Supreme Court of India Judgements

46830 Judgements hosted as on 05/08/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Matrimonial

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.…

Matrimonial

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Divorce – Husband was about 89 years old and wife aged about 82 years – One should not be oblivious to the fact that the institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays an important role in the society – it would not be desirable to accept the formula of “irretrievable break down of marriage” as a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Appeal dismissed.

Oct 15, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. NIRMAL SINGH PANESAR — Appellant Vs. MRS. PARAMJIT KAUR PANESAR @AJINDER KAUR PANESAR — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M.…

Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 13(1) and 13(1A) – Grant of Decree of divorce – Denial of – The parties in question have been living apart for fifteen years -there is no reason to prolong the distress of maintaining a marital status when they are not living together – In light of the mentioned reasons, the judgment of the Trial Court and the subsequent confirmation by the High Court is hereby overturned – As a result, the appeal is accepted, and a divorce decree is granted.

Sep 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. ROOPA SONI — Appellant Vs. KAMALNARAYAN SONI — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and M. M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

You missed

Education

Haryana School Education Act, 1995, Section 22 — Civil Court Jurisdiction — Ouster of jurisdiction by statute must be express or implied — Section 22 only ousts jurisdiction where Government or its officers have power to adjudicate — Recovery of fees by a school is not a power conferred on Government/authorities — Civil court jurisdiction not ousted in matters of reasonable fee recovery.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C I P C

Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband — Allegations in FIR were vague, general, and filed one year after admitted separation of the parties — No specific instances of cruelty were mentioned — Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Court can quash FIR if allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute any offence — Vague and general allegations of marital discord, without specific instances, do not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw
I P C POCSO

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376(2), 450 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Sexual assault on a minor — Evidence of prosecutrix — Conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if it inspires confidence — Corroboration of testimony of prosecutrix is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence — Minor contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out the evidence of the prosecutrix.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw
C P C

State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — Section 29 — Liability of Financial Corporation taking possession of industrial unit for dues — Corporation acts as a trustee, liable only to the extent of funds in its hands after settling its dues, not personally liable. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 80 — Notice to Government or public officer — Mandatory requirement before instituting suit — Failure to issue notice or obtain leave renders suit not maintainable and decree a nullity, even if impleaded later.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw