A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(iii) – Divorce -- Unsoundness of mind -- Standard of proof -- Standard of proof in such case is very high -- Depending on the social set up of the parties and surroundings in which the parties live, the allegations can also be established by preponderance of evidence.

(Para 15)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(iii) – Divorce -- Unsoundness of mind -- Mental disorder cannot be a sole ground to grant decree of divorce, but it must further be proved that it is of a such nature as the appellant/ husband cannot reasonably expected  to live with the respondent -- There has been abnormal aggressive and serious irresponsible conduct done by the wife -- Husband cannot live with the wife because of periodical mental illness, which is rash behaviour, order to stay by force would amount to mental cruelty – Photographs admitted to be that of wife reflects that it was an aggressive expression, not normal, which corroborates the statement given by the husband -- Marriage solemnised between the parties dissolved by decree of divorce.

(Para 18, 19)

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(iii), 25 – Divorce -- Permanent alimony -- Husband getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month, daughter is with the appellant/husband -- Considering the inflation; circumstances; and also to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, court deemed it appropriate that Rs.8,000/- per month maintenance to the wife henceforth as a permanent alimony -- Deduction shall be made from source and would be paid to the account of wife -- As and when the salary is reciprocally increased, subsequently the amount of maintenance shall also be increased proportionally to the percent and extent of increase in future salary.

(Para 20, 21)

A. Constitution of India, Article 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- Grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by Supreme Court is not a matter of right, but a discretion which is to be exercised with great care and caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that ‘complete justice’ is done to both parties.

(Para 33)

B. Constitution of India, Article 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Factors to be considered

-- Period of separation should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor.

-- But these facts have to be evaluated keeping in view the economic and social status of the parties, including their educational qualifications, whether the parties have any children, their age, educational qualification, and whether the other spouse and children are dependent, in which event how and in what manner the party seeking divorce intends to take care and provide for the spouse or the children.

-- Question of custody and welfare of minor children, provision for fair and adequate alimony for the wife, and economic rights of the children and other pending matters, if any, are relevant considerations – Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is situation specific.

Some of the factors mentioned can be taken as illustrative, and worthy of consideration.

(Para 33)

C. Constitution of India, Article 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(i-a), 13B -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Held, decisions of Supreme Court in Manish Goel (2010) 4 SCC 393, Neelam Kumar (2010) 13 SCC 298, Darshan Gupta (2013) 9 SCC 1, Hitesh Bhatnagar (2011) 5 SCC 234, Savitri Pandey and others (2002) 2 SCC 73 have to be read down in the context of the power of Supreme Court given by the Constitution of India to do ‘complete justice’ in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India – Held, power to do ‘complete justice’ is not fettered by the doctrine of fault and blame, applicable to petitions for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act -- Court’s power to dissolve marriage on settlement by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, as well as quash and set aside other proceedings, including criminal proceedings, remains and can be exercised.

(Para 40)

D. Constitution of India, Article 32, 142, 226 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage:

Whether a party can directly canvass before Supreme Court the ground of irretrievable breakdown by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

-- In Poonam’s case (2010) 4 SCC 460, a two judges’ bench of Supreme Court has rightly held that any such attempt must be spurned and not accepted, as the parties should not be permitted to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, or for that matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, and seek divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

-- Parties should not be permitted to circumvent the procedure by resorting to the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be.

-- Secondly, and more importantly, relief under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can be sought to enforce the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India, and on the proof of infringement thereof -- Judicial orders passed by the court in, or in relation to, the proceedings pending before it, are not amenable to correction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, a party cannot file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and seek relief of dissolution of marriage directly from Supreme Court.

(Para 41)

E. Constitution of India, Article 32, 142, 226 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage:

Scope and ambit of power and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.

“This question as to the power and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is answered in terms of paragraphs 8 to 13, inter alia, holding that this Court can depart from the procedure as well as the substantive laws, as long as the decision is exercised based on considerations of fundamental general and specific public policy. While deciding whether to exercise discretion, this Court must consider the substantive provisions as enacted and not ignore the same, albeit this Court acts as a problem solver by balancing out equities between the conflicting claims. This power is to be exercised in a ‘cause or matter’.”

(Para 42(i))

F. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce – Quashing of Ancillary proceedings -- Scope of Article 142 of Constitution of India :

Power to quash and dispose of other/connected proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or criminal prosecution primarily under Section 498-A and other provisions of the I.P.C. under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Held, Supreme Court can also, in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, quash and set aside other proceedings and orders, including criminal proceedings.

