A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Sections 13(1)(i-a) – Divorce -- Cruelty -- Spouses have strongly held views with regard to the approach towards matrimonial life and they have refused to accommodate each other for a long period of time -- Consequently, their conduct amounts to cruelty to each other – Held, in matrimonial matters involving two individuals, it is not for the society or for the Court to sit in judgment over which spouses’ approach is correct or not -- It is their strongly held views and their refusal to accommodate each other that amounts to cruelty to one another.

(Para 24)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Divorce – Long pendency of litigation – Ground of -- Pendency of matrimonial litigation for a long duration only leads to perpetuity of marriage on paper -- It is in the best interest of parties and the society if ties are severed between parties in cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably long period of time -- No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the matrimonial litigation pending in Court without granting relief to the parties – Marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down -- In exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Court dissolved the marriage between the parties -- The power to do ‘complete justice’ under article 142(1) is not Fettered by the doctrine of fault and blame.

(Para 27-35)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) -- Divorce – Cruelty – Marriage broken down irretrievably -- Parties have been residing separately since 2012 which is more than thirteen years now, and no substantial or meaningful effort has been made in restoring their matrimonial relationship -- High Court also interacted with the parties in person and found the marriage to have broken down irretrievably -- Relationship has become deeply embittered and acrimonious over the years -- They have a seventeen-year old daughter whose wellbeing, care, and future stability must remain paramount -- No purpose in perpetuating a legal bond that has long ceased to have any substance -- Continuing the marital tie would serve neither the spouses nor their child -- Divorce granted by High Court, affirmed.

(Para 4-7)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 25 -- Divorce – Permanent alimony -- Respondent-husband is a serving judicial officer holding a responsible public position and is, therefore, under a heightened obligation to ensure fair, adequate, and dignified financial security for his wife and daughter -- Appellant-wife, who is presently not engaged in legal practice, is entitled to maintain a standard of living broadly commensurate with what she enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage -- Child, now seventeen years of age and soon to pursue higher education, will also require continued financial support and stability -- Rs.50,00,000/- awarded -- LIC policy purchased by the respondent-husband, the amount of Rs.41,00,000/- shall be deposited in the account of the daughter and a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month shall be deposited by the respondent-husband in his daughter’s account until she is able to maintain herself; bearing all expenses towards her marriage; and that the prohibition against disinheriting the daughter are upheld and shall continue to operate -- All pending proceedings, whether civil or criminal, instituted by either party against the other and arising from the marriage shall stand closed.

(Para 8-11)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) -- Divorce – Desertion -- Cruelty -- False criminal case – Respondent-husband was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the appellant-wife due to registration of false criminal case – Appellant-wife lived with respondent-husband for around ten days after marriage -- Respondent-husband averred that appellant-wife deserted him and was residing separately for last almost ten years -- Appellant-wife admitted in her cross-examination that much time had passed since their marriage; they were not in touch with each other and their marriage was at the verge of broken down; she and her family did not go to mediate or hold any meeting and nor she filed a case u/s 9 of the HM Act -- Three years has passed since passing of the decree of dissolution of marriage also -- At this stage, there is no chance of reunion of the parties – Decree of divorce passed by the Additional District Judge affirmed.

(Para 15, 20-24)

A. Karewa marriage – Void marriage -- At the time of alleged Karewa Mariage between S and SR, wife of SR namely L was still alive -- It is settled law that second marriage, during subsistence of first marriage, is null and void.

(Para 16)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional evidence -- Application for additional evidence by way of DNA test to establish paternity of the defendants No.3 to 6 -- Plaintiff had moved the said application three-and-a-half years after initiation of appeal -- Plaintiff had failed to explain as to why the said application for producing evidence in question was not moved during trial; and why the said evidence was not produced before the learned trial Court -- Needless to say, the said facts were in the knowledge of the plaintiff during trial -- However, he failed to exercise due diligence -- No error in the dismissal of the said application of the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the learned Lower Appellate Court.

(Para 17)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 25 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- Cruelty – Acquittal in criminal case -- Long separation -- Parties separated just one year after their marriage and have remained apart ever since for more than 16 years -- Additionally, in the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, the appellant and his family members have been acquitted, which demonstrates that the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment against the appellant were false -- Welfare and dignity of both the spouses must be prioritized -- Court finds it a fit case to exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and granted the relief of divorce to the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- Appellant is working as a clerk in a private firm and the respondent is a homemaker who is independently taking care of their minor son aged 16 years -- Appellant ordered to pay composite monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent and their child.

(Para 13-27)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 3(a), 5(iv) – Customary marriage -- Levirate marriage – Legality of – Prohibited relationship – Effect of -- Petitioner and the Opposite Party No. 1 belong to a community where levirate marriage (marriage of a widow with the younger brother of the deceased husband) is a long-established and socially accepted custom -- Customary marriage was solemnized as per the local and caste-based traditions, practiced since generations, following the death of her husband – Held, if a recognized, longstanding, and reasonable custom exists in a particular community that allows levirate marriage, such a marriage may be legally valid despite otherwise being within a prohibited relationship.

(Para 15)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 3(a), 5(iv) – Levirate marriage – Status of wife -- Petitioner and O. P. No.1 have resided together for a significant period, long enough to give birth to two children-both of whom are acknowledged by the family -- Disowning the Petitioner on the sole ground of the marriage being a levirate marriage, while accepting her children as part of the family, reflects not just a legal contradiction but a moral and social injustice -- Denial of the wife’s status is an unjust act and if accepted, would set a dangerous precedent where a woman who has fulfilled the role of a wife and mother is discarded without remedy, solely due to patriarchal convenience.

(Para 18, 19)

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 3(a), 5(iv) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Levirate marriage -- Maintenance to wife -- Marriage, being validated by custom, cohabitation, social acceptance, and the birth of children, must be treated as valid in law for the purposes of Section 125 Cr.P.C -- Disregarding such a union would not only be legally unsound but would also send a regressive message to society, undermining the dignity of women and the security of children born from such relationships -- Petitioner, having lived as wife, borne children, and been deserted without support, falls within the protective umbrella of Section 125 CrPC -- Existence of children born out of the union further strengthens the presumption of valid marriage, or at minimum, a relationship akin to marriage, entitling the petitioner to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C -- Technical plea of invalidity of marriage, in this case, cannot be a valid ground to deny her maintenance.

(Para 21-25)

Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 14, 20 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section  5, 122 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 43, 66, 72 -- Divorce petition -- WhatsApp messages – Privileged communication -- Learned Family Court permitted the respondent/ plaintiff/ husband to mark the exhibits on the WhatsApp chats produced by him in his evidence -- Being aggrieved by this order of the Family Court, the instant petition by wife -- Held that:

(a) the evidence is admissible so long as it is relevant, irrespective of the fact how it is collected. The possible misuse of this rule of evidence, particularly in the context of the right to privacy, can be addressed by prudent exercise of judicial discretion by the Family Court, not at the time of receiving evidence but at the time of using evidence at the stage of adjudication;

(b) merely admitting evidence on record is not proof of a fact-in-issue or a relevant fact. Admitting evidence is not even reliance by the court on such evidence. Admitting evidence is mere inclusion of evidence in record, to be assessed on a comprehensive set of factors, parameters and aspects, in the discretion of the court;

(c) the test of ‘relevance’ ensures that the right of a party to bring evidence to court, and thereby to a fair trial, is not defeated. What weight is to be given to evidence so brought-in, and whether or not the court ultimately relies upon such evidence for proof of a fact-in-issue or a relevant fact, is always in the discretion of the court.

(d) merely because a court allows evidence to be admitted, does not mean that the person who has illegally collected such evidence is absolved of liability that may arise, whether in civil or criminal law or both;

(e) such evidence must be received and treated with caution and circumspection and to rule-out the possibility of any kind of tampering, the standard of proof applied by a court for the authenticity and accuracy of a such evidence should be more stringent as compared to other evidence.

(Para 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 38)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 25 – Divorce – Permanent alimony/ Maintenance -- Respondent-husband’s current net monthly income is Rs. 1,64,039/- -- Appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future -- Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife -- Amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years.

(Para 6-9)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 25 – Divorce – Maintenance to son aged 26 years -- Court not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support -- However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses.

(Para 8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (45 of 1988), Section 2(8)(9), 4 – Rejection of plaint -- Benami properties -- Whether a property is a benami, has to be considered not in the light of Section 4 of the Benami Act alone but also in connection with Sections 2 (8) and 2 (9) of the said Act i.e. whether the property if benami falls in the exception -- It is only where the property is benami and does not fall within the exception contained in Sub-Section (9) of Section 2 that a suit may be said to be barred -- However, the issue whether the property is benami and is not covered by the exception, is an issue to be decided on the basis of evidence and not simply on mere averments contained in the plaint -- Defendants have to adduce evidence to prove the property to be benami -- Plaint cannot be rejected at the stage of consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

(Para 27-29)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Absolute property of hindu female -- Plea that plaint is hit by Section 14 of the Act -- No such specific plea was taken by the defendants in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC -- Such a plea was never raised and argued before either of the courts below -- There is no finding by any court on the above aspect -- Defendants cannot be permitted to raise such a plea for the first time in the Special Leave Petition without there being any foundation to that effect.

(Para 30)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Absolute property of hindu female -- Section 14 of the Act simply provides that the property possessed by a female Hindu shall be held by her as a full owner -- It does not bar or prohibit a suit in respect of such a property -- Therefore, in the absence of any bar contained in the above provision, the suit plaint is not liable to be rejected as barred by law.

(Para 31)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Transfer of Divorce petition – Pathankot to Gurdaspur – Generally, the Courts lean towards the convenience of wife, in case of transfer applications, however, it is not a thumb rule -- Various other circumstances coming forth, also ought to be taken into consideration -- Two sons are studying in B.Sc. (Agricultural) at Hoshiarpur, as well as in 10th class are in the custody of the applicant/ wife -- Applicant herself is working as a teacher -- Interim maintenance has been fixed to facilitate the applicant to bear the expenditure of studies of both the children -- Other weighing factor is distance between the two places, which is less than 40 kilometres and there are well connected means of transport on the said route – Transfer application dismissed.

(Para 9-11)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Transfer of divorce petition – Rohtak to Jind -- Generally, the Courts give preference to the convenience of wife in the transfer applications relating to the matrimonial disputes -- Applicant is not having any source of earning and she is taking care of the minor daughter -- Besides the same, three cases arising from this matrimonial dispute, are already pending in the Courts at Jind and the respondent is making appearance -- Transfer application allowed.

(Para 6-7)

A. Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- Having considered the prolonged period of separation and the multiple failed attempts at reconciliation, which clearly indicate that there is no possibility of reunion, as well as their age (both are quinquagenarian) – It would be in the best interest of both the parties, and their daughter too, to put a quietus to this protracted litigation --  Marriage between the parties dissolved by a decree of divorce.

(Para 9-11)

B. Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- Respondent-husband has vehemently opposed the prayer for dissolution of marriage contending that none of the available grounds on which a Hindu marriage could be dissolved is present – Held, same is not a bar to exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution; more particularly when Court is satisfied that it is a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Divorce granted.

(Para 12, 13)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Joint Hindu Family property – Proof of -- Self acquired property – Alienation of -- Plaintiff not in possession of any document to show that he was the owner of the suit property or that the suit property had been purchased out of joint Hindu family funds -- Except for the oral evidence, no documentary evidence was produced in this regard – Once the plaintiff was not able to prove that the suit property had been purchased out of joint Hindu family funds, it can be safely concluded that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit property and the same was his self-acquired property, he was, therefore, duly competent to alienate the same.

(Para 12)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Suit for partition – Hindu Undivided Family property -- Suit property already stood partitioned -- Partition effected between the members of the Hindu Undivided Family by their own volition and with their consent cannot be reopened unless it is shown that it was obtained by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence, for which strict proof is required -- Plaintiff failed to prove that execution of the family settlement was the result of any fraud – Trial Court dismissed the suit and Appellate Court affirmed the same – Regular Second Appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 10, 11)

Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (15 of 1872), Preamble, Section 5 -- Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954), Section 4 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 2(c), 5 – Hindu girl conducted marriage under Christian Marriage Act -- Chairman of Town Panchayat -- Reservation as Scheduled caste – Effect upon -- Having voluntarily embraced Christianity,  she cannot blow hot and cold, claiming to be a Scheduled Caste for the purpose of 'public employment' -- She cannot identify herself a 'Hindu' after solemnization of marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 -- Conferment of scheduled caste communal status to the 4th respondent, who is a Christian by religion, is nothing but a fraud on the Constitution -- To retain the socio-religious identity of a personality in case of marriages between two persons from two different religions, the only way out which could be adopted by the persons concerned to retain their original religion is to resort to a civil marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

(Para 71-75)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 112 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 12(1)(i-d), 13(1)(i-a) – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 38 -- Divorce – Voidable marriage -- DNA test to assess  paternity of child – Marriage on 17.02.2022 – On medical check-up on 30.07.2022 wife was found pregnant for 8 month s – Petitioner filed a petition for declaration that the petitioner is not at all the father of daughter born to the respondent on 30.07.2022 -- Petitioner has filed a petition u/s 13(1)(i-a) read with Section 12(1) (i-d) of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as he has raised the question of paternity of the child -- His case is based on premarital pregnancy of the respondent -- Even on perusal of dates, there is prima facie reason to suspect the paternity -- As such the issue can be resolved by directing to conduct a DNA test as prayed -- Petitioner, respondent and her child directed to undertake a DNA test at Government Medical College, Nagpur within one month

(Para 18)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 25 – Divorce – Permanent alimony -- Decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- Permanent alimony of Rs. 50,00,000/- granted -- Once the lis between the parties was finally settled and permanent alimony of a lump sum amount was awarded, nothing further survives for consideration -- All pending matters inter se parties would stand closed -- Final order of maintenance shall be the full and final adjudication of any maintenance proceedings between the parties, leaving no scope for further claims in this regard.

(Para 1-4)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 11, 25 -- Void marriage – Maintenance to spouse – Permanent alimony – Right of -- A spouse whose marriage has been declared void u/s 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act -- Whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties -- Grant of relief u/s 25 is always discretionary.

(Para 28 a)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 11, 12, 24 -- Void marriage – Voidable marriage – Maintenance pendente -- Even if a court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the 1955 Act, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied -- While deciding the prayer for interim relief u/s 24, the Court will always take into consideration the conduct of the party seeking the relief, as the grant of relief u/s 24 is always discretionary.

(Para 28 b)

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 23 – ‘decree in proceedings’ (Sec. 23) -- Interpretation of -- ‘decrees in proceedings’ will not include the decisions dismissing the petitions seeking reliefs u/s 9 to 13 -- Decrees passed u/s 11 to 13 bring about a change of status of the parties to the marriage -- Even a decree of restitution of conjugal rights brings about a change of status of the parties in case there is no restitution of conjugal rights within one year of a decree -- Even a decree of judicial separation u/s 10 brings about a change of status in the sense that a spouse who has got such a decree is no longer under an obligation to cohabit with his or her spouse.

(Para 17)

D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 144 -- Decline of decree under Hindu Marriage Act -- Remedy for maintenance -- When a decree is sought u/s 9 to 13 and is declined by the court, the remedy u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, remains available to the wife -- Even the remedy u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 continues to be available.

(Para 19)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 144 -- Maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. / 144 of BNSS – Nature of proceedings -- Proceedings u/s 125 of the CrPC are of a summary nature -- While deciding the applications u/s 125 of the CrPC, a summary procedure is required to be followed, and a detailed adjudication of the rights of the parties cannot be made -- The same is the legal position as regards the corresponding remedy u/s 144 of the BNSS.

(Para 21)

F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 24, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 – Maintenance pendentelite -- Conditions for applicability of Section 24 are: (i) There must be a proceeding under the 1955 Act pending and (ii) the court must come to a conclusion that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding.

(Para 25)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Dispute between the parties remains only concerning the maintenance amount and both the parties have agreed to the grant of divorce – Husband has already remarried, the present parties stayed together for only about two months after the marriage, have no intention to continue their marital relationship, the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband has evidently broken down irretrievably – No interfere with the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court and confirmed by the High Court.

(Para 15)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 25 -- Divorce -- Permanent alimony -- Husband has not been forthright in disclosure of his income and assets and is clearly attempting to escape his liability to support the appellant post-divorce -- In pursuance of the affidavit filed by the appellant, it can be plainly inferred that the respondent has multiple sources of income including the rental income from tenanted premises -- There is no issue out of the wedlock -- Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case, the financial status of the parties, their standards of living, the fact that the respondent has already remarried and also bears the financial responsibility of his new family, Rs. 10,00,000/- awarded as a one-time settlement in favour of the appellant-wife shall serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice.

(Para 19)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 (4) -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Maintenance to wife -- Decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Effect of -- Mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C -- It would depend on the facts of the individual case and it would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree.

(Para 29)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 (4) -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 34, 35, 36, 37 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 40, 41, 42, 43 -- Maintenance to wife -- Decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Effect of -- Contention that the findings in the judgment for restitution of conjugal rights by the Family Court, being a Civil Court, would be binding on the Court seized of the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C, as they are to be treated as criminal proceedings – Held, even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings.

-- Section 41 of Evidence Act specifically deals with instances where an earlier judgment, order or decree constitutes conclusive proof whereas Section 42 provides that an earlier judgment is relevant if it relates to matters of public nature relevant to the inquiry, but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.

-- Two proceedings are altogether independent and are not directly or even indirectly connected, in the sense that proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. do not arise from proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights.

(Para 30-34)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 (1) -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Maintenance to wife -- Decree of divorce – Effect of -- A wife, who suffered a decree of divorce on the ground of deserting her husband, would not be entitled to maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as long as the marriage subsisted, but she would be entitled to such maintenance once she attained the status of a divorced wife, in the light of the definition of a ‘wife’ in Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. Rohtash Singh’s case (2000) 3 SCC 180, relied.

(Para 38)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Coparcener property -- By definition, an ancestral property is a coparcenary property, where "coparceners" are legal heirs with an inherent interest in the property from birth -- Such properties remain undivided within joint families, with legal heirs enjoying their shares.

(Para 16)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Coparcener property -- Family settlement – Effect of -- Suit property could not have been held to be an ancestral property, as the same was received by the erstwhile owner by way of a family settlement, wherein, the two brothers divided two equally measuring plots between themselves -- Hence, the property could not have been said to be delved on the father by virtue of him being a coparcener in that property.

(Para 19)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Regular Second Appeal – Scope of -- Section 100 of the CPC confers a limited jurisdiction on the High Court to deal only with any legal error apparent on the face of the record -- Since there arises no substantial question of law to be adjudicated, the appeal dismissed.

(Para 20, 21)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) – Divorce petition -- Visiting right of father to meet minor daughter (born on 06.06.2022) -- Matrimonial disputes and grave allegations between parents should not be an impediment to a child’s right to have care, company, and affection of both the parents – While no guardianship or custody petition has been preferred by the respondent/ father, visitation rights require a careful and empathetic consideration during the pendency of the divorce proceedings – Respondent allowed to visit the minor daughter every Sunday between 10:00 AM and 02:00 PM.

(Para 3, 5, 14)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), (ib), 25 -- Divorce – Desertion – Cruelty -- Long separation – Maintenance/ Permanent alimony -- Parties living separately for two decades -- Prolonged separation, creates a presumption of the marriage having irretrievably broken down -- Parties have not shared a marital life since 2004, and all attempts at reconciliation have failed -- Length of separation and the evident animosity between the parties make it clear that there is no possibility of the marriage being revived -- Cruelty, long separation, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, provide sufficient justification for dissolving the marriage -- Respondent husband to pay a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the appellant as permanent alimony and an additional Rs. 50,00,000/- to their daughter for her education and future expenses, such as her marriage – Divorce, upheld.

(Para 16, 30-41)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6, 8 – Co-parcenary property – Sole-coparcener – Alienation of property – Right of -- Sole surviving co-parcener is entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property as his separate property as long as he remains a sole surviving coparcener and he may sell or mortgage the coparcenary property even though there is no legal necessity or family benefit or may even make a gift of the coparcenary property -- When the sons and grandchildren are born to the family, then automatically by birth they acquire the right over the ancestral and joint family property and cannot dispose of the same.

(Para 22, 23)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14(1) – Hindu Women’s right to maintenance -- Absolute property of woman -- Right of maintenance is sufficient for the property given in lieu thereof to transform into absolute ownership, by way of Section 14(1) of the HSA, 1956.

(Para 9.4)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14(1) – Hindu Women’s right to maintenance -- Hindu Women’s right to maintenance is not by virtue of statute, but is found in Shastric Hindu law; maintenance has to be proper, appropriate and adequate, giving the woman so maintained the ability to continue to live the life, similar to what she once lived; and that the very right to receive maintenance is sufficient title to enable the ripening of possession into full ownership if she is in possession of the property in lieu of maintenance.

(Para 10)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Ancestral property -- Once a property is acquired by way of succession, the same loses its ancestral character.

(Para 5)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Divorce petition – Transfer of -- Weightage ought to be given to the convenience of the wife in the transfer applications, relating to the matrimonial dispute -- Parents of respondent-husband can look after the children – Custody petition filed by wife, petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and the petition u/s 12 of the DV Act are pending in the Courts at Gohana and the complaint for registration of FIR u/s 498-A IPC is pending with the police authorities, Gohana – Divorce petition transferred from Meham to Gohana.

(Para 7-9)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 8 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 9 -- Agreement to sell – Minor’s interest – Suit for specific performance -- Agreement to sell executed by defendant-respondent No.1/ one of heir of deceased -- No power of attorney executed by the other heirs in favour of defendant-respondent No.1 -- Power of attorney produced was executed after the execution of the agreement to sell -- Further, defendant-respondent Nos.6 and 7 were minors, without any permission from the Guardian Court their share could not in any case be sold, no such permission by the Guardian Court is forthcoming – Ld. Appellate Court held “said agreement being opposed to public policy and law could not be treated as a valid agreement to give rise to the cause of specific performance” – No ground to interfere, appeal dismissed.

