Landmark Judgments of Family Law
The 26 leading Family Law cases — each with a full brief (facts, issues, held, ratio). Verified against the original judgment. Free to read.
Muslim law — marriage, divorce (triple talaq) & maintenance
- Saiyid Rashid Ahmad v. Mt. Anisa Khatun A triple talaq pronounced in the bidaat form is an immediately effective and irrevocable divorce, valid even if the husband secretly intended it not to be genuine and even in the wife's absence.
- A. Yousuf Rawther v. Sowramma A Muslim wife can obtain dissolution under Section 2(ii) on the husband's failure to maintain her for two years even if she contributed to that failure; talaq is not an arbitrary unilateral male privilege.
- Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum A divorced Muslim wife unable to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC beyond iddat; payment of mahr does not absolve the husband under Section 127(3)(b).
- Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. A valid talaq must be pronounced for reasonable cause, preceded by reconciliation attempts, and proved; a bald plea of past divorce in a written statement does not effect talaq.
Hindu marriage — validity, restitution, cruelty & divorce (HMA)
- Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah v. Prabhavati Desertion as a matrimonial ground requires both the factum of separation and the animus deserendi (intention permanently to end cohabitation) subsisting throughout the statutory period; mere departure does not suffice.
- Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra A bigamy prosecution under Section 494 IPC fails unless the second marriage was 'solemnized' with the essential ceremonies (invocation before sacred fire and saptapadi) or those required by valid custom.
- N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane Cruelty in matrimonial cases must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt; but condoned cruelty bars relief unless later revived.
- Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar Mere non-compliance with a restitution decree is not a 'wrong' under Section 23(1)(a); a spouse seeking divorce under Section 13(1A) for non-restitution exercises a legal right, not an advantage of own wrong.
- Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha Section 9 (restitution of conjugal rights) is constitutionally valid and not violative of Articles 14 or 21; a consent decree for restitution is not necessarily collusive.
- Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash Mutual consent for divorce under Section 13-B must subsist until the decree is passed; either party may unilaterally withdraw consent before the decree.
- Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh Mental cruelty cannot be exhaustively defined; the Court laid down illustrative instances, and a long irretrievable separation can itself amount to mental cruelty justifying divorce.
Maintenance — S125 CrPC, HAMA & secular maintenance
- Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim Minor children of Muslim parents are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC till majority (daughters till marriage); Section 3(1)(b) of the 1986 Act does not curtail this.
- Danial Latifi v. Union of India A Muslim husband must make, within the iddat period, a reasonable and fair provision for his divorced wife's whole future life; so read, the 1986 Act is valid.
- Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum Marriage with a wife's sister during the first marriage is irregular (fasid), not void (batil); it subsists till set aside, so the wife and child are entitled to Section 125 maintenance.
- D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal Only a legally wedded (or divorced) wife can claim under Section 125; a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under the 2005 Act requires conditions akin to a common-law marriage.
- Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse A woman who marries a man unaware of his subsisting first marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 125; he cannot take advantage of his own fraud.
Adoption, legitimacy & miscellaneous
- Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India The word 'after' in Section 6(a) HMGA means 'in the absence of' the father, not after his death; the mother is a natural guardian who can act during the father's lifetime.
- Brajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh A married Hindu woman whose marriage has not been legally dissolved lacks capacity under Section 8(c) HAMA to adopt, even if she has long lived separately like a divorced woman.
- In re: Adoption of Payal @ Sharinee Vinay Pathak and Sonika Sahay Pathak Hindu parents with a child of their own may adopt an orphaned, abandoned or surrendered child of the same sex under the secular Juvenile Justice Act, overriding the bar in Section 11 HAMA.
Guardianship & custody — welfare of the child (HMG)
- Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal In custody disputes the welfare of the child is the paramount and decisive consideration, overriding the legal/natural-guardian rights of either parent.
- ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) An unwed mother can be appointed sole legal guardian of her child without notice to, or consent of, the putative father, the child's welfare being paramount.
Hindu succession & coparcenary (HSA; 2005 amendment)
- Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi A daughter's coparcenary rights under amended Section 6 are not lost merely because a preliminary partition decree was passed before 9.9.2005; the decree can be reopened until the final decree.
- Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta After the 2005 Amendment, the eldest coparcener of a Hindu Undivided Family can be its Karta even if she is a woman.
- Uttam v. Saubhag Singh Once a coparcener's interest devolves by intestate succession under Section 8 (via the old Section 6 proviso), the joint family property ceases to be joint and heirs hold as tenants-in-common.
- Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur Property inherited before 1956 from a paternal ancestor is ancestral coparcenary property in which a son acquires an interest by birth, and the father cannot alienate it without legal necessity.
- Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma A daughter is a coparcener by birth, equally with a son; her right does not depend on the father coparcener being alive on 9.9.2005.
