LawLoveLegal

Introduction Reinforcing the settled legal position that nomination does not override succession , the Orissa High Court has ruled that a legally wedded wife, being a Class-I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , has a superior right over her deceased husband’s estate, irrespective of any nomination made in favour of other family members with banks or insurance companies. The judgment underscores that banking and insurance nominations are merely facilitative arrangements and do not constitute a separate or superior mode of inheritance. Factual Background of the Case The case arose from a dispute concerning the terminal benefits of Subhransu Mohanty , an employee of Canara Bank , who died on 18 September 2023 . At the time of his death: He was married to Snigdha Patnaik (married in 2014) The couple had a daughter Divorce proceedings initiated by Mohanty were still pending No decree of divorce had been passed, and the marriage subsisted in law Upon his death, the bank assessed h...

Background of the Case In a significant ruling highlighting the judiciary’s concern over prolonged matrimonial litigation, the Supreme Court of India dissolved a marriage that lasted only 65 days , where the spouses have lived separately for over 13 years and were entangled in more than 40 civil and criminal cases against each other. The marriage was solemnised on January 28, 2012 . Within 65 days, the wife left the matrimonial home alleging cruelty by the husband and his family members . Since then, the parties have remained estranged, litigating across courts in Delhi, Allahabad, Ghaziabad and Lucknow , effectively turning the judicial system into a forum for sustained personal conflict. Proceedings Before the Supreme Court The matter came before a Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan . The wife approached the Supreme Court invoking Article 142 of the Constitution , seeking: Dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown Quashing of multiple pending...

Case Background — Separation, Abuse Allegations and Maintenance Proceedings The case arose out of matrimonial conflict between a couple married in January 2014, who had three minor children — two daughters and a son. Following allegations of physical, emotional and economic abuse, the wife separated and initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking maintenance for the children. In December 2023, the trial court directed the father to pay ₹30,000 per month as maintenance toward the three minor children until: the domestic violence case concluded, or the children attained majority. The father challenged the order before the Sessions Court, which dismissed his appeal in March 2024. He then approached the Delhi High Court, asserting financial incapacity and inequity in the award. Husband’s Argument — Wife Earns More, Maintenance Burden Should Be Reduced Before the High Court, the husband argued that: his monthly income was only ₹9,000 , his ...

Introduction In a significant ruling on matrimonial jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has held that a long period of separation between a husband and wife, with no possibility of reconciliation, amounts to cruelty to both parties . The Court observed that prolonged matrimonial litigation results in the perpetuation of a marriage only on paper, serving neither the interests of the parties nor that of society. Invoking its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution , the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown , reiterating that mental cruelty can arise from sustained separation and rigid refusal to accommodate each other. Bench and Background of the Case Composition of the Bench The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi , with Justice Manmohan authoring the opinion for the Court. Marriage and Separation Timeline The parties were married on August 4, 2000 Matrimonial disp...

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a parent working from home (WFH) cannot automatically be considered more suitable for child custody than a parent who physically travels to work. In a significant judgment addressing the realities of modern working families, the Court held that the welfare of the child—not parental work arrangements—is the paramount consideration in custody disputes. Contemporary Context: Hybrid Work Culture and Custody Claims The ruling comes amid rising reliance on remote and hybrid work models, where many litigants argue that being physically present at home enhances their caregiving ability. However, the Supreme Court has cautioned against such simplified assumptions. A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that in the current socio-economic environment, both parents frequently work to provide economic stability , and physical presence at home does not necessarily translate into availability, emotional nurturing, or superior careg...

The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that the judiciary’s responsibility extends beyond statutory interpretation—it also includes safeguarding the dignity, autonomy, and peace of women, especially after matrimonial disputes have lawfully ended. In a significant judgment delivered by Justice L. Victoria Gowri on November 13, the Madurai Bench dismissed a maintenance plea that sought to drag a divorced woman back into litigation nearly a decade after her mutual-consent divorce. This decision reasserts the Constitutional mandate under Article 21 and clarifies the limits of maintainability and locus standi in maintenance proceedings. Background of the Case Divorce and Settlement in 2014 The woman and her estranged husband obtained a mutual consent divorce in 2014. As part of the agreement: The mother voluntarily declined maintenance. Custody of the minor son was granted to the father. The father agreed to bear all maintenance expenses for the child. Both parties subsequent...

Introduction: The Supreme Court’s Remark Sparks Debate The Supreme Court of India recently made headlines while hearing a petition filed by Hasin Jahan, the estranged wife of Indian cricketer Mohammad Shami, challenging the Calcutta High Court’s order granting her ₹4 lakh as monthly maintenance. The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, while issuing notice to Shami, observed that ₹4 lakh per month appeared to be “quite reasonable.” The remark has stirred public debate on the concept of maintenance under Indian law — how courts determine what is “reasonable,” and how such determinations balance lifestyle disparities between spouses. Background: Calcutta High Court’s Interim Maintenance Order The Calcutta High Court’s July 1 order fixed ₹1.5 lakh as monthly maintenance for Hasin Jahan and ₹2.5 lakh for the couple’s daughter, totaling ₹4 lakh. The division bench of the High Court later upheld this order on August 25, 2024. Before this, the trial court had ordered Shami ...

Supreme Court Upholds Maintenance Rights for Muslim  Women under Section 125 CrPC In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which grants the right to maintenance, applies to all married women, including Muslim women. This ruling ensures that Muslim married women can claim maintenance from their husbands under these provisions, providing a significant legal safeguard for their financial security. Empowering Indian Homemakers The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, emphasized the critical role of homemakers in Indian society. The court highlighted the need for Indian men to recognize the contributions and sacrifices of homemakers, who are often the backbone of the family. It urged men to provide financial support to their wives, suggesting the use of joint bank accounts and ATMs to ensure access to financial resources. Applicability to Divorced Muslim Women The court clarifi...