Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

247 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 1–200.

S. NAGALINGAMversusSIVAGAMI

2001 INSC 41331 August 2001Dismissed

The appellant, S. Nagalingam, was first married to Sivagami on 6 September 1970. While that marriage subsisted, he contracted a second marriage with Kasturi on 18 June 1984 in a temple in Tamil Nadu, where garlanding and tying of the thali were performed. The trial court acquitted him, holding that the essential "Sapta

CHALLAMMAversusTILAGA & ORS.

2009 INSC 99031 July 2009Dismissed

The deceased K.T. Subramanya had taken four life insurance policies naming his mother, Challamma, as nominee. After his death, his alleged wife Tilaga and their two children applied for a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925, claiming the deceased was married to Tilaga. Challamma contest

REVANASIDDAPPA AND ANR.versusMALLIKARJUN AND ORS.

2011 INSC 25131 March 2011Matter referred to larger bench

The appeal arose from a Karnataka High Court decision on a partition suit involving children born of a void second marriage. The petitioners claimed that the children of the void marriage were illegitimate and therefore not coparceners in the ancestral property, while the respondents argued they were entitled to a shar

S. HANUMANTHA RAOversusS. RAMANI

1999 INSC 14331 March 1999Dismissed

The husband filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion, alleging that his wife removed and threw her mangalsutra, preserved copies of letters she had written to him, and sought the intervention of the Women Protection Cell under IPC 498A. The trial court granted divorce on the basis of

KULDEEP SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

2025 INSC 13731 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Kuldeep Singh, was charged under Sections 366, 376 and 506 IPC for alleged abduction and rape of his wife, Respondent No.3, after she filed a statement alleging forced marriage. The appellant contended that the marriage was solemnised voluntarily under Sikh rites and that, under Exception 2 to Section 37

SAU. JIYAversusKULDEEP

2025 INSC 13531 January 2025Case Partly allowed

The marriage between Sau. Jiya and Kuldeep was dissolved by a family court on the ground of cruelty, a decree later affirmed by the High Court. After the husband remarried in 2019, the parties disputed a permanent alimony settlement, with the wife seeking a lump‑sum amount and the husband contesting his income and asse

MUTHUSWAMI NADAR AND ORS.versusRAMAKRISHNAN NADAR AND ORS.

1995 INSC 81130 November 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a partition suit based on three sale deeds executed by Rosammal and Mariammal in their favour. The respondents challenged the deeds, arguing that the vendors' mother, Kochammal, could not inherit her son Kumaraswami's share because she was allegedly a Christian, rendering the deeds invalid. The tri

PANKAJ MAHAJANversusDIMPLE @ KAJAL

2011 INSC 73530 September 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and the wife’s incurable unsound mind, alleging that she suffered from schizophrenia and repeatedly threatened suicide. The trial court granted the decree, but the High Court set it aside, holding that the

DR. (MRS.) MALATHI RAVI, M.D.versusDR. B.V. RAVI M.D.

2014 INSC 42630 June 2014Disposed off

The husband, Dr. B.V. Ravi, filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging desertion, and also sought restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court found no proof of desertion and granted restitution, but the wife, Dr. Malathi Ravi, later lodged FIRs against the husband, lead

MANISH JAINversusAKANKSHA JAIN

2017 INSC 29730 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Manish Jain filed for divorce against his wife Akanksha Jain, who subsequently sought interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming she had no independent income. The trial court dismissed her application, but the Delhi High Court later ordered the husband to pay Rs.60,000 per month in additi

SMT. N. USHA RANI AND ANR.versusMOODUDULA SRINIVAS

2025 INSC 12930 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Smt. N. Usha Rani, married her first husband in 1999, separated and executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2005, and subsequently married the respondent twice, the second marriage being registered. The respondent obtained a decree declaring the first marriage void and later filed a criminal revi

M. V CHANDRAKANTHversusSANGAPPPA & ORS

2022 INSC 76929 July 2022Dismissed

M. V. Chandrakanth (appellant) challenged a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court that had set aside a Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition filed by Respondent No.1, who claimed Other Backward Class (OBC) reservation as a member of the Ganiga caste. The central issue was whether a person belonging to th

M. YOGENDRA & ORS.versusLEELAMMA N. & ORS

2009 INSC 96229 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

K. Doddananjundaiah, a coparcener, had three daughters by his first wife and a son Dinesh by a second wife Yashodamma. After K's death, the daughters (appellants) claimed a one‑third share of the partitioned property, contending that the second marriage was void and that Dinesh, born after the Hindu Succession Act 1956

RAKHI SADHUKHANversusRAJA SADHUKHAN

2025 INSC 78929 May 2025Disposed off

Rakhi Sadhukhan filed for divorce from Raja Sadhukhan and was awarded permanent alimony of Rs.20,000 per month with a 5% increase every three years by the Calcutta High Court. She later contended that the amount was insufficient given the husband’s higher income and the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriag

SMT. LATA KAMATversusVILAS

1989 INSC 10429 March 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The trial court declared the marriage between Smt. Lata and her husband Vilas null under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act because the wife was pregnant by another man. While the wife appealed, the husband remarried, and the lower courts held the appeal infructuous, dismissing it. The Supreme Court examined wh

YAGWATI @ POONAMversusGHANSHYAM

2024 INSC 110029 January 2024

The appellant, a wife, sought maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act after separating from her husband, who later obtained an ex‑parte divorce decree and remarried. The Family Court granted modest maintenance, which the High Court later enhanced, but the appellant argued that the respond

KUMAR V. JAHGIRDARversusCHETHANA RAMATHEERTHA

2004 INSC 6929 January 2004Disposed off

After a mutual consent divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the mother remarried a famous cricketer and sought exclusive custody of their 9‑year‑old daughter. The Family Court awarded custody to the father, but the Karnataka High Court reversed that decision, granting the mother exclusive custody with visitation

MRS RITIKA SHARANversusMR SUJOY GHOSH

2020 INSC 61528 October 2020Disposed off

The parties, married in 2009, have been living apart since 2016, with the mother, Mrs. Ritika Sharan, caring for their son Sattik while employed in Singapore. The father, Mr. Sujoy Ghosh, obtained interim orders from the Family Court restraining the mother from taking the child out of Bengaluru and granting him visitat

ILAVARASANversusTHE SUPERITENDENT OF POLICE & ORS.

2023 INSC 81328 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Ilavarasan married Mathithra under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, with the assistance of advocates and social workers, and later filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that she was being detained by her parents and forced to marry her maternal uncle. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition, h

VINISHA JITESH TOLANI @ MANMEET LAGHMANIversusJITESH KISHORE TOLANI

2010 INSC 25228 April 2010Disposed off

The wife and husband were married in Goa under Hindu rites and the marriage was registered there. The husband filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Goa seeking annulment. The wife, who had been residing in the United Kingdom and later in Delhi, filed a petition under Section 25 of the Cod

JAGDISH SINGHversusMADHURI DEVI

2008 INSC 53628 April 2008Case Allowed

The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The Family Court examined the evidence in detail and granted the decree of divorce. The wife appealed, and the High Court set aside the Family Court's decree, holding that there were no spe

SHARDAversusDHARMPAL

2003 INSC 18928 March 2003Dismissed

The husband filed for divorce under Sections 12(1)(b) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a court order that his wife undergo a medical examination to determine unsoundness of mind. The District Judge ordered the examination, the High Court dismissed the revision, and the wife appealed to the Supreme Cour

PADMJA SHARMAversusRATAN LAL SHARMA

2000 INSC 16028 March 2000Case Partly allowed

The wife, a government lecturer, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce and sought maintenance for her two minor sons under Section 125 of the CrPC and Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court granted modest maintenance and custody to the mother, which the High Court later

SURJIT KAURversusGARJA SINGH AND ORS.

1993 INSC 34527 October 1993

The plaintiffs, heirs of the deceased Gulaba Singh, sued Surjit Kaur for possession of his property, claiming they were the nearest heirs under a will. Surjit Kaur counter‑claimed that she was Gulaba Singh's legally wedded wife under a Karewa form of marriage and that they lived as husband and wife. The trial court and

SMT. JASBIR KAUR SEHGALversusTHE DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN AND ORS.

1997 INSC 62027 August 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The wife, Jasbir Kaur Sehg al, filed for divorce and, having no income, was supporting her eldest unmarried daughter. She applied for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which the High Court had enhanced to Rs 1500 per month. The Supreme Court examined whether maintenance should also c

BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR.versusMONICA

2009 INSC 94927 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Vimla Sharma against a Delhi High Court order that quashed a summoning order issued under Sections 498A, 403, 405, 406 and 34 of the IPC. The Court examined the complaint filed by Monica, the wife of Vikas Sharma, and found that the allegations did not satisfy

SMT. VANAMALAversusSHRI H.N. RANGANATHA BHATIA

1995 INSC 42527 July 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a woman who obtained a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, later filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial magistrate dismissed the application, holding that a divorcee could not claim maintenance, but the Sess

M. SARAVANA PORSELVIversusA.R. CHANDRASHEKAR @ PARTHIBAN & ORS.

2008 INSC 73927 May 2008Dismissed

The wife and husband entered into a registered customary divorce agreement in 1996, with the wife receiving permanent alimony. The husband remarried in 1998, and ten years later the wife filed a complaint alleging cruelty under Section 498A IPC and bigamy under Section 494 IPC, leading to an FIR. The High Court exercis

SURYA VADANANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2015 INSC 17827 February 2015Disposed off

Surya and Mayura Vadanan, both British citizens, married in India and had two daughters in the UK. In August 2012 Mayura brought the children to India and filed for divorce. Surya obtained an interim order from the High Court of Justice in England making the children wards of that court and directing the mother to retu

VISHNU DUTT SHARMAversusMANJU SHARMA

2009 INSC 28827 February 2009Dismissed

The husband filed a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty by his wife. The trial court, and subsequently the High Court, found that the wife was the victim of cruelty and that the husband could not establish cruelty on her part. The husband also sought divorce on the ground of "irret

RAMESHW ARI DEVIversusSTATE OF BIHAR

2000 INSC 3127 January 2000Dismissed

The case concerned the entitlement to family pension and death‑cum‑retirement gratuity of a deceased government employee who had two wives. The first wife, Rameshwari Devi, claimed the benefits for herself and her son, while the second wife, Yogmaya Devi, claimed benefits for herself and her four sons, asserting a vali

BAKULBHAI AND ANR.versusGANGARAM & ANR.

1988 INSC 2227 January 1988Appeal(s) allowed

Bakulabai filed a Section 125 CrPC application for maintenance for herself and her son, claiming a lawful marriage with Ganga Ram, who denied the marriage and alleged prior existing marriages. The Judicial Magistrate granted maintenance, but the Sessions Judge reversed the decision; the High Court dismissed Bakulabai's

SMT. YAMUNABAI ANANTRAO ADHAVversusANANTRAO SHIVRAM ADHAV AND ANOTHER

1988 INSC 2527 January 1988Dismissed

Smt. Yamunabai married Anantrao Shivram Adhav in June 1974 while he already had a living wife. The marriage, performed under Hindu rites, was challenged for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court and the Bombay High Court dismissed her claim. The Supreme Court examined whether a w

INDRA SARMAversusV.K.V. SARMA

2013 INSC 78626 November 2013Dismissed

The appellant, an unmarried woman, lived with the respondent, a married man, for about 14 years and claimed that his failure to maintain her constituted domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent argued that their relationship was a mere live‑in arrangement, not a "

DR. AMIT KUMARversusDR. SONILA & ORS.

2018 INSC 100726 October 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

Dr. Amit Kumar and Dr. Sonila, both doctors posted with the CRPF, obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in 2016 which stipulated that custody of their two minor children would vest with the father, with each parent bearing the expenses of one child. After the father was transferred to Jammu, the children were

DURGESH SHARMAversusJAYSHREE

2008 INSC 109626 September 2008Disposed off

The husband filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court at Ujjain. The wife applied to the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to have the case transferred to a court in Malegaon, Maharashtra, and the High Court ordered the transfer. The husband

ANIRUDDHA KHANWALKARversusSHARMILA DAS & OTHERS

2024 INSC 34226 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant married respondent No.1, who had previously concealed her existing marriage and presented a forged divorce decree, inducing the appellant to part with Rs. 2 lakh and later discover her pregnancy. The appellant filed a criminal complaint alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420 and 120‑

SH. RAKESH RAMANversusSMT. KAVITA

2023 INSC 43326 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Sh. Rakesh Raman filed a petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and desertion by his wife, Smt. Kavita. The parties had been living apart for about 25 years, with no children, and had been involved in multiple criminal litigations against each other. The trial

SMT. PARAYANKANDIYAL ERA VATH KANAPRAVAN KALLIANI AMMA AND ORS.versusK. DEVI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 58326 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Raman Nair contracted a second marriage while his first wife was alive, violating Section 5 of the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932, which rendered the second marriage void. After the Act was repealed by the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, the appellants claimed that the repeal validated the sec

SAMARGHOSHversusJAYA GHOSH

2007 INSC 33826 March 2007Disposed off

The case involved two senior IAS officers who married under the Special Marriage Act in 1984. The wife unilaterally decided not to have children, refused cohabitation, neglected her husband during illness, insulted him and eventually forced him out of their home, leading to a separation that lasted over sixteen years.

JOYDEEP MAJUMDARversusBHARTI JAISWAL MAJUMDAR

2021 INSC 12326 February 2021Disposed off

Joydeep Majumdar, an Army officer, filed for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty, alleging that his wife, Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, repeatedly made defamatory complaints to his superiors, the State Women Commission, and on public platforms, which damaged his career and reputation. The Family Court granted the divorc

SARASWATHYversusBABU

2013 INSC 78225 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Saraswathy, married to Babu in 2000, was subjected to dowry demands and was thrown out of the matrimonial home. She filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking protection, residence and maintenance orders. Although the trial magistrate granted these orders, Babu repeatedly re

JEET SINGH ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1992 INSC 32325 November 1992Dismissed

The appellants, Jeet Singh (who had two wives) and his first wife Mayawati, challenged the inclusion of two plots transferred to Mayawati in Jeet Singh's land holding under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, arguing that Mayawati was a "judicially separated" wife and therefore the land should be

SMT. SEEMAversusASHWANI KUMAR

2007 INSC 110325 October 2007Directions issued

The Supreme Court revisited its earlier order of 14 February 2006 directing that all marriages in India be compulsorily registered. After hearing amicus curiae and examining compliance reports, the Court found that several states (Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Mizoram

PREETI SINGHversusSANDEEP SINGH AND ORS.

1995 INSC 29525 April 1995

The Supreme Court considered a petition for divorce by mutual consent filed by Preeti Singh and Sandeep Singh under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties had reached a compromise in which the respondent paid Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the petitioner, deposited Rs. 1.25 lakhs and Rs. 30,000 in the name of his minor

VIKRAM VIR VOHRAversusSHALINI BHALLA

2010 INSC 17025 March 2010Dismissed

The husband and wife obtained a mutual‑consent divorce under Section 13‑B of the Hindu Marriage Act, agreeing that the mother would retain custody of their son and the father would have fortnightly visitation. Both parties later filed applications under Section 26 of the Act seeking to modify the custody arrangement: t

RAM CHANDRA BHAGATversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2010 INSC 81024 November 2010Hearing Adjourned

The appellant, Ram Chandra Bhaghat, was convicted under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code for deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage and cohabiting with the complainant for nine years, during which they had two children. The appellant argued that no belief of a lawful marriage was induced, contending that

MR. ANURAG MITTALversusMRS. SHAILY MISHRA MITTAL

2018 INSC 74524 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Anurag Mittal obtained a decree of divorce from Rachna Aggarwal in 2009 and appealed against it, obtaining a stay. The parties later settled, and Mittal filed an application to withdraw the appeal on 28 November 2011, which was deemed withdrawn on that date. He married Shaily Mishra Mittal on 6 December 2011, before th

SMT. CHANDRAKALA TRIVEDIversusDR. S.P. TRIVEDI

1993 INSC 27524 August 1993Dismissed

The husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Matrimonial Court dismissed the petition, but the Bombay High Court Division Bench granted a decree of divorce. The wife appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court erred in treating

RANI CHOUDHURYversusLT. COL. SURAJ JIT CHOUDHURY

1982 INSC 6424 August 1982Appeal(s) allowed

The wife filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce, and the trial court passed an ex‑parte decree in her favour on 6‑12‑1979. The husband appealed the decree under Section 96 of the CPC and sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but the appeal was dismissed on t

RAJ TALREJAversusKAVITA TALREJA

2017 INSC 38524 April 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that his wife had made false and defamatory complaints against him, his family and colleagues, which amounted to cruelty. The wife had lodged multiple complaints with various authorities and the media, all of which were later

VINOD KUMAR SUBBIAHversusSARASWATHI PALANIAPPAN

2015 INSC 35424 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Vinod Kumar Subbiah filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging mental cruelty by his wife, Saraswathi Palaniappan, who later sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 and maintenance. The trial court, after examining extensive evidence, found the wife’s abusive conduct—ins

MITALIversusDABABRATA

2009 INSC 60024 April 2009Disposed off

The wife filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court seeking to move a divorce suit under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in Delhi, to a court in Nagpur. The parties subsequently reached a settlement wherein they agreed to file a joint petition under Section 13(8) for divorce by mutual consent in

ANITA LAXMI NARAYAN SINGHversusLAXMI NARAIN SINGH

1992 INSC 8624 March 1992Appeal(s) allowed

Anita Laxmi Narayan Singh married Laxmi Narain Singh in 1987. The husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Bombay. The wife, residing in Ghaziabad, had to travel long distances to defend herself and applied for interim maintenance and travel expenses. The Supreme Court directed the

MUKESH KUMAR & ANRversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2022 INSC 22924 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Jagdish Harijan, an Indian Railways employee, died leaving a son, Mukesh Kumar, born of his second wife. The Railway Board circular barred children of a second wife from receiving compassionate appointments, leading to the denial of Mukesh's application. The appellant challenged this denial, arguing it violated constit

RAMCHANDERversusANANTA

2015 INSC 14824 February 2015Dismissed

The husband, an engineer, filed a suit for divorce under Sections 13(1)(i‑a) and 13(1)(i‑b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging mental cruelty and desertion by his wife, a draftsman. The wife counter‑claimed that she faced dowry harassment, alleged an extra‑marital affair by the husband, and had withdrawn a criminal co

AHMEDABAD WOMEN ACTION GROUP AND ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA

1997 INSC 18524 February 1997Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed three public‑interest writ petitions that sought to declare various provisions of Muslim, Hindu and Christian personal laws unconstitutional. The petitioners argued that polygamy, unilateral talaq, and discriminatory inheritance rules violated Articles 13, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The

SUBRAMANI AND ORS.versusM. CHANDRALEKHA

2004 INSC 66923 November 2004Dismissed

The respondent, M. Chandralekha, filed a suit for partition and possession of her late father‑in‑law's properties, claiming a share as the wife of the deceased Kandasamy. She produced a registered maintenance release deed that contained a recital stating that their marriage was dissolved under the customary law of the

BHEEMRAYAversusSUNEETHA

2013 INSC 64523 September 2013Appeal(s) allowed

Both parties were minors when they allegedly married. The wife filed two suits—one to restrain the husband from remarrying and another seeking a perpetual injunction against alienation of property, claiming a one‑third share for herself and her daughter. She also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage A

KUNTI DEVIversusSOM RAJ AND ANR.

2004 INSC 54223 September 2004Leave Granted & Disposed off

Kunti Devi (wife) filed a criminal complaint under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code alleging that her husband Som Raj contracted a second marriage while the first marriage was still subsisting. The High Court, relying on Krishna Gopal Divedi v. Prabha Divedi, quashed the complaint, holding tha

INDERJIT SINGH GREWALversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2011 INSC 60123 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The husband and wife obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in 2008. The wife later filed a criminal complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 alleging the divorce decree was a sham and that they continued to live together. The husband moved the trial magistrate under Section 482

DURGA PRASANNA TRIPATHYversusARUNDHATL TRIPATHY

2005 INSC 37023 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Durga Prasanna Tripathy married Arundhati Tripathy on 5 March 1991. The wife left the matrimonial home in October 1991 and the parties lived apart for about 14 years. The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and desertion. The Family Court granted the decr

TEJINDER KAURversusGURMIT SINGH

1988 INSC 5123 February 1988Directions issued

The wife obtained a decree of dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and appealed the decree, which was dismissed by the High Court on 16 July 1986. The husband subsequently contracted a second marriage on 17 August 1986, and the wife filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution wit

PRASHANT BHARTIversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

2013 INSC 5123 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant Priya lodged an FIR alleging that the accused Prashant Bharti had assaulted, molested, and later raped her under sections 328, 354 and 376 IPC, claiming these acts were committed on the promise of marriage. Investigation revealed mobile‑phone records disproving the presence of both parties at the allege

RAJESHversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

2009 INSC 6323 January 2009Disposed off

The petitioner, Rajesh, sought transfer of a criminal case (FIR No.352 dated 7‑12‑2005) under Sections 406, 498A read with Section 34 IPC, pending in the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chittorgarh, to a court in Hissar. The matter was posted before the Supreme Court Lok Adalat on 6‑12‑2008, where both parties appeare

VIDHYA VISWANATHANversusKARTIK BALAKRISHNAN

2014 INSC 66022 September 2014Disposed off

The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging mental cruelty by his wife, who refused to consummate the marriage and displayed hostile behaviour. The trial court dismissed the petition, but the Madras High Court allowed it, finding the wife's conduct amounted to me

SANJEETA DASversusTAPAN KUMAR MOHANTY

2010 INSC 63222 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Sanjeeta Das against a decree of divorce granted by the Orissa High Court on the basis of an affidavit in which the husband, Tapan Kumar Mohanty, offered to pay Rs 10 lakh as maintenance. The husband had earlier filed a petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu

DEVINDER SINGH NARULAversusMEENAKSHI NANGIA

2012 INSC 34822 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The husband and wife were married on 26 March 2011 but lived apart from the outset, and the husband filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a declaration of nullity within three months. During mediation the parties agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and filed a joint petition

RAMANUJ KUMARversusPRIYANKA

2025 INSC 54322 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ramanuj Kumar, filed a petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging irretrievable breakdown of his marriage to Priyanka. The parties had been living separately for over eleven years, with the appellant caring for their elder daughter and the respondent carin

SMT. POONAMversusSUMIT TANWAR

2010 INSC 16122 March 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, married on 30‑Nov‑2008, filed a dissolution suit under Section 13‑8(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Delhi Family Court ordered them to wait six months before filing a second motion under Section 13‑8(2). The wife filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a decree of div

K. SRINIVAS RAOversusD.A. DEEPA

2013 INSC 12222 February 2013Disposed off

The husband (K. Srinivas Rao) appealed against a High Court order that set aside a decree of divorce in his favour. The Supreme Court examined whether the wife’s filing of false, indecent and defamatory complaints, and multiple criminal proceedings against him and his family, amounted to mental cruelty under s.13(1)(i‑

SHYAMLAL DEVDA AND OTHERSversusPARIMALA

2020 INSC 7722 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The marriage between the respondent and appellant No.14 was solemnised in Rajasthan, after which the couple lived in Chennai. In 2014 the respondent travelled to Bengaluru for her sister's wedding and subsequently refused to return to the matrimonial home, alleging domestic violence by her husband, his parents, and sev

B. CHANDRIKAversusSANTHOSH & ANR

2013 INSC 76721 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the divorced wife of the first accused, challenged summons issued against her in a case under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The police investigation had filed a refer report stating that the complaint was not proved, and the complainant testified that only the husband had been entrusted with mone

MR.'X'versusHOSPITAL Z

1998 INSC 37421 September 1998Dismissed

The appellant, a doctor who tested HIV‑positive, had his status disclosed by Hospital Z when he was about to marry Ms. Y, leading to social ostracism. He filed a consumer complaint seeking damages for breach of medical confidentiality and violation of his right to privacy under Article 21. The Supreme Court held that t

A. SUBASH BABUversusSTATE OF A.P.& ANR.

2011 INSC 51421 July 2011Disposed off

The appellant, a Sub‑Inspector, married a woman (the second wife) by concealing that he was already married, collected money from her family and threatened them. The second wife filed a complaint alleging offences under Sections 494, 495, 417, 420 and 498A IPC. The High Court quashed the complaint under Section 498A, h

VINIT SAXENAversusPANKAJ PANDIT

2006 INSC 15821 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Vinita Saxena married Pankaj Pandit in 1993, but the marriage lasted only five months and was never consummated because the husband suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, rendering him incapable of performing matrimonial duties. The wife alleged mental and physical cruelty, including abuse by the husband and his mother,

NAVEEN KOHLIversusNEELU KOHLI

2006 INSC 15721 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Naveen Kohli, filed a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty, alleging that his wife, Neelu Kohli, was bad‑tempered, engaged in indecent conduct, transferred property to herself, and repeatedly harassed him through criminal and civil complaints. The trial court fou

SMT. MAYADEVIversusJAGDISH PRASAD

2007 INSC 18421 February 2007Dismissed

The Supreme Court upheld the decree of divorce granted to the husband on the ground of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband alleged that his wife repeatedly demanded money, denied food, threatened him and the children, and physically abused the children, culminating in the death of three children. Th

JINIA KEOTIN AND ORS.versusKUMAR SITARAM MANJHI AND ORS.

2002 INSC 57620 December 2002Dismissed

In a partition suit over ancestral coparcenary property, the children of a second wife (Jinia Keotin) born from a marriage that was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claimed a share in the property. The trial court and the High Court allowed them a share only in the parents' property, invoking Section 16(3) of th

KRISHNA BHATACHARJEEversusSARATHI CHOUDHURY AND ANR.

2015 INSC 84820 November 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a wife, filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking seizure of her stridhan held by her husband after they were judicially separated. The trial court, Sessions Court and High Court dismissed the application on the grounds that she was no longe

SANGHAMITRA GHOSHversusKAJAL KUMAR GHOSH

2006 INSC 86420 November 2006Disposed off

Sanghamitra Ghosh filed a transfer petition seeking to move a matrimonial suit for restitution of conjugal rights to Bangalore, alleging physical and mental torture by her husband Kajal Kumar Ghosh and his parents, and claiming she was driven out of the marital home with their minor child. Both parties later entered in

MANMOHAN GOPALversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

2023 INSC 95320 October 2023Disposed off

The daughter‑in‑law (R2) filed applications seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance and monthly maintenance from her father‑in‑law, Manmohan Gopal, after her husband Varun Gopal abandoned her and obtained a foreign divorce. The Supreme Court noted that the father‑in‑law and the husband had repeatedly defied earlier

JEEWANTI PANDEYversusKISHAN CHANDRA PANDEY

1981 INSC 18220 October 1981Appeal(s) allowed

The wife (appellant) and husband (respondent) were married in Delhi and subsequently lived there, although both originally hailed from Bagyan, Uttar Pradesh. The husband filed a petition for nullity of marriage under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the District Court of Almora, claiming the parties were residen

MRS. KANIKA GOELversusSTATE OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. AND ANR.

2018 INSC 62220 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a US‑born minor girl, M, whose mother (the appellant) fled the United States with her to India and filed for divorce. The father (respondent No.2) obtained a US custody order and sought a writ of habeas corpus in Delhi to have the child returned to the US. The Delhi High Court ordered her return, but

VINNY PARMVIR PARMARversusPARMVIR PARMAR

2011 INSC 50720 July 2011Case Partly allowed

The parties dissolved their marriage by mutual consent under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court fixed a maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month for the wife, which the High Court affirmed and also ordered an alternative lump‑sum alimony of Rs.20 lakh. Unsatisfied, the wife appealed for a higher amount. The Supre

NEETA RAKESH JAINversusRAKESH JEETMAL JAIN

2010 INSC 41120 July 2010Case Partly allowed

Neeta Rakesh Jain filed for interim maintenance after her husband obtained an ex-parte divorce decree. She claimed the husband earned about Rs. 2,00,000 per month, while he asserted a salary of Rs. 30,000 from his own company. The Bombay High Court, accepting the husband's claim without scrutiny, fixed interim maintena

NANDAKUMAR & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2018 INSC 38320 April 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The father of 19‑year‑old Thushara filed a habeas‑corpus petition alleging that his daughter was being held in illegal custody by her husband, Nandakumar, who was allegedly under the marriageable age of 21 at the time of their ceremony. The Kerala High Court held that the marriage was not legally valid because the groo

HIRACHAND SR!NIVAS MANAGAONKARversusSUNANDA

2001 INSC 15320 March 2001Dismissed

In a marriage governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife obtained a decree of judicial separation on the ground of the husband's adultery, and the husband was ordered to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter, which he failed to do. The husband later filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1‑A) claiming that

APARNA AJINKYA FIRODIAversusAJINKYA ARUN FIRODIA

2023 INSC 14620 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The husband filed for divorce on the ground of adultery and sought a DNA test of their son, born during the marriage, to establish paternity. The Family Court and the High Court ordered the DNA test, but the Supreme Court set aside those orders, holding that the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of

SUGIRTHAversusGOWTHAM

2024 INSC 103619 December 2024

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by Sugirtha challenging a High Court order that required her to travel 150 km each way every Sunday to hand over her two‑year‑old daughter to the father, Gowtham, for visitation. The parties had been married in 2021, separated shortly after the child's birth, and the mother had filed f

AMUTHAversusA.R. SUBRAMANIAN

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 75519 December 2024Dismissed

Amutha and A.R. Subramanian were married in 2002 but lived apart for more than fifteen years following a series of disputes, including the wife filing a false dowry harassment complaint against the husband. The husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, which were initially rejected by the trial and

K. SRINIVASversusK. SUNITA

2014 INSC 79119 November 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The husband and wife were married in 1989; the wife later filed a criminal complaint against the husband and his family under several IPC provisions and the Dowry Prohibition Act, which led to their arrest. The husband filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and alleged irretrievable breakdown, and the wife was lat

JAIMINIBEN HIRENBHAI VYAS &ANR.versusHIRENBHAI RAMESHCHANDRA VYAS &ANR.

2014 INSC 79319 November 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The wife and her minor daughter sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court initially granted interim maintenance but later awarded maintenance only to the daughter, denying the wife on the ground that she could earn a liveliho

GAURAV NAGPALversusSUMEDHA NAGPAL

2008 INSC 132419 November 2008Dismissed

The father, Gaurav Nagpal, had retained custody of his minor child after allegedly kidnapping and confining the mother, Sumedha Nagpal, and repeatedly violating court orders. The mother filed an application under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1

V. BHAGATversusMRS. D. BHAGAT

1993 INSC 37419 November 1993

The husband, a Supreme Court advocate, filed a divorce petition on the ground of adultery, which the wife denied and countered by alleging his mental instability. He later amended the petition to include mental cruelty, relying on the wife's written statements that labeled him a lunatic and on aggressive cross‑examinat

DOLLY RANIversusMANISH KUMAR CHANCHAL

2024 INSC 35519 April 2024Disposed off

The petitioners, both commercial pilots, claimed to have "solemnised" their marriage on 7 July 2021 and obtained a marriage certificate from Vadik Jankalyan Samiti, which was later used to register the marriage under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. In reality, no Hindu rites or saptapadi were perfo

KALYAN DEY CHOWDHURYversusRITA DEY CHOWDHURY NEE NANDY

2017 INSC 37019 April 2017Case Partly allowed

The husband Kalyan Dey Chowdhury and his wife Rita Dey Chowdhury (née Nandy) were married in 1995 and later divorced. The wife sought permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was initially set at Rs.16,000 per month in 2015. The husband’s net salary rose from Rs.63,842 to Rs.95,000, prompting

KRISHNAVENI RAIversusPANKAJ RAI & ANR.

2020 INSC 21119 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Krishnaveni Rai, the appellant, obtained a decree of divorce from her first husband in 2005 and filed an appeal against that decree almost a year after the limitation period, which was later condoned. While the appeal was pending, she married Pankaj Rai in December 2014. The respondent sought a declaration that this se

RINKU BAHETIversusSANDESH SHARDA

2024 INSC 101418 December 2024Disposed off

The petitioner-wife Rinku Baheti filed a transfer petition seeking to move a pending divorce suit to the Pune Family Court and opposed the respondent-husband Sandesh Sharda's application under Article 142(1) for a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The parties had a brief marriage o

SMT. RASHMI KUMARversusMARESH KUMAR BHADA

1996 INSC 150718 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The wife, Rashmi Kumar, married under Hindu rites, received jewellery, cash and household goods as stridhana from her family and entrusted them to her husband for safekeeping. After being driven out of the matrimonial home, she demanded the return of the stridhana on 5‑December‑1987, which the husband refused. She file

BALWINDER KAURversusHARDEEP SINGH

1997 INSC 73818 November 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Balwinder Kaur married Hardeep Singh under Sikh rites and later filed a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The husband did not appear, and the District Judge granted an ex‑parte decree of divorce. The wife appealed to the High Court under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that her husban

BAD SHAHversusSOU.URMILA BADSHAH GOOSE & ANR

2013 INSC 70318 October 2013Dismissed

The petitioners, Urmila Badshah Goose and her daughter Shivanjali, filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance, claiming that Urmila was the wife of the petitioner Badshah and that Shivanjali was their illegitimate child. Badshah contended that he was already lawfully married to another woman

JUVERIA ABDUL MAJID PATNIversusATIF IQBAL MANSOORI AND ANR.

2014 INSC 101118 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Juveria Abdul Majid Patni, married Atif Iqbal Mansoori under Muslim rites in 2005 and alleged physical abuse and cruelty, leading her to file an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC in 2007. She obtained an ex parte Khula (divorce) from a Mufti on 9 May 2008, which the respondent contested in family court

M.V. LEELAVATHIversusDR. C.R. SWAMY @ DR. C.R. KUMARA SWAMY

2025 INSC 99418 August 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant-wife filed for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and was granted a decree of divorce and permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000 by the Family Court, which the High Court upheld. The appellant challenged the alimony amount, arguing she was unemployed, while the respondent, a doctor, demonstrated a higher

SMT. SHIRAMABAI W/O PUNDALIK BHAVE AND OTHERSversusTHE CAPTAIN, RECORD OFFICER FOR O.I.C. RECORDS, SENA CORPS ABHILEKH, GAYA, BIHAR STATE AND ANR.

2023 INSC 74418 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether Shrimabai, who cohabited with late Subedar Pundalik Bhave and bore two children, was entitled to his family pension after his death. Bhave had married Shrimabai while still married to his first wife Anusuya, but later obtained a divorce from Anusuya in 1990 and had the service record

N.C.V. AISHWARYAversusA.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA

2022 INSC 131018 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a 21‑year‑old wife residing in Chennai, sought the transfer of her husband’s petition for annulment of marriage filed in the Family Court at Vellore to the Family Court at Chennai under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. She also had two other matrimonial petitions – restitution of conjugal right

DELMA LUBNA COELHOversusEDMOND CLINT FERNANDES

2023 INSC 38918 April 2023Dismissed

The husband filed a divorce petition in the Family Court at Mangaluru, Karnataka. The wife, a permanent resident of Canada now residing in Mumbai, filed a transfer petition seeking to move the proceedings to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. She argued that traveling to Mangaluru would be difficult, costly, and would

HITESH BHATNAGARversusDEEPA BHATNAGAR

2011 INSC 30618 April 2011Dismissed

Hitesh Bhatnagar and Deepa Bhatnagar, married under the Hindu Marriage Act, filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent in 2001. Before the required second motion, Deepa withdrew her consent after the 18‑month period, leading the trial court to dismiss the petition. The appellant appealed, arguing that the 18‑

USHA BALASAHEB SWAMI AND ORS.versusKIRAN APPASO SWAMI AND ORS.

2007 INSC 43618 April 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The suit concerned partition of ancestral property where the plaintiff claimed a half‑share. The defendants, in their written statement, admitted the plaintiff’s entitlement but later sought to amend the statement to allege that the plaintiff and certain co‑defendants were illegitimate children and therefore ineligible

AVIRAL BHATLAversusBHAWNA BHATLA

2009 INSC 21518 February 2009Disposed off

The husband filed transfer petitions seeking to move several matrimonial and criminal matters pending before the Family Court, Gwalior, to this Court. The parties, married in 2006, had been living separately since 2007 and were involved in multiple proceedings including a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage

MUNISH KAKKARversusNIDHI KAKKAR

2019 INSC 138417 December 2019

Munish Kakkar filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty, extra‑marital affairs, and a child out of wedlock, after a marriage that had effectively collapsed with the parties living apart for over sixteen years. The trial court granted a decree of divorce, which the

KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHARversusKOLLAM PADMA LATHA

2013 INSC 62917 September 2013Dismissed

The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging his wife suffered from schizophrenia, while the wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial court granted the divorce and dismissed the restitution petition, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court se

PRATIBHAversusRAMESHWARI DEVI AND ORS.

2007 INSC 92917 September 2007Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a wife, filed an FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC alleging dowry harassment and cruelty after leaving her matrimonial home. The husband filed a divorce petition, and the respondents moved the High Court to quash the FIR under its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court quashed t

USHA UDAY KHIWANSARAversusUDAY KUMAR JETHAMAL KHIWANSARA

2018 INSC 61817 July 2018Disposed off

The husband filed a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty and desertion, which was dismissed by the Family Court. The High Court later set aside that order and granted an ex parte divorce decree in favor of the husband without hearing the wife. The wife appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing prejudice due to the lack

BHARATHA MATHA & ANR.versusR. VIJAYA RENGANATHAN & ORS.

2010 INSC 32817 May 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The predecessor‑in‑interest of Bharatha Matha filed a suit for a share in the property of her brother Muthu Reddiar, who died intestate and allegedly unmarried. Defendant No.1, Rengammal, claimed she was lawfully married to Alagarsami Reddiar (who was alive) and also asserted a live‑in relationship with Muthu Reddiar,

DINESH SINGH THAKURversusSONAL THAKUR

2018 INSC 35617 April 2018Dismissed

The husband, a U.S. citizen, filed a petition under Sections 13 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Gurgaon Family Court seeking divorce, while the wife filed a divorce petition in a Florida court on grounds not available under Indian law. The husband then sued in the Gurgaon court for a permanent anti‑suit injunct

CHETANDASSversusKAMLA DEVI

2001 INSC 21417 April 2001Dismissed

Chetan Dass married Kamla Devi in 1976 and, after about two years, filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was dismissed when the couple's relations improved. The wife later lodged a criminal complaint alleging the husband’s illicit relationship with a nurse, prompting the husband to seek re

AMAN LOHIAversusKIRAN LOHIA

2021 INSC 19017 March 2021Disposed off

The father (Aman Lohia) filed a guardianship petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking declaration as guardian of his two‑year‑old daughter. The mother (Kiran Lohia) did not file a written statement but filed several applications under CPC, including a Section 151 applicat

SONI KUMARIversusDEEPAK KUMAR

2015 INSC 66916 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Soni Kumari and Deepak Kumar, married in 2009, lived separately from 2014 due to irreconcilable differences and filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13‑8(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court allowed the first motion but refused to waive the statutory six‑month cooling‑off period

VIJAY KUMAR RAMA CHANDRA BHATEversusNEELA VIJAY KUMAR BHATE

2003 INSC 23616 April 2003Dismissed

The wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i‑a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty by the husband. In his written statement the husband accused the wife of unchastity and an extramarital relationship, but later withdrew those allegations. The trial court granted divorce and rejec

RAMESH CHAND DAGAversusRAMESHWARI BAI

2005 INSC 14916 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The wife obtained a judicial separation decree directing the husband to return ornaments worth Rs. 3,25,655 within one month, with a conditional order that if he failed to do so he would pay the value plus 9% interest per annum. The husband returned the ornaments after a delay but within a reasonable time, yet the High

SARITA SHARMAversusSUSHIL SHARMA

2000 INSC 8216 February 2000Appeal(s) allowed

Sarita Sharma and Sushil Sharma, married in 1988, were involved in divorce proceedings in a Texas court which intermittently granted custody of their two minor children to the father and limited the mother to visitation. While the divorce was pending, the mother exercised her visitation rights and removed the children

SMT. S. VANITHAversusTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT & ORS.

2020 INSC 70115 December 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Smt. S. Vanitha, sought to remain in a house that she claimed was her matrimonial home and a "shared household" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). Her parents‑in‑law, invoking the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act

RATHNAMMA & ORS.versusSUJATHAMMA & ORS.

2019 INSC 125515 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Sujathamma, a maternal granddaughter of the deceased's father, claimed to have married her maternal uncle Hanumanthappa on 7 March 1986 and sought a share of his estate as his wife. The alleged marriage was supported only by a registration document (Ex.P/1) with no evidence of any customary rites or sapt

DIPANWITA ROYversusRONOBROTO ROY

2014 INSC 72815 October 2014Disposed off

Ronobroto Roy filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that his wife Dipanwita Roy had an extra‑marital relationship and bore a child with another man. To prove the allegation of infidelity, he applied to the Family Court for a DNA test of the child, which was dismissed, but the

PRADEEP BHARDWAJversusPRIYA

2025 INSC 85215 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant-husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty, but the Family Court dismissed it and the High Court upheld that dismissal. The parties had been living separately since October 2009, amounting to over sixteen years of estrangement, and the appellant

SONDUR GOPALversusSONDUR RAJINI

2013 INSC 46515 July 2013Disposed off

The wife filed a petition for judicial separation and custody under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband contested the petition’s maintainability, arguing that both parties, being Swedish citizens domiciled in Australia, were outside the Act’s territorial scope. The Supreme Court examined the extent

TRISHA SINGHversusANURAG KUMAR

2024 INSC 45015 May 2024Case Allowed

The husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce, and the parties later reached an amicable settlement before a Supreme Court mediator, wherein the husband paid alimony and the wife agreed to dissolve the marriage. The wife subsequently withdrew from the settlement, claiming she wo

ASHOK KUMAR JAINversusSUMATI JAIN

2013 INSC 25515 April 2013Dismissed

The husband, Ashok Kumar Jain, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce from his wife, Sumati Jain, on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that the husband himself had been cruel and had created circumstances that forced the wife to

DEEPTI BHANDARIversusNITIN BHANDARI & ANR.

2011 INSC 84414 December 2011Disposed off

The case involved a matrimonial dispute between Depti Bhandari and Nitin Bhandari, centering on visitation rights to their minor daughter after the mother shifted residence from Jaipur to Delhi. The father had been granted visitation rights in Jaipur, but the mother sought to modify the order to allow visitation in Del

A. RANJITHKUMARversusE. KAVITHA

2025 INSC 97814 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The husband filed a divorce petition in 2012 on grounds of cruelty and adultery, and the Family Court granted a decree of divorce in 2016 on the ground of cruelty. The wife appealed, and the Madras High Court set aside the decree, holding that the alleged cruelty stemmed from the wife's father's rude utterances, which

VIBHOR GARGversusNEHA

2025 INSC 82914 July 2025Case Allowed

The husband filed a divorce petition and sought to introduce secretly recorded telephone conversations with his wife as evidence, submitting memory cards, a CD and transcripts. The Family Court allowed the evidence, but the High Court set aside that order on the ground that the recordings violated the wife's right to p

CHAND PATELversusBISMILLAH BEGUM AND ANR.

2008 INSC 36414 March 2008Dismissed

Chand Patel was married to Bismillah Begum, the sister of his first wife, while the first marriage was still subsisting. Bismillah Begum and her minor daughter sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The lower courts held that the marriage, though irregular, continued to subsist and orde

SMT. SEEMAversusASHWANI KUMAR

2006 INSC 8314 February 2006

The Supreme Court, hearing a transfer petition concerning a matrimonial suit, observed that the lack of official marriage records in many States enables unscrupulous persons to deny the existence of marriages, adversely affecting women and children. It noted that while several States have rules for voluntary registrati

DR. SURAJMANI STELLA KUJURversusDURGA CHARAN HANSDAH AND ANR.

2001 INSC 8914 February 2001Dismissed

The appellant, a member of the Oraon tribe, alleged that her husband, a Santhal, contracted a second marriage while their first marriage subsisted, and filed a criminal complaint for bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC. The trial magistrate dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence of any tribal custom that makes a

SUNILversusSAKSHI @ SHWETA & ANR.

2015 INSC 4114 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The husband filed a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Family Court initially proceeded ex parte when the wife could not be served. The wife later appeared, the ex parte order was set aside, and the case was adjourned for conciliation, but she remained absent at subsequent hearings. The Fa

SUJATA UDAY PATILversusUDAY MADHUKAR PATIL

2006 INSC 100413 December 2006Disposed off

Suja Uday Patil (wife) appealed against the decree of divorce granted to her husband, Uday Madhukar Patil, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act. The trial court had initially ordered judicial separation, but the District Judge later dissolved the marriage and awarded alimony, a decision

RAMESH CHANDRA RAMPRATAPJI DAGAversusRAMESHWARI RAMESH CHANDRA DAGA

2004 INSC 71113 December 2004Dismissed

The wife, who had a prior marriage that was never dissolved by a court decree, married the appellant after his first wife's death. The husband filed a suit to declare the second marriage void under Section 5(i) and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, while the wife sought judicial separation and maintenance for herse

GANAPATI BHIKARAO NAIKversusNUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED

2024 INSC 87113 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Ganapati Bhikarao Naik, the son‑in‑law of a land‑loser whose land was acquired for the Kaiga Atomic Power Project, was appointed as a helper under a rehabilitation scheme. After marital discord and a divorce proceeding, his father‑in‑law alleged that Naik was not a legitimate family member and the employer terminated h

SIVASANKARANversusSANTHIMEENAL

2021 INSC 46713 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and respondent were married in 2002 but the marriage was never consummated and the parties lived apart for almost two decades. The appellant filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty; the trial court granted a decree on the basis of irretrievable breakdown, which was later set aside by the appellate cour

THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES IN KARNATAKA & ANR.V. V. SOMYASHREEversusV. SOMYASHREE

2021 INSC 47213 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The mother of V. Somyashree, a government employee in Karnataka, died on 25 March 2012. At the time of her death the daughter was married; she later obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 20 March 2013 and applied for a compassionate appointment on 21 March 2013 under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointmen

SUNITA JHAversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

2010 INSC 60613 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sunita Jha, was charged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for cruelty to the complainant, Asha Rani Pal, on the ground that she was living with Pal's husband as his wife. The trial court rejected her discharge application, and the Jharkhand High Court affirmed that her cohabitation made her a f

M. GOVINDARAJUversusK. MUNISAMI GOUNDER (D) AND ORS.

1996 INSC 88013 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard the appeal of M. Govindaraju, who sought a one‑seventh share in his father's joint Hindu family property. Govindaraju was born to Pappammal, who had earlier been married to Koala Gounder but left his house in 1942‑43 and thereafter lived with Munisami Gounder, the father of the appellant. The Hi

DHANANJAY RATHIversusRUCHIKA RATHI

2026 INSC 36013 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The husband and wife, married in 2000, lived separately from 2022 and entered into a mediated Settlement Agreement in May 2024 that provided for a mutual‑consent divorce, payment of Rs 75 lakh, a car purchase, jewellery hand‑over and other financial transfers. The first motion for divorce was granted after the husband

DARSHAN PRASHAD AND ANR.versusCIVIL JUDGE II, GORAKHPUR AND ORS.

1992 INSC 8213 March 1992Dismissed

The appellants, Darshan Prashad and his wife Smt. Saraswati Devi, challenged a notice issued under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (as amended by Act No.20 of 1976) that sought particulars of land held by them and their family. They argued that the wife, who was living separat

GUDA VIJAYALAKSHMIversusGUDA RAMCHANDRA SEKHARA SASTRY

1981 INSC 6813 March 1981

Guda Vijayalakshmi (petitioner) filed a maintenance suit in Eluru, Andhra Pradesh, while her husband filed a divorce suit under the Hindu Marriage Act in Udaipur, Rajasthan. The petitioner sought transfer of the divorce suit to Eluru under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) so that both matters could be he

JAGRAJ SINGHversusBIRPAL KAUR

2007 INSC 13013 February 2007Dismissed

Jagraj Singh married Birpal Kaur in 1993; the wife later filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging desertion and cruelty. The trial court ruled it lacked territorial jurisdiction but nonetheless decided the merits, denying divorce. The High Court, invoking Section 23(2) of the Act, ordered b

ROMESH CHANDERversusSMT. SAVITRI

1995 INSC 3113 January 1995Disposed off

The appellant, a sanitary inspector, and the respondent, a teacher, were married for 25 years and have an adult child. The appellant previously faced a desertion suit, and the present appeal arose from a cruelty petition where the respondent alleged the appellant's immoral conduct, which was not proved. The Supreme Cou

DEOKI PANJHIYARAversusSHASHI BHUSHAN NARAYAN AZAD & ANR.

2012 INSC 58612 December 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The husband filed a writ petition challenging the interim maintenance granted to his wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging that she was already married to another man, as evidenced by a marriage certificate under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The trial court rejec

SHOBHA RANIversusMADHUKAR REDDI

1987 INSC 32912 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Shobha Rani, a postgraduate, filed for divorce from her husband Madhukar Reddi on the ground of cruelty, alleging repeated dowry demands by the husband and his parents. The trial court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed her petition, holding that the demands did not amount to harassment and that she was hypers

GEETA @ REETA MISHRAversusAJAY KUMAR MISHRA

2025 INSC 110212 September 2025Disposed off

The parties were married in 1996 and later lived separately, with the husband filing for divorce on grounds of cruelty in 2009. The Family Court granted the divorce in 2019, which the High Court affirmed in 2023. The wife appealed, seeking a payment of Rs.10,00,000 towards their daughter's marriage expenses, alleging t

AMARDEEP SINGHversusHARVEEN KAUR

2017 INSC 89612 September 2017Disposed off

Amardeep Singh filed a civil appeal challenging the Family Court's order granting a waiver of the six‑month cooling‑off period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a mutual‑consent divorce. The parties had been living separately for over eight years, had settled all pending disputes including a mas

RAM NARAIN GUPTAversusSMT. RAMESHWARI GUPTA

1988 INSC 27112 September 1988Dismissed

The husband filed a suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that his wife suffered from schizophrenia so severe that cohabitation was unsafe. The trial court granted a decree of divorce, but the Allahabad High Court reversed it, holding that the evidence did not est

NEETI MALVIYAversusRAKESH MALVIYA

2010 INSC 31812 May 2010Hearing Adjourned

The petitioner, Neeti Malviya, sought to transfer a divorce petition from the Family Court in Bangalore to the Family Court in Hoshangabad. The parties had reached a settlement in Supreme Court Lok Adalat, agreeing that the husband would pay Rs. 65 lakh and that a joint application for divorce by mutual consent would b

BHOGADI KANNABABU AND ORS.versusVUGGINA PYDAMMA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 32212 May 2006Dismissed

The appellant tenants, nephews of the deceased landowner Suryanarayana, occupied several acres of land in Vishakhapatnam district. After the death of Suryanarayana's first wife Chilakamma, the second wife Pydamma claimed ownership and filed an eviction suit under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act alleging default and sub‑

RASHMI AJAY KR. KESHARWANI & ANR.versusAJAY KR. KESHARWANI AND ORS.

2012 INSC 12812 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Ajay Kumar, filed a habeas corpus petition before the Allahabad High Court alleging that his wife, Rashmi, was illegally detaining their minor son. In reality, the child had been living with the mother in Maharashtra since birth. The husband had earlier filed a criminal application in the Bombay High Court

PRATIBHA RANIversusSURAJ KUMAR & ANR.

1985 INSC 5012 March 1985Appeal(s) allowed

Pratibha Rani, an estranged wife, filed a criminal complaint under s.406 IPC alleging that her husband Suraj Kumar, his father, brothers and brother‑in‑law had misappropriated her stridhan (dowry) worth Rs.60,000 that was entrusted to them at the time of marriage. The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the complaint u

SUKHDEV SINGHversusSUKHBIR KAUR

2025 INSC 19712 February 2025Reference answered

The case arose from a decree of nullity under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein the Punjab & Haryana High Court had held the marriage void. The appellant contested whether, despite the void status, the spouse could claim permanent alimony under Section 25 and interim maintenance under Section 24 of th

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusV. R. TRIPATHI

2018 INSC 118911 December 2018Disposed off

The case concerned a son born from his father's second marriage, which was void under Hindu law, who applied for a compassionate appointment after his father's death while in service of Indian Railways. The Railway Board’s circular of 1992, later reiterated in 2013, barred children of such second marriages from receivi

U. SREEversusU. SRINIVAS

2012 INSC 57811 December 2012Dismissed

The marriage between U. Sree and U. Srinivas broke down, leading the wife to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the husband to file for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court and the Madras High Court granted the divorce, held the

INDEPENDENT THOUGHTversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2017 INSC 103011 October 2017Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined whether Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts a husband from rape liability when his wife is aged 15‑18, violates the Constitution and conflicts with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court held that the exemption creates an arbitrar

SMT. CHAND DHAWANversusJAWAHARLAL DHAWAN

1993 INSC 21611 June 1993

Chand Dhawan (wife) appealed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order dismissing her claim for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also setting aside the maintenance pendente lite granted under Section 24. The wife had filed a petition for permanent alimony and maintenance after a di

FLG. OFFICER RAJIV GAKHARversusMS. BHAVANA @ SAHAR WASIF

2011 INSC 38011 May 2011Dismissed

The appellant, an Indian Air Force pilot, married the respondent at an Arya Samaj temple after being told she was a Hindu spinster. He later discovered she had previously converted to Islam, married a Muslim, had two children, and divorced, but claimed she had reconverted to Hinduism through Shudhikaran ceremonies befo

SMRUTI PAHARIYAversusSANJAY PAHARIYA

2009 INSC 78311 May 2009Disposed off

The wife filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 138 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After the mandatory six‑month waiting period expired on 19‑Nov‑2007, the husband was absent on three successive dates (19‑Nov, 1‑Dec and 4‑Dec). The Family Court, without being satisfied that the husband was

BHAGWAN DASS AND ANR.versusKAMAL ABROL AND ORS.

2005 INSC 27311 May 2005Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined an appeal concerning the allotment of a LPG dealership in Kangra district, Himachal Pradesh. The eligibility notice required the applicant to be a "resident" of Kangra, but the respondent argued that her marital connection to a husband owning property there satisfied the criterion. The trial

SUMAN MISHRA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 20311 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a husband and his in‑laws, sought to quash a FIR and charge‑sheet filed after the husband filed a divorce suit, alleging that the FIR was a retaliatory, vexatious measure. The FIR originally alleged rape under Section 376 IPC, but the charge‑sheet omitted that offence and no protest petition was filed a

B.P. ACHALA ANANDversusS. APPI REDDY AND ANR.

2005 INSC 7311 February 2005Dismissed

The case concerned an eviction suit filed by a landlord under the Karnataka Rent Control Act against a tenant, H.S. Anand, who had deserted his wife, B.P. Achala Anand, leaving her in the tenanted matrimonial home. The wife sought to be impleaded and to contest the eviction, arguing that she retained a right to residen

PARVIN KUMAR JAINversusANJU JAIN

2024 INSC 96110 December 2024Disposed off

Parvin Kumar Jain and Anju Jain were married in 1998 and have lived apart since 2004. The husband, a senior banker, was ordered to pay interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was later enhanced, while the wife sought further increase and permanent alimony. The Supreme Court examined whethe

DR. NIRMAL SINGH PANESARversusMRS. PARAMJIT KAUR PANESAR @ AJINDER KAUR PANESAR

2023 INSC 89610 October 2023Dismissed

The appellant, an 89‑year‑old retired Air Force officer, filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The District Court granted the decree, but the High Court reversed it, holding that the appellant failed to prove either ground. The

HARPREET SAWHNEYversusPUNEET SHARMA

2026 INSC 82210 August 2026Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard appeals by Harpreet Sawhney against Puneet Sharma challenging the Delhi High Court's maintenance order. The husband argued that deductions for Provident Fund and Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) were compulsory, reducing his net income, while the wife contended they were voluntary and shoul

VIKAS KANAUJIAversusSARITA

2024 INSC 51710 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Vikas Kanaujia filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging cruelty, after his wife Dr. Sarita left the marital home within a month of their 2002 marriage and the couple lived together for only about 43 days over a 22‑year separation. The Family Court granted a decree of divorce

SATISH SITOLEversusSMT. GANGA

2008 INSC 80610 July 2008Disposed off

Satish Sitole and Smt. Ganga were married on 22 May 1992. The wife left the matrimonial home in August 1994 and the parties lived apart for 14 years, during which they filed multiple suits including a dowry complaint under IPC 498‑A and a petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

SMT. SARLA MUDGAL, PRESIDENT, KALYANI AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 36310 May 1995Disposed off