(Para 9, 10)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 21B – Long pendency of Divorce petition – Speedy disposal – Mandate of -- Suit of year 2020 -- Direction issued to the Principal Judge, Family Court to decided case in accordance with law maximum within a period three months in light of Section 21-B of Act, 1955 after providing opportunity of hearing to opposite party and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

(Para 2-4)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Maintenance to wife -- Divorce petition pending – Applicant is to be treated as the legally wedded wife of the respondent till the marriage between them is dissolved by a valid decree of divorce -- Maintenance cannot be denied to her simply on the ground that the respondent has filed a petition for declaring the marriage as a nullity – Husband earning Rs. 2,47,661/- and he was getting Rs.1,38,546/- after the deduction of PF and income tax -- Maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive.

(Para 16, 19)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(a), 26, 27, 21B -- Divorce petition instituted on 16.10.2023 – Expedite disposal – Contention that respondent-husband has taken six adjournments in a year to delay the proceedings and as per Section 21-B (2) all endeavors should be to decide the matrimonial suit within six months – Principal Judge, Family Court directed to decide the Original Suit within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of order.

(Para 1-5)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18 – Interim maintenance to wife – Challenge to -- In the affidavit of assets and liabilities, the petitioner claimed his monthly pension as Rs.32,000/- -- Respondent placed on record, injunction order reflecting him a beneficiary in respect of the land measuring 17-14-08 bighas, which he claimed (therein) to be in his ownership and joint possession -- It was clearly evident that the petitioner had not revealed the details of his immovable properties -- Respondent is aged more than 70 years -- Award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be said to be at the higher side -- No interference is called for.

(Para 4, 5)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Divorce – Desertion -- Merely because the parties may have remained separated for reason of their separate jobs with one working at Jhansi and the other at Auraiya, the fact occurrence of desertion may never be sustained on the strength of such vocational/ employment compulsion faced by the parties.

(Para 6)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 11, 13(1A)(i) – Divorce -- Judicial separation -- If no cohabitation arises within the statutory period, it becomes open to the affected party to apply for dissolution of marriage for reason of no cohabitation arising within the prescribed statutory period -- Decree granted by the learned trial court for reason of matrimonial relationship having not revived within the statutory period of one year from the date of decree of judicial separation granted is justified.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Limited estate of lady – Property of female Hindu to be her absolute property -- Defendant no.1 was married in the year 1959-60, much after coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on 17.06.1956 -- As such, her limited estate enlarges into absolute estate and she becomes full owner on the date of coming into force the Hindu Succession Act.

(Para 41)

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of minor child – Sisters of deceased wife -- Natural father – Right of -- Child, who lost her mother at tender age, cannot be deprived of the company of her father and natural brother -- At the relevant time, the appellant had no other option but to look upon the sisters of his deceased wife to nurture his infant child -- Merely because of the unfortunate circumstances faced by the appellant as a result of which, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were given the temporary custody of the minor child and only because they  looked after her for few years, the same cannot be a ground to deny the custody of the minor child to the appellant, who is her only natural guardian -- Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 directed to handover the custody of the minor child forthwith – Meeting rights given for every Wednesday between 04:00 pm and 06:00 pm.

(Para 13-17)

National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART Clinics in India by Indian Council of Medical Research, 2005, Guideline No.3.12.1, 3.16.1 -- Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (47 of 2021), Section 2(r), 2(zd), 2(zg), 3, 4, 53 -- Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) ACT, 2021 (42 of 2021), Section 31 -- Birth by surrogacy in 2019 – Altruistic surrogacy through an egg donor --   Right of Donor -- Guidelines of 2005 are applicable --  Under Guideline No.3.12.1 and the Surrogacy Agreement dated 30.11.2018, it is clearly stated that a child born through ART shall be presumed to be the legitimate child of the couple as having been born from the wedlock and with the consent of both the spouses -- Though the younger sister of Petitioner is the oocyte  donor, she has no legitimate right to claim that she is the biological parent/ mother of the twin daughters -- She may qualify to be a genetic mother and nothing more, but by such qualification she would have no intending legal right whatsoever to claim to be the biological mother of the twin daughters as the law clearly does not recognise so.

(Para 7.7, 9.2, 9.9, 9.10, 12, 17)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievably breaking down of marriage – Ground of -- Boggy of irretrievably breaking down of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party who is solely responsible for tearing down the marital relationship.

(Para 6)

A. Constitution of  India, Article 226 -- Custody of children -- Writ of habeas corpus – Maintainability of -- Effort to secure temporary custody of the children through a Writ of Habeas Corpus, especially when both the children are girls and are living with their mother, can neither be entertained nor appreciated.

(Para 1)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 13(f) -- Custody of children – Order of Foreign court – Compliance of -- Compliance to an order claimed to have obtained from the District Court, Family Court Division, State of Minnesota, U.S.A -- A foreign judgment violative of Indian law is not conclusive between the parties and thus, Indian Courts are not bound to follow it -- This principle is also statutorily recognized by Section 13(f) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Hence, the aforesaid order is not binding on the respondents or the children.

(Para 3)

A. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18, 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 7 -- Maintenance -- Family court has jurisdiction for trying cases both under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 20 of the Act of 1956.

(Para 50)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 20 – Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 7 -- Maintenance to major daughter u/s 125 Cr.P.c. granted by Family court – Challenge to – Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 makes it statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property -- Section 125 Cr.P.C. limits the claim of maintenance of a child until he or she attains majority -- Held, since the order has been passed by the family court which has jurisdiction to entertain the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as well as application under Sub-clause (3) of Section 20 of Act of 1956, no purpose will be served in interfering with the revision and relegating the daughter to move a fresh application before the same court under different provision of law i.e. Section 20(3) of Act of 1956 -- No interference is required with the order impugned.

(Para 36, 51-53)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9, 13 – Divorce – Decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Appellant did not agree to cohabitation –  Upon failure of cohabitation for a period of one year after grant of decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent held entitled to dissolution of the marriage.

(Para 6)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Divorce -- Adultery -- Adulterer as party – Requirement of -- Rejection of plaint -- Alleged adulterer is not a necessary party as a decree can be passed in his/ her absence -- Likewise, the adulterer is not a proper party since the issue concerning adultery can be adjudicated without making the adulterer a party to the cause -- Proof of adultery need not be conflated with who should be arrayed as a party to a divorce action – Application for rejection plaint dismissed.

(Para 2, 11, 11.1, 17)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Divorce petition -- Rejection of plaint – Petition cannot be rejected in a piecemeal manner upon an application being moved under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

(Para 11, 15)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6, 8 -- Coparcenary property -- Mutation was sanctioned in accordance with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -- The property can no longer be claimed to be a coparcenary.

(Para 4.5)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Drafting of Will -- Attestation of Will – Presence of witnesses – Knowledge of contents – Requirement of -- Will is required to be executed in the presence of witnesses or they should receive acknowledgment from the testator that he has signed it.

-- Drafting of the Will and the typing of the Will in the presence of witnesses is not necessary.

-- Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has either seen the testator’s sign or affixed his mark to the Will or has received acknowledgment from the testator that he has signed the Will.

-- Both the witnesses are not required to be simultaneously present at one place.

-- Witnesses are not required to know the contents of the Will -- They are required to attest the signatures of the testator.

(Para 4.17)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6, 8 -- Coparcenary property – The property not come through male lineal descendants -- In between, there was a civil court decree, transfer deed of some property – The Property was inherited u/s 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not as a coparcenary property – The property received from different sources including ownership by way of adverse possession as well as receipt of the property from aunt – Held, the property is not coparcenary.

(Para 4.21, 4.22)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 – Co-parcenery property – No son – Right to alienate -- Suit for declaration challenging the consent decree dated 22.07.1981 -- In the absence of any fraud having being played, the power to alienate the suit property despite being ancestral property could not be challenged as the property in his hand would be treated as separate property in the absence of a son.

(Para 1, 10-14)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Divorce -- Cruelty -- Denial of the appellant/ wife for making physical relationship with respondent/ husband amounts to cruelty with respondent.

(Para 11)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of child -- Writ of Habeas Corpus – Maintainability of -- Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy -- Recourse to such a remedy should not be permitted unless the ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective -- In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody -- In child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law -- There are significant differences between the enquiry under the Guardians and Wards Act and the exercise of powers by a writ court which is summary in nature -- What is important is the welfare of the child -- Where the court is of the view that a detailed enquiry is required, the court may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction and direct the parties to approach the civil court -- No hard and fast rule can be laid down insofar as the maintainability of a habeas corpus petition in the matters of custody of a minor child – It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

(Para 16)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of child -- Writ of Habeas Corpus – It is not a case that the appellant-grandmother had illegally kept the custody of the minor child -- It is the respondent-father who had placed the custody of the minor child with the appellant-grandmother -- High Court ought not to have entertained the habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Compelling a minor child at the tender age of 7 years to withdraw from the custody of his grandparents with whom he has been living for the last about 5 years may cause psychological disturbances – Paramount interest of the welfare of the minor child would be required to be done -- Such an exercise would not be permissible in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Order of High Court set aside.

