In Indira Sonti v. Suryanarayan Murty Sonti , the plaintiff wife , married in the United States  to an NRI , was deserted by her husband and returned to India. She filed a maintenance suit under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act . Though the marriage took place in the U.S., the wife contended that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi . She stated that her father-in-law had contacted her father in New Delhi  regarding her marriage, had arranged for her return to De

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 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 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

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

An appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the appellant-husband assailing the order dated 19-04-2025 passed by the Family Court, allowing an application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, directing the appellant to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹15,000 split as ₹8,000 for the respondent-wife and ₹7,000 for their minor son. A division bench of Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ., held that the findings of