Practical legal writing on 498A, matrimonial disputes, criminal allegations, maintenance, custody and Indian court procedure.
Why did a Delhi court discharge a husbandâs 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 accusedâs official railway duty record before finding that the material did not raise grave suspicion against him.
The Calcutta High Court held that a divorce decree does not automatically end a husbandâs statutory obligation to maintain his former wife. Under Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) CrPC, the term âwifeâ includes a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained divorce from her husband and has not remarried. Therefore, subject to the other statutory requirements, an ex-wife who has not remarried and is unable to maintain herself can continue to seek maintenance from her former husband.
The Madras High Court upheld divorce in favour of a husband after considering the wifeâs conduct, including repeatedly insisting that he distance himself from his parents and set up a separate residence. The husband was the only son, and the Court considered his responsibilities toward his parents while assessing the matrimonial circumstances. It also examined allegations concerning the wifeâs frequent insistence on visiting her parental home and held that the cumulative conduct established mental cruelty warranting divorce.
The Madras High Court upheld divorce in a marriage that had effectively broken down after years of separation and failed reconciliation. The Court made clear that the existence and welfare of children are important considerations, but they cannot by themselves require spouses to remain indefinitely in a marriage that exists only on paper when legally recognised grounds such as cruelty are proved. It also clarified that irretrievable breakdown is not an independent statutory ground for divorce before the High Court, though prolonged separation can be relevant while assessing mental cruelty.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court transferred the husbandâs divorce petition from Hisar to Sonepat despite his offer to bear the wifeâs travel expenses. The Court clarified that such an offer does not create an inflexible rule against transfer; each case must be decided on its own circumstances. It considered that the wife had no independent income, lived with her widowed mother, and was responsible for the day-to-day care of their minor son, making Sonepat the more convenient forum.
The Supreme Court is considering the constitutional challenge to Indiaâs marital rape exception, which raises two competing legal questions: marriage does not extinguish a womanâs bodily autonomy or consent, but should non-consensual sexual intercourse within marriage attract the same rape offence applicable outside marriage? The existing BNS framework retains a marital exception in Section 63 for a wife who is not under 18, while the Union has previously opposed judicial removal of the exception and argued that sexual violence within marriage can attract other legal consequences. The Supreme Court has not yet finally decided the constitutional issue.
The Karnataka High Court rejected a womanâs maintenance claim after finding that she knew the man had an earlier marriage and had examined his divorce decree before their alleged marriage. However, that divorce decree had been challenged and stayed, meaning his first marriage continued to legally subsist. The Court noted that she knew an appeal was pending and failed to prove that the man had fraudulently concealed either the appeal or the stay order. It observed that a person who knows a prospective spouse is divorced should exercise diligence and verify whether the divorce has attained finality. The Court therefore upheld the Family Courtâs rejection of her Section 125 CrPC maintenance petition.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when a man and woman have lived together for a long period as husband and wife and are recognised as such by society, the law strongly presumes that their marriage is valid. In Fulla v. Munna, the couple had lived together for about 26 years, and their marital status was later challenged in a property dispute involving their children. The Court held that the presumption favours legitimacy rather than illegitimacy and that a heavy burden lies on the person seeking to rebut a marriage arising from long cohabitation. The High Court ultimately upheld the finding recognising the marriage and dismissed the appeal.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted a husband who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly setting his wife on fire. The Court found serious weaknesses in the prosecution case: seven witnesses turned hostile, including the deceased womanâs close relatives, and her own brothers did not support the version contained in her dying declaration. One brother stated that her sari caught fire while cooking and that the husband suffered burns while trying to save her. The High Court also noted the prosecutionâs failure to satisfactorily explain the husbandâs 30â35% burn injuries and concluded that the conviction could not be sustained on the evidence available.
The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a man booked under Section 69 BNS after noting that the complainant was already married and had voluntarily accompanied him to a hotel, where they had sexual intercourse. The Court held that, in the circumstances of the case, she could not claim that her consent was induced solely by a promise of marriage while her existing marriage continued. It found that the material did not disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 69 BNS. The case was Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala & Anr., Crl.MC No. 4354 of 2026.
Every case is different. Book a consultation with Shonee Kapoor for specific, practical guidance.
