1. Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur v. Durga Charan Hansdah AIR 2001 SC 938
Fact: Appellant alleged bigamy under Sec. 494, IPC, as per Hindu customs, against her tribal husband. Appellant claimed tribal custom mandates monogamy.
Supreme Court Observation: Hindu Marriage Act is applicable unless specific notification exempts tribals. Mere pleading of tribal custom isn't enough; it must be ancient, certain, and reasonable. Section 29 recognizes the importance of custom, but it must nullify the second marriage.
Supreme Court Decision: Without specific pleadings, evidence, and proof of tribal custom, no offence under Sec. 494, IPC is made out.
2. S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami (2001) 7 SCC 48
Fact: Appellant claimed the second marriage, as per Sec. 7-A, H.M. Act, lacked the essential "saptapadi" ceremony.
Supreme Court Decision: "Saptapadi" is essential only if parties admit its significance in their personal law. The second marriage under Sec. 7-A, H.M. Act, was valid without "saptapadi."
3. Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650
Background: Mr. Ghosh converted to Islam for a second marriage, challenging the validity under Hindu Marriage Act. Issues included the Uniform Civil Code, conversion motives, and penal action.
Court’s Ruling: Conversion for a second marriage is fraudulent; such marriages are void and invalid. Converting for ulterior motives violates Article 21. Penal action is warranted for marrying while converting to Islam during the subsistence of the first marriage.
Conclusion:
Questions linger regarding conversion, Uniform Civil Code implementation, and personal laws' clash with fundamental rights.
4. Pinninti Venkataramana and others. vs. State AIR 1977 AP
Facts: Husband, 13 at marriage, convicted for bigamy. Appeal challenging the marriage's legality and offense under Sec. 494 IPC.
Court’s Judgment: Hindu marriage's sacramental character has been altered by the Hindu Marriage Act. Marriage under the Act is contractual, not just sacramental. Marriage under the Act is not excluded by customary rites alone; it's a legal status created by law.
Conclusion:
The Hindu Marriage Act transforms marriage into a contractual nature, not solely sacramental, recognizing the legal status created by law.
5. Mt.Ghulam Kubra Bibi v. Mohd. Shafi Mohd. Din and Ors
Fact: The legal issue in the case of Mt. Ghulam Kubra Bibi v. Mohammad Shafi Mohammad Din revolves around the validity of the marriage between Mohammad Shafi and Mt. Ghulam Kubra. Mohammad Shafi sued for restitution of conjugal rights, claiming they were married, while Mt. Ghulam Kubra denied any marriage took place.
Decision: The court determined that the vague allegations and insufficient evidence provided by the witnesses regarding the marriage procedure raised doubts about the validity of the marriage. The court ultimately concluded that no valid marriage had taken place. The appeal of Mt. Ghulam Kubra was accepted, and Mohammad Shafi's suit was dismissed with costs throughout.
Conclusion:
The legal issue centered on the proof of a valid marriage and its implications on the right to seek restitution of conjugal rights. The court's decision hinged on the adherence to Mahomedan law requirements for marriage and the adequacy of evidence presented during the trial.
6. Asha Qureshi v. Afaq Qureshi AIR 2002 MP 263
Legal Issue: Whether the wife's failure to disclose her previous marriage, resulting in the husband's unawareness of her widowhood, amounts to fraud and qualifies for a decree of nullity under Sec. 25(3) of the 'Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Decision: The court granted a decree of nullity under Sec. 25(3) of the 'Special Marriage Act, as the husband, unaware of her previous marriage, would not have married her if he had known. The court agreed that the wife's duty to disclose such a material fact was breached.
7. Kailashwati v. Ayodhia Parkash
Legal Issue: Whether the husband's request for relief from the loss of conjugal rights can be denied when the wife chooses to live separately due to employment reasons, and if the husband is obligated to provide a suitable place for the wife to live.
Decision: The Trial Court ruled in favor of the husband, emphasizing the importance of the matrimonial house and the husband's responsibility to provide a decent place for the wife. The wife's unilateral decision to live separately was found unreasonable and not falling under the purview of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Conclusion:
The wife's appeal was rejected, highlighting the husband's obligation to support his family, including providing a suitable living arrangement.
8. Swaraj Garg vs. K.M. Garg
Legal Issue: Determining the matrimonial home when the husband and wife work in different places for their earnings.
Decision: The court ruled in favor of Swaraj Garg, emphasizing the wife's right to choose the matrimonial home if both spouses are gainfully employed and the wife earns more. The husband's plea for restitution of conjugal rights was rejected.
Conclusion:
The court held that if both spouses are employed and the wife earns more, she has the right to choose the matrimonial home.
9. Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar AIR 1984 SC 1562
Legal Issue: The constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), which allows the restitution of conjugal rights.
Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 9 of HMA, rejecting the argument that it violated Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The enforcement of Section 9 did not breach privacy rights, and the husband was granted a divorce decree.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9 of HMA, allowing for the restitution of conjugal rights without violating fundamental rights.
10. N.G. Dastane v. S.Dastane AIR 1975 SC 1534.
Legal Issue: Whether the husband's claim of marriage consent obtained through fraud was valid and if the alleged cruelty by the wife justified a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Decision: The court dismissed the husband's fraud claims and considered engaging in sexual relations during separation as condoning any cruelty. The wife's willingness to reconcile influenced the decision, and the Trial Court ordered maintenance and debt payment to the wife.
Conclusion:
The court ruled that the husband's claims were unfounded, and the wife's readiness to reconcile was crucial in the decision-making process.
11. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh
Legal Issue: Whether the appellant, Samar Ghosh, was entitled to a divorce on grounds of mental cruelty from his wife, Jaya Ghosh.
Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restoring the District Judge's decree of mental cruelty and granting Samar Ghosh a divorce.
Conclusion:
The court emphasized that mental cruelty varies, and individual decisions on issues like cohabitation and having children can contribute to mental cruelty in matrimonial matters.
12. Bipin Chandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati
Legal Issue: Whether the Respondent deserted the Appellant for a continuous period of four years before the divorce suit was filed.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Respondent was not in desertion, and the Appellant failed to conclusively prove desertion.
Conclusion:
The court highlighted the need for continuous desertion and the burden of proving willingness to resume marital life. The appeal was dismissed.
13. Sureshta Devi vs. Om Prakash
Legal Issue: Whether a party to a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act can unilaterally withdraw consent.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that consent for divorce by mutual consent can't be unilaterally withdrawn if initially voluntary. The crucial time for consent is when filing the petition.
Conclusion:
The court emphasized the importance of voluntary and irrevocable consent in divorce petitions under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
14. Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur AIR 2017 SC
4417
Legal Issue: Whether the minimum six-month waiting period for a divorce decree under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is mandatory or can be relaxed in exceptional situations.
Decision: The Supreme Court clarified that the six-month waiting period is not mandatory and can be relaxed in exceptional situations, ensuring flexibility in granting divorce based on mutual consent.
Conclusion:
The court's ruling provided flexibility in exceptional cases, acknowledging the evolving nature of family law.
15. Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. (2002) 7 SCC 518
Summary: Triple talaq given in 1987, husband denies maintenance, wife files complaint. The High Court ruled talaq invalid due to lack of communication. The husband challenged, and the Supreme Court examined the validity of talaq.
Ruling: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for proper communication for talaq validity. The husband was liable for maintenance until the legal end of the obligation.
Legal Issues:
1. Does talaq given in anger result in the dissolution of marriage?
2. Is communication of talaq necessary for its validity?
3. Effect of non-communication of talaq to the wife.
16. Ghulam Sakina V. Falak Sher Allah Baksh, 1950
Summary: Marriage of a minor girl was solemnized and consummated. The girl wants to repudiate the marriage after attaining majority. The court dealt with the legality of repudiating a marriage consummated before puberty.
Ruling: The court ruled that the minor could repudiate the marriage if consummation occurred before puberty. No repudiation is allowed if consummation occurred after puberty.
Legal Issue:
Can a minor repudiate marriage if consummated before puberty?
17. Yousuf Rawther vs. Sowramma
Summary: The husband pronounced triple talaq and failed to maintain his wife. The wife alleged rape during the period when, legally, they were not married. The court examined the validity of talaq and the implications of failing to maintain the wife.
Ruling: The court held that talaq was invalid due to lack of communication, and failure to maintain the wife was a valid ground for the dissolution of the marriage. The appeal was dismissed, and the husband was liable for maintenance.
Legal Issue:
Can failure to maintain a wife be a ground for the dissolution of marriage?
18. Itwari vs. Asghari
Summary: The husband sued for restitution of conjugal rights after taking a second wife. The first wife refused, claiming cruelty. The court addressed whether the husband could compel the first wife to live with him after taking a second wife.
Ruling: The appeal was dismissed. The court ruled that compulsion by the husband is cruelty, and the court cannot compel the first wife to live with him after he has taken a second wife.
Legal Issues:
1. Is the appeal maintainable?
2. Is the husband guilty of cruelty?
3. Can a husband compel his wife after taking a second wife?
19. Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1
Summary: The husband used triple talaq, and the wife challenged its constitutionality. The court addressed whether triple talaq was constitutional and whether it was an essential religious practice under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Ruling: The Supreme Court declared triple talaq unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 13(1). The court held that triple talaq was not an essential religious practice and was not protected under Article 25.
Legal Issues:
1. Is triple talaq constitutional?
2. Is triple talaq an essential religious practice?
20. Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188
Legal Issue: Whether a second wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC if the husband marries her while already being married to another woman?
Decision: The Supreme Court held the marriage was proved, and the petitioner's misrepresentation deprived the respondent of her right to claim maintenance. The court emphasized a purposive interpretation of Section 125 CrPC for social justice.
Conclusion:
The judgment sets a precedent for cases where a man deceives a second wife about his existing marriage, ensuring justice for deprived spouses.
21. Sanjivani Ramchandra vs. Bhimrao Kondalkar
Legal Issue: Whether a wife divorced for adultery can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Decision: The Bombay High Court upheld the decision denying maintenance, stating the petitioner lost the right due to proven adultery. The court relied on Section 125(4) of the CrPC and previous Supreme Court decisions.
Conclusion:
The case clarifies that a divorced wife, due to adultery, loses the right to claim maintenance, aligning with Section 125(4) of the CrPC.
22. Sanjay Kale vs. Kalyani Kale
Legal Issues:
- Whether an ex-wife with independent income is entitled to maintenance?
- Whether the wife's agreement to forego maintenance is enforceable?
Decision: The High Court held that an independent income doesn't disentitle maintenance. The agreement to forego maintenance, despite income, is unenforceable.
Conclusion:
The decision emphasizes the right of an ex-wife to maintenance, irrespective of independent income, and invalidates agreements against public policy.
23. Danial Latifi vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 740;
Legal Issues:
- Whether the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is consistent with the Constitution?
- Whether a husband's liability for maintenance extends beyond the Iddat period?
Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the Act's validity and stated that maintenance is the husband's responsibility beyond the Iddat period.
Conclusion:
The judgment balanced women's rights with personal law, stating a husband's liability for maintenance extends beyond Iddat.
24. Rana Nahid vs. Sahidul Haq Chisti
Legal Issues:
- Whether the Family Court can convert a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC into a petition under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act?
- Whether Section 125 CrPC takes precedence over Section 3 of the Act?
Decision: A split verdict: one judge held Family Court lacked jurisdiction, and the other favored its jurisdiction. The case is to be heard by a larger bench due to the split decision.
Conclusion:
The case exposes gaps in family law, indicating potential inconsistencies between the Family Courts Act and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act.
25. Brijendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2008)
Fact: Mishri Bai, a disabled woman, adopted Brijendra after her husband abandoned her. She willed agricultural land to Brijendra.
Issue: Validity of adoption under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Court Held: Adoption was invalid as Mishri Bai, though living like a widow, wasn't legally a widow. Section 8 required the adopter to be unmarried or divorced.
26. In Re: Adoption of Payal at Sharinee Vinay Pathak and his wife Sonika Sahay Pathak, 2010
Issue: Whether parents can adopt another child of the same gender under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Court Decision: Parents can't adopt a child of the same gender. Adoption for rehabilitation, as per Juvenile Justice Act, should prioritize the child's welfare, allowing adoption.
27. Manju Sharma vs. Vipin (2019)
Facts: Dispute over maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. Husband filed for divorce, and the petitioner sought enhanced maintenance.
Decision: Court granted Rs.30,000/month as maintenance, emphasizing the husband's sufficient means and the child's medical needs.
28. Githa Hariharan vs. Reserve Bank of India (1999)2SCC
Facts: Dispute over guardianship under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, challenging gender bias.
Decision: Ruling against gender bias, court held mothers and fathers equally responsible. Mother can be a natural guardian if father is absent or apathetic, ensuring child's welfare.
29. Shabnam Hashmi vs. Union of India 2014(4)SCC1
Issue: Fundamental right to adopt irrespective of religion. Clash between Personal Law and Secular Law.
Judgement: Adoption declared a fundamental right under Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Personal laws don't hinder adoption. Uniformity in adoption encouraged, breaking religious barriers.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now