Practical legal writing on 498A, matrimonial disputes, criminal allegations, maintenance, custody and Indian court procedure.
Why did a Delhi court discharge a husband’s elder brother from a sexual harassment-related charge made by his sister-in-law? The court examined the four-year delay, earlier litigation, her previous statements and the accused’s official railway duty record before finding that the material did not raise grave suspicion against him.
The Karnataka High Court held that maintenance is not automatic merely because the parties are living separately. In the case before it, the wife had left the matrimonial home after about 25 years of marriage to care for her ailing parents and did not return despite the husband’s requests. The Court found no sufficient evidence of cruelty or harassment and held that she had failed to establish reasonable cause for living separately or neglect/refusal by the husband to maintain her. Her maintenance claim was therefore rejected.
The Karnataka High Court granted regular bail to a man booked under Section 69 BNS after noting that the woman herself stated that he had approached her mother and expressed willingness to marry her, but her mother refused the proposal. The Court observed that Section 69 requires a promise to marry made without an intention to fulfil it; at the bail stage, the material did not indicate that the man lacked such intention. The Court also considered that he had been in custody since June 2026 and that most of the investigation was complete.
Discovering a wife’s extra-marital affair can lead to impulsive confrontation, but a husband considering legal action should first understand his position and preserve lawfully available evidence. Adultery remains a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, even though consensual adultery itself is no longer a criminal offence.
A Delhi Sessions Court refused to enhance a wife’s interim maintenance and upheld an award of ₹1,840 per month under the Domestic Violence Act. Although the court acknowledged that the amount was insufficient for her basic needs in Delhi, it held that maintenance must be based on the husband’s proved or reasonably presumed income. The wife alleged that he owned a medical store and had rental income, but no supporting documents were produced. The court therefore upheld the assessment based on applicable minimum wages and observed that a husband from poor financial circumstances cannot be ordered to pay beyond his means.
The Madras High Court rejected a Family Court’s reasoning that a husband who moved to another city for employment without taking his wife along could effectively be blamed for her alleged adultery. The High Court observed that practical circumstances may prevent spouses from always living together, famously remarking that a wife cannot be expected to follow her husband “like the pug in the unforgettable Vodafone ad.” However, the Court did not ultimately accept the husband’s adultery allegation because the alleged paramour had not been impleaded. Considering the couple’s 16-year separation and complete breakdown of the relationship, it granted divorce and directed the husband to pay ₹7 lakh as alimony.
A Delhi court dismissed a wife’s ₹50 lakh damages suit against her husband’s alleged partner for “alienation of affection.” The court held that merely proving a subsisting marriage or an extramarital relationship was not enough. The wife first had to establish that genuine marital affection existed and that the third party’s intentional conduct caused its destruction. The evidence indicated that the marriage was already going through a rough phase, and the required causal link was not established.
The Patna High Court refused to interfere with the rejection of a husband’s divorce plea based largely on allegations that his wife had an adulterous relationship and was once found in a “compromising position.” The Court found no evidence establishing voluntary sexual intercourse with another person and noted that the husband’s cruelty allegations essentially revolved around the unproved adultery claim. It therefore held that vague and unsupported allegations were insufficient to establish adultery or cruelty for granting divorce.
The Jharkhand High Court quashed rape proceedings against a man after noting that the relationship between the two adults had continued consensually for more than seven years. The Court found no specific allegation that the man had no intention of marrying the woman when the promise was initially made. It held that a subsequent refusal or failure to marry cannot, by itself, convert a long consensual relationship into rape on a false promise of marriage.
The Supreme Court granted divorce to a husband after finding that his wife had abandoned the matrimonial relationship and the couple had remained separated since December 2005. The Court clarified that mere physical separation is not enough to establish desertion—the spouse seeking divorce must prove separation along with an intention to permanently abandon cohabitation without reasonable cause. On the evidence, the Court found desertion proved, dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay ₹7 lakh as permanent alimony.
Every case is different. Book a consultation with Shonee Kapoor for specific, practical guidance.
