty.

It observed that electronic messages must be properly proved through evidence, and the opposite party must be allowed to challenge or rebut the material.

Since the wife was not given such an opportunity, the Court remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh adjudication after allowing both parties to lead evidence.

[Supriya Gaurav Devare nee Supriya Raosaheb Patil v. Gaurav Jitendra Patil]

The Gujarat HC ruled that a Hindu mother’s right to custody of her child up to five years old cannot be defeated by a settlement deed between parents.

The case involved a mother whose daughter had lived with her since the couple’s separation. The father later took the child without formal consent, prompting the mother’s habeas corpus petition. 

The HC held that the father’s unilateral action was unjustified. For granting custody of young children, child welfare and continuity of care should be prioritised over informal agreements.

The court ordered that the minor be restored to the mother’s custody, allowing the father to pursue formal custody orders in the appropriate court.

[Kinjal D/O Hareshkumar Panchal v. State Of Gujarat & Ors.]

The Karnataka HC held that accusing a wife of an extra-marital affair without proof can amount to mental cruelty and refused to grant divorce on the ground of desertion.

The case arose from a husband’s appeal against a family court order rejecting his petition under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court observed that desertion requires proof of separation without reasonable cause and intention to abandon the marriage. It found that the husband failed to establish animus to desert or substantiate the alleged affair.

It held that unproven allegations may justify living apart rather than amount to desertion. The appeal was dismissed.

The Kerala High Court dismissed a husband’s appeal against a Family Court order directing him to return 40 sovereigns of his wife’s gold ornaments and pay maintenance.

The Court said it is common knowledge that after marriage, a bride’s gold is often entrusted to the husband or his relatives for safekeeping.

It found the wife’s version consistent and more probable, noting that the husband had not seriously disputed the quantity of gold given at the time of marriage.

The Court upheld the maintenance award but exonerated the husband’s mother from liability, finding no specific grounds to fasten responsibility on her.

[Nishad & Anr. v. Mumthaz Beegum & Connected Cases]

Hasin Jahan has approached the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of multiple matrimonial proceedings (including her domestic violence case and maintenance proceedings) from West Bengal to Delhi.

She says she has shifted to Delhi for her daughter’s education and overall development, and, since she has no independent income, travelling around 1500 km to attend hearings in West Bengal causes hardship to both of them.

She also argues that Mohammed Shami has the resources to contest the matters in Delhi, and that his family lives in Uttar Pradesh, closer to Delhi.

The Supreme Court has issued notice to Shami on her transfer petitions.

[Hasin Jahan v. Md. Shami & Ors.]

The Rajasthan High Court refused to dissolve a 58-year marriage, holding that “trivial irritations, quarrels and normal wear and tear of married life” do not constitute cruelty sufficient for divorce.

The Division Bench upheld a 2019 family court order dismissing the husband’s petition. The couple married in 1967 and lived together until 2013, with three adult children.

The husband had filed for divorce in 2014 after the wife lodged an FIR against him and alleged property disputes.

The Court noted long-standing matrimonial life with minor disputes does not justify breaking the marriage and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh granted protection to a married couple who alleged threats from relatives after marrying against their families’ wishes.

The Court observed that when two adults choose each other as life partners, their decision reflects their constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21.

It said that obstructing personal choice strikes at the core of dignity and that consent of family, clan, or community is not required once adults marry of their free will.

Holding that the State is obligated to protect life and liberty, the Court directed authorities to ensure the couple’s safety.

The Karnataka High Court held that when a son dies intestate leaving behind a wife and children, his mother has no right to inherit under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

The Court set aside a trial court order that had refused a succession certificate to the deceased’s wife and children on the ground that the mother was also a legal heir.

It held that if a widow and lineal descendants survive, the estate devolves upon them, and the mother is excluded.

The matter arose from a plea seeking transmission of shares held by the deceased.

[Mrs. Estrida Lucy Janet Vaz & Ors. v. Nil]