(Para 18-23)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 7 – Ceremonies of Hindu marriage -- Saptapadi -- Marriage certificate -- The word “solemnised” means to perform the marriage with ceremonies in proper form -- Unless and until the marriage is performed with appropriate ceremonies and in due form, it cannot be said to be “solemnised” -- Requisite ceremonies for the solemnisation of the Hindu marriage must be in accordance with the applicable customs or usage and where saptapadi has been adopted, the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken -- Unless the parties have undergone such ceremony, there would be no Hindu marriage according to Section 7 of the Act  -- Mere issuance of a certificate by an entity in the absence of the requisite ceremonies having been performed, would neither confirm any marital status to the parties nor establish a marriage under Hindu law.

(Para 16)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 7 -- Ceremonies of Hindu marriage – Marriage certificate – Contents of -- Marriage certificate states that ‘marriage’ between the parties has been solemnised according to Hindu Vedic rites and customs -- Certificate issued by Vadik Jankalyan Samiti (Regd.) in the absence of any indication as to the rites and customs that were performed and as to whether the requirements u/s 7 of the Act was complied with would not be a certificate evidencing a Hindu marriage in accordance with Section 7 of the Act.

(Para 17)

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 7, 8 – Registration of marriage -- Legitimacy to the marriage -- If there has been no marriage in accordance with Section 7, the registration would not confer legitimacy to the marriage -- A certificate of marriage is a proof of validity of Hindu marriage only when such a marriage has taken place and not in a case where there is no marriage ceremony performed at all.

(Para 19)

D. Hindu Law – Hindu marriage -- Hindu marriage is a sacrament and has a sacred character -- Saptapadi in a Hindu marriage, according to Rig Veda, after completing the seventh step (saptapadi) the bridegroom says to his bride, “With seven steps we have become friends (sakha) -- May I attain to friendship with thee; may I not be separated from thy friendship” -- A wife is considered to be half of oneself (ardhangini) but to be accepted with an identity of her own and to be a co-equal partner in the marriage -- There is nothing like a “better-half” in a marriage but the spouses are equal halves in a marriage -- In Hindu Law, marriage is a sacrament or a samskara -- It is the foundation for a new family.

(Para 20)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 12 – Annulment of marriage – Transfer of case – Kolkata to Jharkhand – Petitioner-wife has filed a petition for maintenance etc., the respondent-husband has filed the subject suit u/s 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for annulment of the marriage -- Grounds taken that wife is staying with her parents at Dhanbad, Jharkhand; she has no source of livelihood; she has apprehension of physical violence and mental torture in the event of visiting Alipore etc. – Case ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

(Para 1-5)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Transfer of divorce petition – Jharkhand to Bihar – Petitioner employed at Bengaluru -- Stated that it would be difficult for her to defend the subject-case at Ranchi, Jharkhand as she has no family support either at Bengaluru or at Ranchi -- It is specifically submitted that most of the time, she is working from Katihar, where her parental home is situated -- It would be expedient for the ends of justice to transfer the subject-case as asked for by the petitioner -- Transfer Petition allowed.

(Para 3-7)

A. HUF as proprietor -- Proprietorship is not governed by any statute, there is no bar on a Hindu Undivided Family becoming a proprietor.

(Para 15)

B. HUF -- One person cannot form a Hindu Undivided Family.

(Para 15)

C. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C -- Loan to Proprietorship/ HUF – Exemption from payment of foreclosure charges to individual – Applicability of -- Application for loan signed with stamp “Proprietor/HUF” -- In the PAN details of applicant/borrower, details of the sole proprietor alone have been mentioned -- Application for loan was submitted for and on behalf of the Individual borrowers/ sole proprietorship and not in any capacity as a Hindu Undivided Family -- Merely because the wife and son become “Co-applicants”, it would not automatically term the borrowing as one by Hindu Undivided Family, which is a separate entity for assessment and the Hindu Undivided Family never submitted an application -- Meaning of “/” has to be read as “either/or”, hence, the interpretation of the stamp has to be in the context in which the application had been submitted -- Foreclosure charges along with the processing charges charged by the respondent/ Finance Company directed to be refunded to the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum.

(Para 15-24)

D. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22C -- Permanent Lok Adalat -- Public Utility Services -- Authorised representative – Permissibility of -- There is no mandate in law that only the sole proprietor could have preferred an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) and that he could not have authorised any other representative to pursue the application u/s 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 -- No adverse inference can be drawn only on the strength that the proprietor has come before High Court whereas the application had been preferred before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) through the authorised representative.

(Para 22)