Supreme Court of India Judgements

46950 Judgements hosted as on 04/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Matrimonial

Matrimonial

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — Section 3(1)(d) — Right to property given at marriage — Divorced Muslim Woman — The Act allows a divorced woman to claim all properties given to her before, at the time of, or after marriage by her relatives, friends, the husband, or his relatives/friends — The objective of the Act is to secure the financial protection and dignity of a Muslim woman post-divorce. (Paras 3, 7, 9)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1375 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROUSANARA BEGUM Vs. S.K. SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

Matrimonial

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Supreme Court’s inherent powers — Invoking powers for divorce by mutual consent after mediation settlement and agreement to withdraw all cases — Parties having irretrievable breakdown of marriage and living separately for over five years — Court grants decree of divorce by mutual consent and quashes pending criminal cases and FIRs.

Sep 21, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ISHA JAIN (AGGARWAL) Vs. NISHANT JAIN AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 999 of…

Matrimonial

Transfer Petition — Jurisdiction — Courts — Petition seeking transfer of matrimonial and criminal cases from one state to another filed by both parties, wife seeking transfer of divorce case from Delhi to UP, husband seeking transfer of criminal cases from UP to Delhi. Parties have also filed special leave petitions against High Court orders. Supreme Court has the power to transfer cases.

Jul 29, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 883 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIVANGI BANSAL Vs. SAHIB BANSAL ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI. and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Transfer Petition (C) No.…

Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 — Sections 12 and 13 — Family Courts Act, 1984 — Sections 6 and 9 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Where the parties have agreed to a divorce but are in dispute over maintenance or permanent alimony, the court must determine the quantum of maintenance based on a balanced consideration of various factors, including the financial status of both parties, the standard of living during the marriage, and the reasonable needs of the dependent spouse — The court should aim to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution, while also avoiding an unreasonable financial burden on the other spouse.

Feb 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 135 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAU. JIYA Vs. KULDEEP ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No….of 2025 (SLP (C)…

Child Custody Matrimonial

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 1036 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUGIRTHA Vs. GOWTHAM ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No….of 2024 (Arising Out of…

I P C Matrimonial

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323 and 504 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce — The court recognized that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties have been living separately for a significant period and all efforts at reconciliation have failed, can be a valid ground for divorce — This expands the grounds for divorce beyond the traditional grounds mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.— One-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony — The court allowed the parties to opt for a one-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony, instead of periodic payments — This provides flexibility to the parties in resolving their financial obligations towards each other.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 530 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIRAN JYOT MAINI — Appellant Vs. ANISH PRAMOD PATEL — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishram, JJ.…

Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – Divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Ground of Irretrievable Breakdown – The court recognized irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a valid ground for divorce, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – This expands the scope of grounds for divorce and provides a more compassionate approach to ending a marriage that has irreparably broken down.

May 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JATINDER KUMAR SAPRA — Appellant Vs. ANUPAMA SAPRA — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S).of…

Joint Family Property Matrimonial Property Matters

Suit for Partition – The Court found that ‘C’ remarriage extinguished her rights to her first husband’s property, and she could not pass on any title to the plaintiff – The Court applied the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, and relevant case law to determine the impact of Chiruthey’s remarriage on her property rights – The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff could not inherit the property through ‘C’, as her rights were nullified upon remarriage, and the deeds did not confer valid title.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 287 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…

Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 9 and 13(1) (ia) – Divorce – The Supreme Court finds merit in the appellant/husband’s willingness to undergo the test and partially upholds the Trial Court’s order – The Supreme Court modifies the High Court’s order, directing the appellant/husband to undergo the medical test as per the Trial Court’s direction.

Apr 7, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEEP MUKERJEE — Appellant Vs. SREYASHI BANERJEE — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S). of…

Constitution Matrimonial

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is clearly permissible to do ‘complete justice’ to a ’cause or matter’ and this Court can pass an order or decree which a family court, trial court or High Court can pass and when such power is exercised, the question or issue of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction does not arise

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHI — Appellant Vs. KUNTAL PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHI @ KUNTAL VISANJI SHAH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 21 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Substantive Equality and Inclusion — Scope and Spirit — The measure of a just society demands the removal of barriers for all citizens to realize their potential, transforming formal equality into substantive inclusion — Constitutional vision requires every person, regardless of physical or sensory limitation, to participate with dignity — Rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are expressions of the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, not acts of benevolence. (Paras 1, 12, 13)

Dec 4, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)

Dec 4, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Object and Scope — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement — Fair Trial — The object of Section 313 CrPC is to ensure a fair trial by providing the accused with an opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them personally — It is a mandatory, non-negotiable obligation upon the Court and is not a mere formality; it is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice (audi alterum partem) — The statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction and is neither substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. (Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw
Property Matters

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Section 14(1) — Mandamus to acquire land — Power of State Government to acquire land for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme — Preferential Right of Owner — The power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the area — Acquisition is not warranted when the owner is willing to undertake development in exercise of their preferential right, and the process must be kept in abeyance until such right is extinguished — No mandamus can be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act where the subsequent purchaser from the original owner (Respondent No. 4) has a subsisting preferential right to develop the property. (Paras 63, 64, 71, 72, 77(1))

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw