An authoritative analysis of Stridhana under Supreme Court jurisprudence, statutory protection, and criminal law, with practical safeguards for women governed by Hindu law.

Mental cruelty in divorce cases is often difficult to prove due to the absence of physical evidence. This post analyses a Telangana High Court decision where authenticated, certified documentary evidence played a decisive role in establishing cruelty under matrimonial law.

The Telangana High Court reduced a wife’s maintenance from ₹90,000 to ₹50,000 per month, holding that Section 125 CrPC read with Rajnesh v. Neha secures dignified survival, not repayment of ₹3.5 crore business or personal debts. This post analyses the Court’s reasoning and its limits on maintenance law.

After more than a decade of acrimonious matrimonial litigation marked by criminal complaints, arrests, and failed mediation, the Telangana High Court upheld a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty. While denying maintenance and permanent alimony to an employed wife, the Court significantly enhanced the minor daughter’s settlement from ₹10 lakhs to INR 80 lakhs - sending a clear message on prolonged litigation, cruelty, and parental responsibility.

A 45-day marriage followed by 12 years of separation led the Telangana High Court to grant divorce, examining concealment of mental illness, non-consummation, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

After a mother spent INR 26 lakh raising her child alone for 16 years, the Telangana High Court took a firm view of the husband’s minimal contribution and directed him to pay INR 30 lakh before visitation could begin. This case highlights financial manipulation patterns often seen in family disputes.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the creation of a charge over the husband’s share in family properties, ruling that it ‘benefits the interest of the wife and minor son.’ This case clarifies when courts can secure maintenance using property, how desertion must be proven, and why interest rates must comply with Section 34 CPC.

When Katragadda Koteswara Rao claimed ₹8,000 monthly income, his wife exposed crores in hidden assets. The AP High Court's 2025 judgment awarded ₹50,000 maintenance and set dual precedents: courts will pierce financial fraud, and daughter shall receive support beyond age 18 until marriage or employment. This landmark case demonstrates how the judiciary protects vulnerable family members from calculated deception and redefines parental accountability in maintenance law.

Confused about where your case stands? Get a Preparatory Assessment   : Factual, Sharp and Tailored to your situation 📄 Get a crisp, slide-based summary of the judgment. Download  the Visual Carousel (PDF) Follow us on LinkedIn  for real, practical family-law insights that matter. The Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered an important ruling in a maintenance matter, offering clarity on how courts must balance moral obligation with financial capability when fixing maintenance