The Supreme Court reaffirmed that criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sustained against in-laws on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations lacking specific instances or particulars, and quashed the case against the mother-in-law and father-in-law.

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC, holding that allegations of a husband sending money to his family, compelling expense tracking through Excel sheets, and exercising financial dominance though reflective of common social patterns do not amount to “cruelty” in the absence of tangible mental or physical harm.

In a significant ruling on cross-border child custody, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held the mother in contempt for wilfully failing to produce the child in an ongoing US–India dispute. The judgment clarifies the enforceability of domestic court orders despite foreign jurisdiction claims, applies the principles of wilful disobedience, and sets an important precedent for international custody enforcement in India.

This case was a landmark judgment related to the custody of children and the role of the father in child rearing. The Supreme Court ruled that the father has a fundamental right to seek custody of his children, even if the mother is the primary caregiver. This case shifted the traditional perception that mothers are always the preferred custodians and emphasized the importance of equal parenting.

This case dealt with the issue of child custody and the welfare of the child in divorce proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that the paramount consideration in child custody matters is the best interest of the child, and that both parents must have an equal say in the upbringing of the child. The judgment reinforced the idea that the custody of children should not be solely determined by the legal rights of the parents but should prioritize the emotional and developmental ne

This recent case dealt with the issue of the quantum of maintenance in divorce proceedings. The Supreme Court provided detailed guidelines on how to determine the amount of maintenance payable to the wife after divorce. The judgment emphasized the need for transparency and clarity in determining maintenance and introduced a formula for calculating the maintenance based on the husband's income and the wife's needs. The case was significant in establishing a more standardized a

In Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar while dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, the Supreme Court has observed that while granting permanent alimony, the Court is required to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the

In this case, the husband alleged that his wife, Mrs. Maya, does not provide food to him, used to threaten him to implicate false charges of dowry against him or his family and often said that she will kill his whole family. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court held that “although the expression of cruelty has not been defined in the Act, it may be physical or mental, direct or indirect. And in this case, the acts of the responden

Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur further refined the test for cruelty. The Supreme Court maintained that the conduct complained of must be of such a nature that it creates an environment where the aggrieved spouse is unable to live with the other without experiencing continuous mental torture, agony, or distress. This test requires the Court to weigh the nature and frequency of the abusive conduct against the overall impact on the complaining spouse’s mental well-being.