The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a CISF constable for contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, observing that “dura lex sed lex”- the law is harsh, but it is the law.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi set aside the High Court’s order, which had termed dismissal as disproportionate.

The Court held that the CISF Rules, 2001, require strict discipline and integrity, and the prohibition on bigamy is a binding service condition, not a moral judgment.

It further ruled that personal hardship or financial consequences cannot override clear statutory mandates governing uniformed services.

The Gujarat High Court upheld a family court order directing a mother to pay monthly maintenance to her unemployed and unmarried adult daughter under the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act.

Rejecting the mother’s argument that higher maintenance would discourage the daughter from seeking employment, the Court noted that the family court had properly assessed the mother’s income, lifestyle, and the daughter’s needs.

It found no error in fixing maintenance at ₹15,000 per month along with education expenses.

The Court dismissed the revision plea and recorded the mother’s assurance to clear the pending maintenance arrears.

The Allahabad High Court set aside a Family Court order that denied maintenance to a wife solely on the assumption that she earned income by making YouTube reels.

The Court held that maintenance cannot be refused without a proper assessment of the actual income of both spouses. It noted that the Family Court treated the wife as self-employed without quantifying her earnings or comparing them with the husband’s salary from a Class III government post.

Relying on Rajnesh v Neha, the Court held that maintenance decisions must be based on verified financial records such as pay slips or income documents, not presumptions.

The matter was remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration.

[Farha Naz v. State of U.P. & Anr.]

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Muslim husband’s obligation to maintain his legally wedded first wife cannot be diluted on the ground that he is maintaining a second wife.

The Court upheld a Family Court order granting ₹20,000 monthly maintenance to the first wife, noting that she was financially dependent on her parents.

The Bench observed that responsibilities arising from a subsequent marriage do not override the husband’s statutory duty to maintain his first wife.

The Court rejected the husband’s challenge to the maintenance order, reiterating that financial arrangements for a subsequent wife cannot defeat the lawful maintenance rights of the first wife. 

The Delhi High Court has held that the one-year separation requirement under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory, not mandatory.

A Full Bench ruled that courts may waive this period in cases of exceptional hardship or depravity, by invoking the proviso to Section 14(1) HMA.

The Court clarified that the waiver of the one-year separation requirement is distinct from the waiver of the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2).

It held that if both requirements are waived, a decree of divorce by mutual consent can take effect immediately.

[Shiksha Kumari v. Santosh Kumar]

The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage that had effectively broken down after nearly 24 years of separation, observing that prolonged matrimonial litigation only perpetuates a marriage on paper and causes cruelty to both parties.

The Court held that long separation with no possibility of reconciliation amounts to mutual cruelty and justifies dissolution of marriage.

Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court restored the trial court’s divorce decree, noting that it is not the role of courts or society to judge which spouse is at fault when the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

[Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty]

The Supreme Court observed that the practice of dowry has increasingly permeated Muslim marriages, eroding the protective purpose of mehr meant to secure a woman’s financial rights.

The Court noted that mehr was envisaged as an enforceable obligation on the husband to ensure dignity and security for the wife, but social practices have diluted its role.

Emphasising the need to restore mehr to its true legal and social function, the Court flagged concerns over gender justice and the growing influence of dowry-like demands across communities.

[State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg Etc.]

The Delhi High Court upheld an order directing the husband to pay ₹50,000 per month as interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Court ruled that a husband cannot rely on his wife’s inherited property or gifts from her family to deny maintenance.

The Court said maintenance must be assessed based on the wife’s actual income and her ability to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during marriage, not her natal family’s wealth.

It also held that a husband’s capacity to pay includes income from all legitimate sources, including family businesses.

Finding no error in the lower courts’ orders, the Court dismissed the husband’s challenge.

[Dhruv Kapoor v. Alka Yadav]

The Kerala High Court held that a presumption of valid remarriage between a Muslim woman and her ex-husband can be presumed under Section 125 CrPC only if the dissolution of her intervening marriage is proved.

The Court clarified that mere long cohabitation cannot give rise to a presumption of marriage where a legal obstacle exists, such as the subsistence of a prior marriage.

Since the woman failed to prove dissolution of her second marriage, the presumption of remarriage could not arise.

However, noting that she deserved an opportunity to adduce evidence, the Court remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration after allowing both parties to lead further evidence.

[V.P. Abdurahiman v. C. Safiya]

The Patna High Court has held that the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, have no application to proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1984, due to the overriding effect of Section 20 of the latter statute.

The Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act challenging a Family Court order declaring a marriage null and void.

It rejected the contention that the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, observing that objections based on that statute are unsustainable in family court proceedings.

The High Court upheld the Family Court’s order and dismissed the appeal.

[Anjani Kumar @ Pappu Kumar v. Mamta Bharti & Anr.]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a divorce granted based on mobile phone photographs allegedly showing the wife's adultery, holding that a Section 65B certificate was not mandatory in matrimonial cases.

The Bench noted that Family Courts are not bound by strict Evidence Act standards and may accept material that aids truth-finding.

The wife did not deny being in the photos and claimed they were fabricated, but gave no proof.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage on mutual consent, noting it was a “rare settlement” because the wife did not seek alimony or any monetary compensation.

The Court appreciated her gesture of returning the gold bangles gifted by the husband’s mother at the time of marriage.

The bench said such settlements are uncommon today and encouraged the woman to move forward positively.

After interacting with her via video conference, the Court invoked Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce and quashed all pending proceedings between the parties.

The Orissa High Court held that a father cannot be denied custody of his minor child merely because he failed to produce the child’s birth certificate or the death certificate of his wife.

The Court observed that under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father is the natural guardian after the mother’s death.

The Family Court’s order denying custody on technical grounds was set aside, and the maternal grandfather was directed to hand over the child, aged about five and a half, to the father, while allowing visitation rights.

[Ramakanta Majhi v. Santan Majhi & Anr.]

The Punjab & Haryana High Court sentenced a man to three months’ imprisonment and a ₹2,000 fine for marrying again while his first wife’s divorce appeal was still pending.

Justice Alka Sarin held him guilty of civil contempt for violating Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, noting that his second marriage was contracted despite a stay on the divorce decree, effectively rendering the wife’s appeal meaningless.

The Court noted that he also appeared to have evaded service in the appeal proceedings.

The man has been directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate within 15 days.