Important Judgements

In Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma , the petitioner husband had filed for divorce in U.S. courts . During the ongoing custody proceedings, where both parties had been appointed as managing conservators  of their children, the wife brought the children to India, allegedly without informing the husband. The husband alleged that the children were in illegal custody  of the wife, and the High Court initially directed Sarita Sharma to restore custody of the two children  to him and

In Anubha v. Vikas Aggarwal , 100 (2002) DLT 682, the Delhi High Court  examined a crucial question: Can a decree of “no-fault divorce”  granted by a court in the United States be enforced in India when the marriage was solemnised under Hindu rites , and the wife neither consented to the divorce nor submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court? The case arose when the wife filed a suit  seeking a declaration that she was entitled to live separately from her NRI husband

In Rajiv Tayal v. Union of India & Ors. , 124 (2005) DLT 502: 2005 (85) DRJ 146, the Delhi High Court  addressed an important issue concerning the jurisdiction of Indian courts over NRI husbands  who evade legal proceedings initiated by their wives. The case arose when an NRI husband filed a writ petition  challenging the order of the Consulate General of India, New York , which had impounded his passport  under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967 , following directions from

In Venkat Perumal v. State of Andhra Pradesh , II (1998) DMC 523, the Andhra Pradesh High Court  dealt with a petition filed by an NRI husband  seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated by his wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)  for matrimonial cruelty. The wife had alleged that she faced harassment, humiliation, and torture  during her short stay with her husband both in Madras and in the United States. When she refused to terminate her pregnancy as

In Vikas Aggarwal v. Anubha  (AIR 2002 SC 1796), the Supreme Court of India  dealt with an appeal filed by an NRI husband  whose defence had been struck off in a maintenance suit filed by his wife in the Delhi High Court. Despite repeated directions and multiple opportunities, the husband failed to personally appear before the Court, as ordered. The High Court had specifically required his personal appearance to clarify how a US court granted him a divorce decree  even though

In Harmeeta Singh v. Rajat Taneja , 102 (2003) DLT 822, the Delhi High Court dealt with a case where the wife was deserted by her husband within six months of marriage. She had been compelled to leave the matrimonial home just three months after joining her husband in the United States. The wife subsequently filed a suit for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956  in India. During the pendency of the case, the High Court passed an important interim or

In a combined judgment on two appeals filed by the wife against the Family Court’s order dated 31-3-2023, which rejected her plea declaring an Australian divorce decree null and void and seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the Gujarat High Court Division Bench of Justices A.Y. Kogje and N.S. Sanjay Gowda set aside the order. The Court held the husband could not initiate divorce proceedings in Australia if the marriage was solemnised in India, even if both parties had fore

In a petition challenging the Family Court’s decision, which found that the mother was suffering from psychiatric disorders and granted permanent child custody to the father, the Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha, JJ. while setting aside the impugned orders, observed that postpartum depression, while common in some women, is typically temporary and does not persist indefinitely. The Bench emphasized that alleging that the mother was still suffe

In the present case dealing with forcible removal of minor child by parent to new place, an appeal was filed by the wife challenging the order dated 15-4-2024, whereby the guardianship petition filed by the wife under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (‘G&W Act’) was rejected. Further, the petition was also filed by the husband praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the production of the male minor child of the parties, and further seeking p