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 Telangana High Court ruled that a wife cannot claim maintenance solely on the ground of “mental depression” without credible evidence. Emphasising her B.Tech qualification, the Court held she cannot be expected to remain idle. This decision highlights the importance of proof in maintenance claims and judicial scrutiny in matrimonial 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.