The petitioners, Hindu wives, challenged the validity of their husbands' second marriages after the husbands converted to Islam without dissolving the first Hindu marriage. The Court examined whether conversion to Islam permits a Hindu husband to contract a second marriage, whether such a marriage is valid under the Hi

MS. JORDAN DIENGDEHversusS.S, CHOPRA

1985 INSC 13810 May 1985Disposed off

The wife, a Christian from the Khasi tribe and an Indian Foreign Service officer, married a Sikh husband under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. She filed a petition under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 seeking a declaration of nullity or judicial separation on the ground of her husband's impotence. The Delhi High

MAMTA DEVIversusSANJAY KUMAR

2026 INSC 34610 April 2026Disposed off

The parties were married in 2002 and have two children. They lived separately from 2018, with the husband filing for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court found that the wife’s conduct amounted to cruelty and that the husband had b

RAJ KUMAR RANAversusRITA RATHORE

2015 INSC 18810 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The husband Raj Kumar Rana married Rita Rathore in 1997, but they separated in February 1998 after the wife gave birth to a son and never returned to the marital home. The husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and desertion, which was dismissed by both the tri

ASHOK HURRAversusRUPA BIPIN ZAVERI

1997 INSC 24510 March 1997Disposed off

The husband and wife, married in 1970, lived separately from 1983 and filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act in 1984. The husband later moved a sole application for decree, while the wife withdrew her consent after the statutory 18‑month period, and the husband

MANISHA TYAGIversusDEEPAK KUMAR

2010 INSC 9310 February 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The wife (Manisha Tyagi) appealed a High Court Division Bench order that granted her husband (Deepak Kumar) a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i‑a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court and the High Court Single Judge had found both parties at fault and awarded judicial separati

G.V.N. KAMESWARA RAOversusG. JABILLI

2002 INSC 1710 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

G.V.N. Kameswara Rao, a double‑doctorate holder working abroad, married G. Jabilli in 1979. Their marriage quickly became strained, with the wife returning to India and the couple living apart for years. Rao filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging mental cruelty by his wife. T

SANTHINIversusVIJAYA VENKETESH

2017 INSC 10239 October 2017Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether video conferencing could be used in matrimonial disputes under the Family Courts Act, 1984, particularly in transfer petitions. It held that Section 11 of the Act obliges the court to hold proceedings in camera if either party desires, and that allowing video conferencing on the conse

SANTHINIversusVJJAYA VENKETESH

2017 INSC 7309 August 2017Matter referred to larger bench

The petitioner sought transfer of a divorce and child‑custody petition from the Family Court in Alappuzha, Kerala to the Family Court in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The respondent argued that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Krishna Veni Nagam, the matters could be dealt with via video‑conferencing instead of transf

PYLA MUTYALAMMA @ SATYAVATHIversusPYLA SURI DEMUDU & ANR.

2011 INSC 5649 August 2011Case Allowed

The appellant, Pyla Mutyalamma, filed a Section 125 Cr.P.C. application for maintenance against her husband, alleging a valid marriage in 1974 and desertion after 25 years. The trial magistrate found her to be the lawful wife with two surviving children and awarded Rs.500 per month. The husband appealed, claiming a pri

SMT. LAXMI DEVIversusSATYA NARAYAN AND ORS.

1994 INSC 3079 August 1994

The appellant, Laxmi Devi, alleged that her husband, Satya Narayan, had contracted a second marriage, constituting an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential Hindu marriage rite of Saptapadi, which is required to establish a valid marri

Y. NARASIMHA RAO AND ORS.versusY. VENKATA LAKSHMI AND ANR.

1991 INSC 1429 July 1991Dismissed

The first appellant, married under Hindu law, obtained a divorce decree from a Missouri court on the ground of "irretrievable breakdown" after claiming a 90‑day residence in Missouri, while the parties had actually last lived together in Louisiana. The respondent contested the decree, arguing lack of jurisdiction and t

SWAPNIL AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2014 INSC 3939 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Swapnil, filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights, but his wife left the matrimonial home in April 2011 and later lodged two police complaints alleging dowry demands and threats to kill. A First Class Judicial Magistrate framed charges under IPC sections 498A and 506 Part II and under Sectio

RAVINDER KAURversusANIL KUMAR

2015 INSC 3019 April 2015Disposed off

The appellant and respondent were married in 1991. The respondent obtained an ex‑parte decree of divorce in January 1994, which was later set aside in February 1996, thereby restoring the marriage. The appellant filed a criminal complaint under IPC s.376, which was dismissed without trial, and subsequently filed anothe

DR. SUSHIL KUMAR PURBEY & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2026 INSC 2129 March 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, married to Dr. Rishi Raj, filed an FIR in March 2022 alleging torture, dowry demands and an attempt to strangle her, implicating her husband, his parents (the appellants) and his sister‑in‑law. The parents‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC; the

KRISHNA VENI NAGAMversusHARISH NAGAM

2017 INSC 2249 March 2017Disposed off

The wife, residing in Hyderabad with her minor daughter, sought transfer of a divorce proceeding filed by her husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court of Jabalpur, citing hardship in traveling to the forum. The petition raised whether a transfer under Section 25 of the CPC was appropriate

RAVI KUMARversusJULMIDEVI

2010 INSC 929 February 2010Dismissed

The husband filed a divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty and desertion; the trial court granted the decree, but the High Court, exercising its power under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, set aside the decree. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court, as the first appellate court, may re‑appreci

RINA KUMARI @ RINA DEVI @ REENAversusDINESH KUMAR MAHTO @ DINESH KUMAR MAHATO AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 559 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The husband, Dinesh Kumar Mahto, obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, Reena, in 2022, yet she continued to live apart, alleging mental cruelty, dowry demands, and a miscarriage. Reena filed a maintenance suit under Section 125 of the CrPC in 2019 and was awarded ₹10,000 per month. The

GURBUX SINGHversusHARMINDER KAUR

2010 INSC 6898 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant, a principal of an ITI college, filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alleging cruelty by his wife, primarily citing an incident on the Lohri festival where she verbally abused his elderly parents. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the petition, finding t

SMT. YALLAWWversusSMT. SHANTAVVA

1996 INSC 11638 October 1996Disposed off

Basappa filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i‑b) of the Hindu Marriage Act and obtained an ex‑parte decree on 15‑12‑1989. Basappa died on 26‑05‑1990; the wife, Shantavva, claimed she only learned of the decree on 31‑03‑1990 and was not properly served, filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set as

NIL RATAN KUNDU & ANR.versusABHIJIT KUNDU

2008 INSC 9208 August 2008Case Allowed

The case concerned an application by the father, Abhijit Kundu, for custody of his six‑year‑old son Antariksh, while the child was in the care of his maternal grandparents who had lodged an FIR against the father under Sections 498A and 304 IPC for the alleged murder of the mother. The trial court and the Calcutta High

SMT. SAROJ RANIversusSUDARSHAN KUMAR CHADHA

1984 INSC 1348 August 1984Dismissed

The wife filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, and a consent decree was passed. After a year, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 for divorce, claiming that no cohabitation had occurred following the decree. The trial court held that the husband

SUMAN SINGHversusSANJAY SINGH

2017 INSC 2158 March 2017

The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging multiple instances of cruelty by his wife. The alleged incidents were largely isolated, occurred many years before the petition, and were condoned by the parties as they continued to live together and had two children.

PARIMALversusVEENA @ BHARTI

2011 INSC 1108 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Parimal filed a divorce suit against his wife Veena. The wife repeatedly refused to accept the court's notice, after which the trial court proceeded ex‑parte and granted a decree of divorce. Four years later she applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, alleging improper service, fraud and lack of suf

SMT. GURNAM KAUR AND ANR.versusPURAN SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 2108 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned whether the appellant, a daughter of Ram Singh and Gurnam Kaur, was a legitimate child despite Gurnam Kaur's earlier marriage not being legally dissolved. Earlier courts had held the child illegitimate because the prior marriage was void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant arg

REEMA AGGARWALversusANUPAM AND ORS.

2004 INSC 258 January 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Reema Aggarwal married Anupam while his first wife was alive and was subsequently harassed for dowry by Anupam, his parents and brother, who forced her to ingest poison. She reported the incident and the accused were charged under IPC Sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 498A (dowry harassment). The trial court acquitt

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search