The Delhi High Court held that a Memorandum of Family Settlement (MFS) need not be registered as it does not create new rights but only records the manner of enjoyment of property.

A Division Bench of Justices Kshetarpal and Harish  Shankar ruled that once family members’ shares are identified through an MFS, a subsequent builder’s agreement for construction cannot modify or override those shares. 

The Court rejected the appellants’ contention that the MFS required registration and stamping, citing Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1976).

The Court further clarified that modification under Section 62 of the Contract Act was not applicable. The appeal was dismissed.

[Suman Singh Virk & Anr. v Deepika Prashar & Anr.]

The Telangana High Court dismissed a woman’s appeal seeking divorce on grounds of marriage fraud, cruelty, nullity of marriage, and ₹90 lakh alimony, ruling she failed to prove her husband’s impotency.

The wife alleged non-consummation since their 2013 marriage, citing erectile dysfunction linked to rheumatoid arthritis and abandonment in the USA.

The husband denied the charges, producing medical reports showing normal potency and sperm count, and claimed regular marital relations.

The Court noted inconsistencies, absence of complaints to parents or in-laws, and her prior relationship with the husband. Finding no corroborating evidence, it upheld the trial court’s dismissal.

The Supreme Court has directed a husband to pay ₹1.25 crore as permanent alimony to his estranged wife while dissolving their marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the bench, noted that the husband had already remarried based on a family court decree later overturned by the Madras High Court, leaving the marriage untenable. Considering that the couple had been married for over two decades, the Court invoked its inherent powers to end the dispute.

The appeal was allowed and the High Court’s order was set aside.

[A. Ranjithkumar v E. Kavitha]

The Patna High Court upheld a Family Court order directing fruit seller Md. Saddam Hussain to pay his wife ₹7,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri rejected the husband’s claim of earning only ₹3,000 monthly, noting his actual earning capacity is higher.

The Court stressed that maintenance depends on the husband’s capacity to earn, not actual income.

The Court observed that ₹7,000 is a meagre amount given today’s living costs, where even basic meals exceed ₹3,000 monthly. It also dismissed the husband’s plea, affirming his obligation to pay maintenance for the wife’s necessities.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a man’s right to privacy cannot overrule a child’s right to know his biological father.

Justice Archana Puri dismissed a petition challenging a trial court order directing DNA testing, sought by a man claiming paternity. 

The Court clarified that Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which presumes the legitimacy of a child born during marriage, does not apply where the child himself asserts paternity. It also ruled that the police force cannot be used to obtain samples, leaving trial courts to draw inferences if the man refuses DNA testing.

The case involved a dispute over establishing biological paternity.

The Allahabad High Court held that maintenance pendente lite (pending) and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are payable during all stages of proceedings under the Act, including appellate, revisional, or restoration stages.

The court said the liability continues despite stay orders and does not end unless proceedings conclude.

The Court observed that Section 24 aims to ensure the financially weaker party can contest without disadvantage, regardless of who initiated the case.

In this case, the husband challenged a recovery order for unpaid maintenance, but the Court upheld the wife’s entitlement to ₹10,000 per month and litigation costs. The petition was dismissed.

[Ankit Suman v. State of U.P. and Another]

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a Registrar cannot change the father’s name in a child’s birth certificate without hearing him and considering the conclusive proof under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, which presumes legitimacy if a child is born during a valid marriage.

Justice C.S. Dias said the Registrar’s powers under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act are limited to correcting clerical errors, not deciding paternity disputes. 

Quashing the substitution of the petitioner’s name with another man’s, the Court directed the Registrar to reconsider the application after following due legal procedures, including a court order if required.

[AAA v State of Kerala and others]

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that choosing to marry across lines of faith is an individual’s constitutional right, free from external veto.

Justice Sanjeev Narula stressed that such decisions fall under personal liberty under Article 21, immune from parental or societal disapproval. 

While noting that parental concerns may exist, the Court held that adults have sole authority over their choice of life partner.

Granting police protection to an interfaith couple facing threats, the Court directed that they remain in a safe house until their marriage under the Special Marriage Act is solemnised, ensuring their life and liberty are safeguarded.

[Mohammad Shahnoor Mansoori v State of Delhi]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a husband’s mere claim of being “ready and willing” to keep his wife does not amount to a valid offer under the second proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC. Justice G.S.

The court noted that the petitioner never filed an application, stated so in evidence, or offered during cross-examination to keep his wife and child with him before the family court.

Challenging the ₹3,000 monthly maintenance awarded to the wife, he argued she was not entitled as he was willing to keep her.

The Court dismissed the revision plea, affirming the family court’s maintenance order.

The Gujarat High Court ruled that spouses can obtain a Mubaraat (mutual consent divorce) without any written agreement for such a divorce. 

A Bench of Justices AY Kogje and NS Sanjay Gowda overturned a family court’s April order, finding that Muslim personal law and the Quran do not mandate a written Mubaraat contract. 

The Court held that verbal mutual consent, “utterance of ‘Kabul’ before witnesses”, suffices to dissolve a Nikah. It was noted that neither Nikahnama registration nor a formal document is essential for Mubaraat under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. 

The family court must now reconsider the couple’s divorce plea on merit within three months.

The Supreme Court is hearing nine petitions challenging the constitutionality of Talaq-e-Hasan, which allows a muslim man to divorce by pronouncing "talaq" monthly for three months. 

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi declined to entertain maintainability and locus standi objections, stating, “there are aggrieved persons before us. 

The practice is argued to violate Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25, and petitioners, including Benazeer Heena, contend that it isn’t an essential religious practice.

The Court has sought responses from the National Human Rights Commission, the National Commission for Women, and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights. The matter is listed for a final hearing on 19th November. 

[Benazeer Heena v UOI And Ors]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court praised a woman as the “ideal Indian wife” for living with her in-laws for nearly 20 years despite being abandoned by her husband.

Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed that her conduct reflected dharma, cultural values, and the sanctity of marriage.

Dismissing the husband’s appeal against the denial of divorce on grounds of cruelty and abandonment, the Court held that allegations against the wife were false and that she had shown loyalty, tolerance, and dignity.

It ruled the husband was guilty of cruelty, not the wife.

The Kerala High Court ruled that only legal heirs as defined under personal law are obligated to maintain childless senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Possession of a senior’s property alone does not create maintenance liability. In this case, the appellant had inherited property from her late husband, but wasn’t a legal heir of the senior citizen, and was not held responsible for maintenance.

The Court overturned earlier decisions, confirming that property possession doesn’t qualify someone as a ‘relative’ liable to maintain seniors.

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) quashed a criminal case under Section 498A IPC against a husband, his parents, and sisters, holding that comments on a wife’s cooking or clothing do not amount to “grave cruelty".

The woman alleged post-marriage harassment, concealment of the husband’s mental health, ₹15 lakh demand for a flat, and eviction.

The Court found the claims vague, uncorroborated, and noted chats showed she knew of his health issues before marriage.

Terming the prosecution an abuse of process, it observed that exaggerated allegations in strained marriages do not meet Section 498A’s cruelty threshold.

[Tushar Sampat Mane and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Anr]