The Delhi High Court upheld the 12 year sentence and conviction of a 24-year-old man for the 2014 rape of a 60-year-old woman, emphasizing that the absence of an electropherogram report does not undermine the credibility of DNA evidence.

The Court found that the prosecution had established the chain of custody and that the DNA report confirmed the presence of the accused's semen.

Minor inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony were deemed natural under stress.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court maintained that technical omissions like the non-availability of an electropherogram cannot outweigh the strong forensic and testimonial evidence presented in such serious criminal cases. (Sanjay @ Sanju v. State)

Though often used interchangeably, maintenance and alimony differ in legal context.

Maintenance is a broader term referring to financial support given by one spouse to another (and sometimes to children or parents) during or after legal separation or divorce. It can be interim, monthly, or permanent and is covered under various personal laws and Section 125 of CrPC.

Alimony, on the other hand, usually refers to a lump-sum, one-time payment made after divorce, mostly in civil or divorce proceedings.

In short, alimony is a form of maintenance, but not all maintenance is alimony.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that a woman’s previous marriage need not be considered when deciding her application for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The appeal arose after a Family Court dismissed the wife’s request during proceedings initiated by her husband seeking to nullify their marriage under Section 5(i) HMA.

Despite allegations of concealment and prior marital status, the Court emphasised that the focus under Section 24 is not the validity of the marriage but whether the applicant is financially dependent.

The Court noted that no documentary evidence was produced by the husband to prove the wife’s alleged employment.

The Orissa High Court has held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) should not be misused to criminalise consensual adolescent relationships or enforce outdated moral codes.

The Court must distinguish genuine cases of sexual exploitation from consensual relationships between adolescents who are close in age, even if such relationships do not conform to social norms. 

The Court advocated for judicial recognition of ‘Romeo and Juliet clauses’ to protect romantic adolescent relationships. 

The petitioner booked under IPC Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n), and 506, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was granted one‑month interim bail. The matter will be heard next on July 15, 2025.

Maternity benefits are legal entitlements provided to working women to safeguard their health and employment during pregnancy and childbirth.

Under Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, eligible women are entitled to 26 weeks of paid maternity leave for up to two surviving children. For the third child onward, the entitlement is 12 weeks.

Maternity leave is granted on the grounds of pregnancy, miscarriage, medical termination, adoption, and surrogacy.

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the maternity leave rights for a third child, holding that maternity benefits are a part of reproductive rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, and 42 of the Constitution. 

Judicial separation is a legal remedy that allows spouses to live apart without dissolving the marriage. It is governed by Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 23 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

While the marriage remains legally intact, the order suspends marital obligations such as cohabitation. Grounds for judicial separation include cruelty, adultery, and desertion—similar to divorce. 

If the separation continues for one year, it may later serve as a ground for divorce. 

Recently, the Gauhati High Court granted judicial separation to a woman after her husband’s baseless doubts over their child’s paternity and repeated acts of violence were held to constitute cruelty.

A Mumbai Sessions Court enhanced the compensation for a woman from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore after she suffered 20 years of domestic violence, including physical abuse, emotional trauma, and financial control, at the hands of her wealthy husband. 

The Court rejected the husband's claim of financial hardship, noting he belonged to a financially well-off family with property worth crores.

The judge found the woman’s testimony credible and ruled that she and her daughter are entitled to live at the same standard as the Crorepati husband.

The judge also increased the monthly maintenance from ₹1 lakh to ₹1.5 lakh. 

The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directives to all States and Union Territories to enhance the enforcement of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.  

The bench mandated the appointment of Protection Officers at district and taluka levels within six weeks, as stipulated under Section 9 of the Act.  

Additionally, the Court instructed authorities to widely publicize the Act's provisions per Section 11, ensure the availability of shelter homes and legal aid for distressed women, and empanel service providers to assist victims. 

The Court directed NALSA to ensure that women under the Act receive free legal aid through all Legal Services Authorities.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that a marriage can be dissolved by mutual consent within one year if one spouse files criminal cases against the other, citing exceptional hardship or depravity under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act.  

The couple married in August 2024, but subsequent criminal complaints, including serious allegations, led them to seek divorce before completing a year of marriage.  

The Family Court had rejected their plea, but the High Court overturned this decision, allowing them to proceed with a mutual divorce after six months from March 26, 2025.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India has taken suo motu cognizance of a media report concerning the death of a nine-year-old rape victim due to alleged delayed treatment at Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH), Bihar.

The girl, assaulted in Muzaffarpur on May 26, 2025, was brought to PMCH on May 30 in critical condition but reportedly waited in an ambulance for hours before receiving medical care.  She succumbed to her injuries on June 1.  

The NHRC has issued notices to Bihar's Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, seeking a detailed report within two weeks.

The Supreme Court has directed the Union Government to ensure immediate medical treatment for a physically disabled woman who was brutally gangraped.

The bench said she should be admitted to AIIMS Delhi or another suitable hospital without delay.

The survivor was stalked and raped by a cab driver, later illegally confined gangraped and repeatedly abused. He was convicted and sentenced to 10 years by a fast-track court; his appeal is pending in the Punjab & Haryana HC.

The Court noted violations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, during the investigation and trial, and took up her plea for rehabilitation, compensation, and monthly aid.

A sessions court in Chennai has sentenced Gnanasekaran to life imprisonment for sexually assaulting a 19-year-old student at Anna University in December 2023.

The court also ordered that he must spend at least 30 years in jail without remission and imposed a fine of ₹90,000. The case gained attention after several lapses by the police, including the leak of the FIR, which revealed the victim’s identity.

In response, the Madras High Court formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of three women IPS officers. The court also directed the Tamil Nadu government to pay ₹25 lakh as interim compensation to the victim.

The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Central government, UGC, and NTA on a PIL seeking a waiver of entrance exam fees for women in IITs, NITs, AIIMS, and other central institutions.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela considered the plea of Mona Arya, who cited a 2010 government order mandating such exemption.

The petition argues that enforcing the order would benefit millions of women, especially those from underprivileged backgrounds, and non-compliance violates the right to education.

The Allahabad High Court has said that claims for return of stridhan must be decided within the divorce case itself under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and not through a separate application under Section 27.

In this case, the Family Court had directed the husband to pay over ₹10.5 lakh to his ex-wife for stridhan.

However, the High Court set aside this order, noting that since the divorce decree passed in May 2023 did not include any direction regarding streedhan, the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order separately.

Since the wife had already received ₹7 lakh as interim maintenance and ₹2.1 lakh through execution, the recovery proceedings were dropped.