(Para 42(ii))

G. Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage:

Whether Supreme Court can grant divorce in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India when there is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage in spite of the other spouses opposing the prayer?

“…… this question is also answered in the affirmative, inter alia, holding that this Court, in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. This discretionary power is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties, wherein this Court is satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified. The Court, as a court of equity, is required to also balance the circumstances and the background in which the party opposing the dissolution is placed.”

(Para 42(iii))

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) -- Cruelty -- Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage -- A marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides -- A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty -- It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage u/s 13 (1) (ia) of the Act.

(Para 16)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) -- Cruelty -- Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage – Both barely stayed together as a couple for four years, living separately for the last 25 years, no child out of the wedlock -- Matrimonial bond is completely broken and is beyond repair -- Long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act – Marriage dissolved.

(Para 18, 19)

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 25 -- Divorce -- Appellant/husband is an employee in Life Insurance Corporation, and his present salary is more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month – Court deemed it fit and proper that he gives an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent/wife as permanent alimony.

(Para 19, 20)

Succession law -- Disinheritance notice in newspaper – Registered Will bequeathing equal share to plaintiff and defendant -- Courts below found that such notice was not sufficient to disinherit defendant from the property -- Will Ex.D1, duly executed by the testator/ father was not revoked by him during his life time – Held, findings given by the Courts below are based upon proper appreciation and correct interpretation of law.

(Para 10-12)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14, 15(1)(c) – Arrears of maintenance – Death of wife – Mother of wife impleaded as party -- In view of Section 15(1)(c) of the Hindu Succession Act, mother is entitled to the property of her daughter -- Arrears of maintenance accrued till the death – Ld. Judge rightly impleaded the mother of the deceased daughter (wife of the petitioner) in the petition for arrears of maintenance – Revision against impleadment as party dismissed.

(Para 1, 2, 15)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 16 – Adoption deed – Proof of adoption – Panchayatnama (Ex.P1), produced as evidence of the alleged adoption, is neither signed by the adoptive parents nor by the natural parents -- In the absence of the signatures of the adoptive parents as well as the natural parents on Ex.P1, the same cannot be treated as a document of adoption -- In the job card issued by MGNREGA (Ex.DW6/A), the plaintiff-appellant is recorded as being the son of MS – Date of registration much after the alleged adoption by the deceased – Ration card (Ex.D4) also shows the plaintiff-appellant as son of MS -- In the absence of the adoption deed and in view of the evidence led by the defendant-respondents, the plaintiff-appellant cannot be held to be the adopted son of deceased

(Para 8)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 112 – Divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty -- DNA test of child – Legitimacy of child – Presumption -- Divorce petition  by husband – In pleading husband did not deny access to wife – Admitted that he used to stay with his wife during weekends -- Presumption u/s 112 of Evidence Act gets attracted -- Baby was born to the couple having access to each other and during subsistence of valid marriage between them -- It is conclusive proof of baby’s legitimacy -- Paternity of the child cannot be allowed to be ascertained in the manner sought by the husband -- He cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna, if any, in his evidence by seeking to conduct the DNA test of the child and the parties.

(Para 5)

Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 19(4) – Meager interim maintenance – Expedite disposal of main maintenance petition – Prayer for -- Petitioners submit that income of respondent-husband is admittedly Rs.30,000/- per month whereas the Family Court has granted meagre amount of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioners i.e. wife and son -- Considering that amount of maintenance awarded i.e. Rs.6,000/- per month, the Family Court requested to expedite the disposal of determination of final maintenance.

(Para 1-3)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 -- Restitution of conjugal rights -- Transfer of case – While considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 -- Restitution of conjugal rights -- Transfer of case – Ludhiana to Hoshiarpur -- Considering the fact that issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the petitioner-wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in case, notice of motion is issued, even the respondent-husband has to bear the litigation expenses – Petition allowed.

(Para 7)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B, 14(1) – Divorce by mutual consent – Exemption from one year separation – Family court dismissed as it found no ground to accept the petition prior to lapse of one year from the date of marriage in terms of Section 14 of the Act -- Parties are still young, the husband being 30 years old, the wife being 26 years old and after marriage, they barely lived with each other for about ten (10) days -- It is categorically stated that the parties seek to move further in their life as there is no possibility whatsoever of any reconciliation between them leading to resumption of matrimonial ties -- Impugned order passed by the learned Family Court set aside, petition u/s 13-B of the Act stands revived -- Parties directed to appear before the learned Family Court on 15.03.2023 for recording of their statements at first motion in accordance with law.

(Para 1, 8-12)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Absolute owner -- Ancestral property – Assessment of -- Excerpts of the land – Requirement of -- The trial Court relied upon cross-examination of defendant admitting that suit land in hands of S.R. was ancestral property and similarly other witnesses of the defendant have admitted so -- Whole approach of the trial Court was illegal and erroneous -- In absence of the excerpts being got prepared with regard to the suit land and revenue record being there to corroborate that fact, the suit land could not possibly be taken to have nature of ancestral coparcenary property -- It being so, the inference can be drawn that S.R. was absolute owner of the suit land and not in his alleged capacity as Karta of the Hindu joint family -- It being so, since S.R. died intestate, his estate is to devolve upon all his legal heirs by natural succession in equal shares.

(Para 12)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 15, 21B(3), 23(2), 28 -- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 2(b) -- Divorce – Remarriage during pendency of appeal – Civil Contempt -- Section 21B(3) states that the appeal will be disposed expeditiously within a period of three months -- Despite a lapse of 13 years, the appeal has not been decided, though the Act casts upon a duty on the Appellate Court to dispose it off within three months – A spouse cannot be held guilty u/s 15 of the Act without referring to Section 21B(3) of the Act -- Spouse cannot be made to wait for endless period if the Court is not able of deciding the appeal, especially when the same has been admitted -- Contempt petition dismissed.

(Para 21(a)(b)(d)(e), 22)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 15, 21B(3), 23(2), 28 -- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 2(b) -- Divorce – Remarriage during pendency of appeal – Civil Contempt -- Violation of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act amounts to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Act -- However, when there is no specific restraint order from remarrying after three months period expired u/s 21B(3) for disposal of the appeal, considering that the respondent waited for 10 years and ultimately decided to move on to secure her future and performed the second marriage, no willful disobedience made out – Contempt petition dismissed.

(Para 21(f), 22)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 494 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 15, 21B(3) -- Divorce – Remarriage during pendency of appeal – Bigamy – Suo-moto quashing of summoning order -- There is no specific restraint order from remarrying after three months period expired under Section 21B(3) for disposal of the appeal – Respondent waited for 10 years and ultimately decided to move on to secure her future and performed the second marriage -- Summoning order u/s 494 IPC observing that respondent-wife has performed the marriage in violation of Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act not sustainable -- Suo moto power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. exercised, summoning order and subsequent prosecution in pursuance thereto quashed.

(Para 23)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 22 -- Maintenance to grand-daughter -- Ld. Additional District Judge set aside the order granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to minor/ granddaughter – In revision, petitioners insisted that it is incumbent upon the respondents/ grandparents to maintain their granddaughter, however, it is not disputed that the respondent no. 1/ grandfather is a pensioner, whereas the petitioner no. 1/ mother is earning – Revision dismissed.

(Para 7)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 25, 27 -- Dowry articles – Right of parents of deceased daughter -- Husband convicted for murder of wife/ daughter of the plaintiffs, who died intestate not leaving any child behind and defendants were found disentitled to claim her inheritance by Lower Courts – Although after trial only two of them were convicted, whereas four were acquitted, that does not affect the civil liability of the defendants – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 12-16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 11 -- Nullity of marriage – Maintainability of petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – FAO is pending, no stay against decree whereby marriage stands declared null and void -- Thus, as on date relation of husband wife does not exist between petitioner and respondent – Held, Family Court rightly dismissed petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. -- There is no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order, thus, no interference is warranted – Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 5-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Transfer of divorce petition – Jaipur to Kurukshetra -- Petitioner and the respondent both are in Government service and are posted at Jaipur -- Petitioner is currently posted as Deputy Director in National Health Mission, Jaipur and a Class-I, Officer remained posted in Rajasthan since 2011 – Transfer Petition on the ground that her father-in-law was Assistant Superintendent of Police in Rajasthan (now retired), is a very influential person in Jaipur and that at his behest, threats have been extended to the petitioner, in respect whereof, some complaints have been made by her to the authorities -- Son of the petitioner is living and studying in Kurukshetra, Haryana, where he has initiated proceedings for maintenance u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C against the respondents – Held, extension of some threats as alleged may be a danger to her personal security but that may not be sufficient or a good ground for the transfer of the petition -- The complaints alleging such threats are all subsequent to the filing of the divorce petition and may be for creating a ground for seeking transfer of the divorce petition -- Even the initiation of the proceedings by the son at Kurukshetra in Haryana are subsequent to the filing of the divorce petition and appears to be an afterthought – Held, it is not just and proper to transfer the case outside Rajasthan to a remote place like Kurukshetra in Haryana.

(Para 3-6)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 13-B, 28  -- Divorce by mutual consent -- Settlement between parties in appeal -- Conversion of petition u/s 13B of HMA – Waiver of six months for second motion -- Application seeking conversion was allowed -- Statements of the parties at first motion were recorded -- Settlement amount paid -- Parties living apart since 15.04.2010 and there being no possibility of any rehabilitation of matrimonial ties despite earnest efforts being made, the statutory period of six months for recording of the statement at second motion indeed stands waived off – Statement of second motion recorded – Non-waiver of the same would only have prolonged the agony of the parties and prevented them from moving on in their lives -- No possibility for resumption of matrimonial ties between the parties -- Marriage dissolved by way of mutual consent.

(Para 4-9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 11 -- Void marriage – Conviction u/s 498-A IPC – Sustainability of -- Marriage found to be null and void, as such the conviction u/s 498-A IPC would not be sustainable. Shivcharan’s case (2007) 15 SCC 369 relied.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 -- Acquittal of accused – Interference in -- Ld. trial Judge by an elaborate reasoning, arrived at after appreciation of evidence, has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – High court reversed the judgment – Held, in an appeal/revision, the High court could have set aside the order of acquittal only if the findings as recorded by the trial Court were perverse or impossible – No perversity in the approach adopted by the learned trial Judge -- Held, High Court ought not to have interfered with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Judge -- Appeals allowed, judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 8-11)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 20(3) -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Interim maintenance – Expeditious decision – Prayer of -- Petitioner/daughter of respondent is pursuing undergraduate course in Medicine and Surgery in China, requires money for meeting her expenses – Petition allowed, Family Court directed to decide the application for interim maintenance expeditiously preferably within one month.

(Para 1, 4, 5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 12(1)(c) – Interim maintenance to wife – Petition for annulment of marriage – Effect of -- Filing of the petition for annulment of marriage in itself cannot be a ground to deny interim maintenance to the respondent-wife.

(Para 3)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Interim maintenance – Look after old parents by husband – Ground of -- Petitioner-husband required to take care of his old parents cannot be a ground to avoid his responsibility towards the respondent-wife.

(Para 3)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 19 -- Maintenance to grandchildren --  Interpretation of word widow -- Family Court directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.2,000/- each to his three grandchildren – The 1956 Act is a beneficial legislation enacted in order to take care of the destitute daughter-in-law who, on account of unfortunate circumstances, becomes a widow -- The word “widow” would include the minor grandchildren who are staying with their mother -- No ground to interfere with the impugned order -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 19, 21, 22, 23 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Maintenance to widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild – Liability of mother-in-law --  Rejection of plaint -- Contention that petition u/s 19 of the 1956 Act can only be maintained against the father-in-law and not against the mother-in-law -- Under common law, if the grand mother has the wherewithal, she has the moral responsibility to maintain her widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Revision also dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 15(1) -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 6(3) – Conviction for murder of wife – Husband’s right on dowry articles -- Wife died within 7 years of her marriage -- Record reveals that she died unnatural death other than in normal circumstances -- Thus, the case of the appellant squarely falls within Clause 3 of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, so as to maintain the custody of dowry articles with the complainant -- Provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, cannot be overlooked by invoking the provisions of Hindu Law relating to Succession -- Trial Court rightly held that husband was not entitled to retain dowry even if he was acquitted and dowry articles will remain with father of deceased.

(Para 14-16)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 2(2), 7, 8 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Scheduled Tribe daughter’s right of survivorship -- Whether the appellant/petitioner being the daughter is entitled to the share in the compensation with respect to the land acquired, on survivorship basis under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act? -- As per Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Succession Act will not be applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe.

-- If the claim of the appellant on the basis of the survivorship under the Hindu Succession Act is accepted in that case it would tantamount to amend the law. It is for the legislature to amend the law and not the Court.

-- To deny the equal right to the daughter belonging to the tribal even after a period of 70 years of the Constitution of India under which right to equality is guaranteed, it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which the Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe.

-- Direction given to Central Government to consider it just and necessary to withdraw the exemptions provided to the Scheduled Tribes and whether to bring a suitable amendment or not – Court shown hope and trust that the Central Government will look into the matter and take an appropriate decision taking into consideration the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 6-7.2)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) -- Divorce petition – Non-filing of written statement -- Striking off defence – Petitioner-wife was never afforded sufficient and adequate opportunity to file her written statement -- Held, in the matrimonial litigation, the dispute is primarily relating to the human relationship, which ultimately not only affects the two families but the society at large as well and thus, the standard of strict applicability of the procedure needs to be avoided and instead of adopting hyper-technical approach, the courts are required to be more practical while dealing with such kind of litigation -- Revision petition allowed by granting one effective opportunity to petitioner-wife to file written statement as well as reply to the application for grant of interim custody of the minor child before the court below.

(Para 5-8)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Transfer of divorce petition – Yamunanagar to Mohali – Respondent- husband, besides looking after his shuttering business is burdened with the responsibility of upbringing three children; out of whom two are girls aged 18 and 21 years while the son is 15 years of age -- The age of the children is very crucial inasmuch as their studies and career is concerned – Singular concern that weighs is the interest and welfare of the children, which is paramount -- Keeping in view the interest of the young adults/ children of the parties, no case for transferring the petition u/s 13 of the HMA from Yamuna Nagar to Mohali is made out – Petition dismissed.

(Para 7-10)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B, 14 – Divorce by mutual consent within one year of marriage -- Waiver of mandatory period of one year -- Couple stayed together only for about two months and there is no issue from the wedlock, this is the sufficient ground to allow their application filed u/s 14 of the Act for waiving off the mandatory period of one year.

(Para  6)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B, 14 – Divorce by mutual consent within one year of marriage -- Waiver of mandatory period of one year – Appeal against dismissal of application for waiver – Couple Stayed together for about two months – No issue from the wedlock -- Appellant/ husband is staying in USA – SPA/ father of husband and the respondent alongwith her parents present in Court -- Keeping in view the compromise effected and the statements made by both the parties, appeal converted to a petition u/s Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- Mandatory period of one year u/s 14 of Act, 1955 waived -- Marriage between the parties dissolved by way of mutual consent.

(Para 6)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Dissolution of marriage – Witness-wife living in Canada – Cross-examination through video conferencing – Procedural aspects in conjunction with the latest technology have to be used, so as to help the parties to avail their remedies in the most efficient and effective manner, rather than curtailing their rights -- It would also ensure expeditious disposal of the proceedings including, avoid the burden of unnecessary expenses relating to the visit of petitioner, if any -- Trial court shall allow the petitioner-wife to appear as witness for the purpose of her cross-examination through video conferencing by following the procedure laid down under the aforesaid High Court Rules and orders.

(Para 10, 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Matrimonial discord -- Transfer of case – Lucknow to Delhi -- Since two cases (HMA and DV Act) are already pending in the Delhi Courts in which respondent No.1 and her family members have already put their appearance and the petitioner, in the first case, on account of financial constraint, is likely to face hardships in travelling to Lucknow to defend herself in the Criminal Complaint – Transfer Petitions allowed.

(Para 5-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13A -- Transfer of divorce petition – Jaipur to Dehradun -- Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of the case mainly on the ground of her precarious mental health condition and her inability to travel from Dehradun to Jaipur which is about 530 Kms away, to attend the proceedings of the case filed by the respondent-husband -- Taking into consideration the hardships which are likely to be faced by the petitioner-wife transfer petition allowed.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18 – Maintenance in two proceedings -- Appellant-wife has been granted two separate maintenance claims i.e. one at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month by the JMIC u/s 125 Cr.P.C., and the second at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month by the Civil Judge, Senior Division u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Appellant-wife looking after her two children born out of the wedlock -- High Court while passing the impugned order has held that the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month, granted to the appellant-wife, will also include Rs.3,000/- per month granted to her u/s 125 Cr.P.C – Appellant and the two children cannot sustain with this meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- -- Held, such an approach of the High Court is totally erroneous and cannot be sustained in law.

(Para 3-6)

A. Hindu law -- Ancestral property -- Both the Courts below concurrently held that there is no evidence on record to establish ancestor property – Pedigree table in itself is no evidence of ancestry, nor can it be the basis to decide ancestral nature of property which can only be established by independent proof including the revenue records/ jamabandis -- It has to be proved beyond doubt that the property was undivided property of a Hindu family of four generations -- There is no such evidence on record -- No ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below on this issue.

