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.

In this case, the husband and wife were married in 2012. Domestic issues surfaced when the wife refused to reside in the husband’s matrimonial home. The situation escalated in 2016 when the wife initiated legal proceedings by filing a police case against her husband, his in-laws, and others, accusing them of matrimonial torture and cruelty. In response, the husband filed a petition before the Family Court under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Alt

In Sondur Rajini v. Sondur Gopal , the wife filed a petition for judicial separation, custody of minor children, and maintenance  under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) . The NRI husband objected, claiming that both parties were citizens of Sweden and not domiciled in India , and therefore the Mumbai Family Court lacked jurisdiction  under Section 1(2) of the HMA. The wife argued that their domicile of origin was India , which she had never abandoned, and that even if the husband

Allahabad HC grants divorce to couple living separately for over a decade, cites continuous mental cruelty by wife.   In an appeal filed by the husband under Section 19 (1) of Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) and Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the Family Court’s order, refusing to grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 of HMA the division bench of Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla*, JJ. while grantin

Chhattisgarh High Court upheld divorce in an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05-04-2023, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, whereby the application for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) filed by the respondent (‘husband’) for grant of decree of divorce, was allowed, the Division Bench of Rajani Dubey* and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ., stated that a close scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence and admission of wife in her statement

In this case, the Court emphasised that cruelty as a ground for divorce is not limited to physical harm. Mental cruelty, which affects the emotional well-being and dignity of an individual, is equally valid.   The judgment set a precedent by recognising emotional neglect, constant false accusations, and character assassination as forms of mental cruelty. It further stated that marriage cannot be sustained at the cost of individual dignity and peace of mind.

The Supreme Court directed the husband to pay Rs.1,75,000 monthly interim maintenance while considering the instant appeal revolving around an order of reduction of maintenance by Madras High Court, whereby the husband prayed for further reduction of monthly interim maintenance amount and wife prayed for an enhancement; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., found errors in evaluation made by the High Court and pointed out that it was on record that th

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