The Delhi High Court has ruled that a husband cannot claim exclusive ownership of a jointly owned property merely because he paid the EMIs.

According to the petition, the couple got married in 1999 and jointly purchased a house in 2005 in Mumbai. However, they began living separately in 2006, and the husband filed for divorce the same year, which is currently pending.

The court emphasised that the contribution towards EMIs does not override the joint ownership established in the property documents, and both parties retain equal rights regardless of who made the payments. 

The Delhi High Court has held that a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, no matter the grounds or manner of the divorce.

The case involved a couple married in 2018 under Islamic law and divorced through Talaq-e-Khula in 2021.

The trial court had awarded the woman ₹33 lakh as maintenance for herself and her minor son. She later sought ₹1.2 lakh per month in additional maintenance.

The High Court refused to dismiss her petition, observing that no valid objection was raised by the husband and left the issue for determination by the Family Court.

[Umar Haris v Yusra Meraj]

The Kerala High Court clarified that mutual divorce, which usually requires a joint application, could be allowed by the court even if one party genuinely withdrew consent.

The Court stated that the main focus was whether the marriage had broken down beyond repair, and minor technical issues could not block a fair outcome when both parties clearly intended to separate.

In this case, the Family Court granted the divorce and held that the appellant could not be trusted, as she tried to back out even after accepting the proposed settlement.

Dismissing her appeal, the High Court confirmed that the divorce decree would stand.

The Calcutta High Court has issued Mandatory Child Access and Custody Guidelines to standardise custody and visitation practices across family courts in West Bengal and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands.

The guidelines, developed following a PIL filed by Dr. Ratul Roy and the Ayushman Initiative for Child Rights, focus on the best interests of the child, ensuring regular contact with both parents.

Key provisions include structured parenting plans, compensatory access for denied visitation, penalties for breaches, and clarity on parental responsibilities regarding relocation, communication, and medical updates.

The guidelines are now officially available on the Calcutta High Court website.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a wife in a voidable marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC until the marriage is formally annulled.

Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla observed that a mere possibility of annulment does not affect the wife's legal status as a spouse.

The case arose after a husband concealed a prior marriage and winningly denied his wife’s maintenance plea.

The Court held that concealment of a prior marriage does not imply the wife was neglecting duties or living separately without reason. Her entitlement to maintenance remains until a decree of nullity is passed.

[Sweta Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another]

The Delhi High Court held that “love and affection” is an implied condition in gift deeds executed by senior citizens for family members, making non-maintenance grounds to void the transfer under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld the cancellation of an 88-year-old woman’s 2015 gift deed in favour of her daughter-in-law, who allegedly neglected and threatened her.

The Court rejected the argument that Section 23 applied only where explicit conditions existed, stressing protection of senior citizens’ rights and welfare.

[Smt Varinder Kaur v. Smt Daljit Kaur & Ors]

The Bombay High Court has held that mere allegations of adultery against a wife do not disentitle her from claiming family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (MCSR). 

A Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Yanshivraj Khobragade rejected the deceased employee’s mother and brother’s opposition, holding that only a judicial separation on adultery grounds or a clear judicial finding can exclude a wife.

The Court noted that while the husband had initiated divorce and changed his pension nominee, he died before the proceedings concluded, leaving the wife’s entitlement intact.

The Delhi High Court allowed Priya Sachdev Kapur to submit the list of assets of her late husband, Sunjay Kapur, in a sealed cover in the dispute with Sunjay’s children from his first marriage to Karisma Kapoor.

The Court took undertakings from all parties' lawyers not to discuss the case in the media.

The Court also ordered that a copy of Sunjay Kapur’s will, filed in sealed cover, be provided to his mother, Rani Kapur, with strict confidentiality.

The dispute stems from allegations that Priya forged Sunjay’s will to exclude Karisma’s children from inheritance, a charge she denies, claiming valid execution.

[Ms. Samaira Kapur & Ors. v. Mrs Priya Sachdev Kapur & Ors.]

The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a 2019 Raipur Family Court ruling granting divorce to a husband whose wife called him “paaltu chuha” (pet rat) for following his parents and demanded he live separately from them.

A Bench of Justices Rajani Dubey and Amitendra Kishore Prasad held that such behaviour amounted to mental cruelty, noting that the husband’s evidence was unchallenged and supported by records.

The Court also observed that the wife had deserted the matrimonial home since 2010, justifying divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The husband was directed to pay ₹5 lakh as alimony, along with monthly maintenance for his wife and son.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act can be granted only if both husband and wife jointly and unequivocally desire the separation.

A bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar set aside a Family Court order that had dissolved a marriage under mutual consent, even though the spouses had filed separate adversarial petitions under Section 13(1) alleging cruelty and adultery.

The Court restored the separate petitions for adjudication afresh and emphasised that the procedural requirements of Section 13B are substantive and cannot be bypassed.

Justice Arun Monga of the Delhi High Court has reiterated the need for implementing a Uniform Civil Code while highlighting the conflict in Islamic and Indian laws and the legality of child marriages.

While under Islamic law, a girl becomes of marriageable age on attaining puberty, under Indian criminal law, such a marriage calls for liability towards the husband as an offender under relevant sections of the BNS and/or POCSO Act.

The Bench held that by moving towards a Uniform Code for all religions, there would exist a common framework where personal and customary law would not override national legislation.

[Hamid Raza v State of NCT of Delhi]

The Supreme Court ruled that the relevant date to determine “senior citizen” status under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is the date of filing the application before the Maintenance Tribunal, not the date of adjudication.

The Court allowed the appeal of 80-year-old Kamalakant Mishra, whose son had taken possession of his properties.

The Bombay High Court had struck down the eviction order since the son had crossed 60 during the proceedings. 

The Supreme Court held that because the son was 59 at the time of filing, the Tribunal rightly exercised its jurisdiction.

[Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector and Others]