Important Judgements

Minor daughter’s custody granted to mother in an application filed by the applicant-wife against the rejection of her appeal filed against the Trial Court’s orders granting the wife only visitation rights for her minor daughter (‘the child’), the Single Judge Bench of Vinod Diwakar, J., allowed the application, granting the custody of the child to the wife. The Court held that the husband first orchestrated a fabricated story to remove the child from wife’s care and then made

Telangana HC directs mother to return 3 minor children to custody holder In a contempt petition filed against the mother of three minor children who, in contempt of the order dated 4-3-2025, had flown off with her children from Hyderabad to Bhopal, the Division Bench of Moushumi Bhattacharya and BR Madhusudhan Rao, JJ, reiterated that the contemptuous conduct must be reversed or undone before contempt may be contested. The Court further held that alleged contemnor must first

In a case concerning custody of a 9-year-old son, Single Judge Bench of Shailesh P. Brahme, J. held that when the personal law is pitted with comfort and welfare of the child, latter would have upper hand, quashing the order granting custody to the respondent-father, granting him only visitation rights with temporary custody. [X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2721].

5-year old’s custody to grandmother, denied In a habeas corpus petition filed to seek the custody of child from her paternal grandmother, by the petitioner-biological father of the child, the Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge and Gautam A. Ankhad*, JJ., opined that welfare of the child is of paramount importance in the custody dispute therefore, emotional bond with the child does not confer upon her a superior right to custody over that of the biological parent. Thus, the C

In the present appeal, the appellant-wife challenged the judgment passed by the Family Court on 28-11-2019, whereby her petition for the restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and the counterclaim of the respondent-husband for divorce was allowed and the divorce was granted. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale*, JJ., opined that the wife’s behaviour with his husband’s employees, humiliating him in front of his friends, refusing sexual relation

The Division Bench of Renu Bhatnagar* and Navin Chawla JJ., stated that the complaints made by wife to her husband’s employer, especially those involving unsubstantiated claims of adultery, could not be treated to address the issues of any wrong done to her, as the husband’s employer had nothing to do with all such wrongs. The Court stated that irrespective of the merits of these complaints, making such derogatory and defamatory remarks in the form of complaints to the spouse

In a divorce case, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ., and Augustine George Masih*, J., deemed it fit to invoke the power under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolved the marriage between the parties and directed the wife, an IPS Officer, and her parents to tender unconditional apology to the husband and his family members for physical and mental trauma caused to them due to cases filed by the wife, which led to the husband and his father languishing in jail for 109

In the case of Christine Lazarus Menezes vs. Mr. Lazarus Peter Menezes (2017), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that filing false cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, constitutes cruelty and can be a ground for filing divorce. The details of the case are as follows:   The appellant's wife challenged the Family Court's decision that had approved the respondent's application for divorce. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld the Family Court's ruling, rejec

This case set an important precedent regarding cruelty as a ground for divorce. The wife filed false criminal complaints against the husband and his family, leading to their harassment. The Supreme Court held that filing false cases constitutes mental cruelty, sufficient for granting divorce. It underscored the misuse of legal provisions and the need for judicial intervention in such matters. This case further delineated the threshold for establishing cruelty. The Court empha