The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a husband's unexplained relationship with another woman amounts to cruelty towards his wife.

In this case, the husband alleged that the wife treated him and his family with cruelty, arguing that her accusations regarding his illicit relationship had caused a breakdown in their marriage. 

Despite denying the affair, the husband admitted to traveling with the woman, registering a company together, and being seen leaving a flat with her.

The Court held his actions ruptured the matrimonial bond, and he was the cause of the disturbance. Citing his conduct, the Court refused him relief, stressing that prolonged separation alone wasn't grounds for granting divorce.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that a mutual divorce petition remains valid even if the parties had been living separately for over a year before agreeing to divorce.

In this case, the couple married in 2004 and had three children. They began living apart on January 12, 2022, and agreed to divorce on August 1, 2023. The Family Court had rejected their petition, considering the separation period to start only after the mutual agreement.

However, the High Court clarified that the requirement under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is a separation of one year or more before filing the petition, regardless of when mutual consent is reached

Accordingly, the marriage was dissolved.

The Supreme Court dismissed an Article 32 petition filed by a lawyer challenging a Mumbai family court order. 

The Bench noted that even a lawyer with basic legal knowledge wouldn’t seek such reliefs under Article 32, which is meant only for enforcing fundamental rights against the State.

The court ordered the plea to be frivolous, malicious, and a gross misuse of constitutional remedies. The court criticized the misuse of judicial time and rejected the lawyer’s plea to withdraw the petition.

The Court imposed ₹5 lakh in costs to be paid to NALSA within four weeks, failing which the matter will be relisted.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed charges under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against two married sisters-in-law for taunting their brother's wife, observing that mere taunting for not conceiving does not amount to cruelty.

The court held that vague allegations without specific details or evidence are insufficient for prosecution, particularly when the accused resided separately from the complainant couple.

The Court noted a growing misuse of Section 498A to implicate distant or unconnected relatives without specific evidence.

Accordingly, proceedings against the sisters were quashed while those against the parents continued. The Court partly allowed the criminal petition. 

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Marriage Act, 2019, applies only to instant triple talaq (Talaq-e-Bidat), not the traditional Talaq-e-Ahsan.

A bench quashed an FIR against a Muslim man who had divorced his wife using Talaq-e-Ahsan, a valid Islamic method involving a 90-day waiting period. The same is still a legal means for divorce under Islamic law.

The Court held the FIR was a misuse of law, affirming that Talaq-e-Ahsan doesn’t violate the Act and that in-laws can't be prosecuted for a divorce decision solely decided by the husband.

The Kerala HC ruled that children in custody disputes should be brought to court only in exceptional and unavoidable situations, with utmost dignity and privacy.

This decision came after a 9-year-old boy suffered emotional trauma from repeated court appearances.

Initially, custody was granted to the mother, but the Family Court later awarded it to the father. The child expressed distress and reluctance to meet his father, and described court visits as dehumanizing.

Moved by the child's emotional state, the High Court restored custody to the mother and ordered that custody exchanges occur at a neutral location to minimize trauma. (Indu.S vs Thomas)

The Supreme Court issued notice in a habeas corpus plea filed by a Ghanaian father residing in Dubai seeking visitation rights for his minor son.

The Court  criticized a Dubai court's order restricting the child's travel as "atrocious" and a violation of human rights, likening it to "house arrest."

The bench questioned the jurisdiction of the Dubai court, noting that both parents are Christians married under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, and thus not governed by Shariah law.

The child's mother, a resident of Bengaluru, allegedly took the child to India, citing abuse, despite existing Dubai court orders granting the father access. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on April 28, 2025.

The Supreme Court recorded the Centre's statement that no waqf property, whether notified or registered under "waqf by user", will be denotified or altered until the next hearing.

The Centre further assured that no appointments shall be made to the Central or State Waqf Boards under amended Sections 9 and 14 of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

The Solicitor General has been granted seven days to file a comprehensive response covering the legislative background of the Act.

The Court scheduled the next hearing in the week commencing May 5, 2025, maintaining the existing status quo.

The Delhi High Court quashed an adultery case under Section 497 IPC, citing the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, which decriminalized adultery.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna emphasized that the law treated women as property, drawing parallels with Draupadi's portrayal in the Mahabharata.

The case involved a husband's allegation of his wife's extramarital affair. The Court noted that consensual hotel stays don't imply sexual relations and highlighted that Supreme Court decisions apply retrospectively, as established in A.S. Gauraya v. S.N.

Consequently, the accused was discharged. (Ashok Kumar Singh v. State & Anr)

The Allahabad High Court upheld the trial court's decision to issue summons to a daughter-in-law and her family members in a domestic violence case filed by the mother-in-law.

The Court referred to Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, stating that a mother-in-law could be considered an aggrieved person if subjected to harassment or torture by the daughter-in-law or her relatives. 

The Act applies to any woman involved in a domestic relationship within a shared household, and its provisions should be interpreted broadly.

The Court dismissed the daughter-in-law’s challenge, upholding the mother-in-law's right to file a case under the Domestic Violence Act.

The Supreme Court heard a plea filed by Naushad K K, a practising Muslim, who wants to be governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, instead of Shariat law in matters of inheritance.

The Court noted the similar pending case Sufiya PM v. Union of India, where the petitioner had renounced Islam, clarifying that Naushad K K's plea is different from the present one. 

The court also acknowledged the 2016 Special Leave Petition by the Quran Sunnath Society challenging the constitutionality of Section 58 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which excludes Muslims from its scope.

The Court listed the matter for further consideration alongside related cases; no final decision was issued.

The Delhi High Court stated that lawyers should guide clients in matrimonial cases towards peaceful solutions rather than escalating conflicts. 

In this case, the Court fined a husband ₹1 lakh for using abusive language in a family court, including against his wife’s lawyer.

The Court said matrimonial matters are sensitive and require careful, respectful handling by all involved, especially legal professionals.

While noting the husband's apology and personal circumstances, the Court still directed him to offer a formal apology to the wife's counsel.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that adult, able-bodied unmarried daughters who are not physically or mentally disabled cannot seek maintenance from their father under Section 488 of the J&K CrPC.

The Case involves two adult unmarried daughters who filed a petition, seeking maintenance from their father. The father challenged the order under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court set aside the lower court’s decision, stating that the law is intended to support adult children who are genuinely unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental infirmities, not those capable of self-support.

The Supreme Court confirmed the eviction of a son and daughter-in-law from a house owned by an elderly man under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The father had allowed them to live with him out of goodwill but later filed a complaint after they began harassing, abusing, and threatening him. 

Citing Section 23(1) of the Act and S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, the Court confirmed the Tribunal’s authority to evict. 

The Court ordered the premises to be vacated by May 31, 2025.