(Para 8)

B. Evidence law -- Attorney appeared as witness – Original attorney -- Plaintiff himself not appeared to testify in support of the plaint – Power of attorney holder/PW-4 failed to produce the original power of attorney on record -- Opportunities afforded, still  could not bring the original on record -- It was, therefore, held that photocopy of the power of attorney cannot be read in evidence -- As the plaintiff himself has not deposed in the case, therefore, no exception can be taken to the adverse inference drawn against him on this account.

(Para 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Transfer of Divorce petition -- Kapurthala to Fazilka -- It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses – Case transferred.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 -- Transfer of restitution of conjugal rights case – Bihar to Maharashtra – Petitioner/ wife is unemployed and is dependent on her parents, coupled with the fact that three cases are already pending against the respondent(s) in the Courts at Nagpur, Maharashtra, Matrimonial Case pending before the Family Court, Bhagalpur, Bihar is ordered to be transferred to a Family/Competent Court at Nagpur, Maharashtra.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Maintenance law – Assessment of income -- Income tax Return -- Income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income – It is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what would be the real income so as to enable the appellants to live in a condition commensurate with the status to which they were accustomed during the time when they were staying together.

(Para 10)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Constitution of India, Article 254 – Challenge to Section 50(a) of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 – Repugnancy in two Acts -- Concurrent list III -- Question of repugnancy would not come into existence unless it is first established that both enactments are under the Concurrent list (List III) – 1954 Act is not referable to any matter enumerated in List III but it is referable to Entry 18 of List II -- Thus, no question of repugnancy would arise in view of Article 254 of the Constitution.

(Para 18, 19)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 6(b) (c) -- Repeal of Section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Prospective effect -- Deletion of Section 4(2) took place w.e.f 09.09.2005 therefore, the effect of the deletion can only be in respect of successions which opened on or after 09.09.2005 -- This is because under Section 6(b) and 6(c) of the General Clauses Act repeal cannot affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed and cannot affect any right which may have been acquired or accrued.

(Para 23-25)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Repeal of Section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 w.e.f. 09.09.2005 – Prospective effect -- Property in question is agricultural property, and therefore, in 1997 on death, the devolution of interest (inheritance) would be determinable on the said date, in accordance with the law existing at that time -- Subsequent deletion would not have any impact on the rights of inheritance, which had already accrued and crystallised, prior to the amendment -- Even existence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act and its deletion will not have any impact for the reason that the 1954 Act, is a special law, dealing with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only, whereas the 1956 Act is a general law, providing for succession to a Hindu by religion as stated in Section 2 thereof -- Existence or absence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act would be immaterial.

(Para 21-26)

D. Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 21, 254 – Challenge to Section 50(a) of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 -- Gender bias/ women empowerment  -- There can be no challenge to the 1954 Act as the said legislation is included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

(Para 28)

E. Amendment in statute -- Prospective effect -- It is well settled that all amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or intended to have been done so by the legislature.

(Para 23)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 4(b), 6 and 13  – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 7 -- Live-in-relationship of minor girl with boy -- Guardian of minor girl – Writ for Protection of Life and liberty -- Boy does not fall within ambit of Sections 4 and 6 of the 1956 Act -- Petitioners (Boy and girl) have not solemnised the marriage – No material on record to even prima facie satisfy Court with regard to the welfare of the minor -- In writ, it would not be possible to record evidence to the effect that petitioner No. 1 (boy) is acting for the welfare of petitioner No. 2 (girl) and his interest is not adverse to the interest of the minor -- Minor held to be not with her guardians – Petition is filed to be used as a shield against the complaint filed by the family of petitioner No. 2 (girl) -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 2, 6-15)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property -- Ancestral property – Self-acquired property – Sale challenged claiming co-parcenery -- Plaintiff did not make any attempt to identify the ancestral property -- Thus, the ancestral property got blended with the self-acquired property -- It is well settled that unless the plaintiff proves and separately identifies the ancestral property, the entire property shall be construed to be self-acquired -- Both the courts below, correctly, dismissed the suit – Regular Second Appeal dismissed.

(Para 1-5)

A. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18, 20 – Maintenance to wife – Relinquishment of right to maintenance – Effect of -- Even if the wife executes an agreement relinquishing her right to receive any maintenance in future, that would be contrary to the public policy and unenforceable, and that she would be entitled to seek for maintenance, if she is unable to maintain herself.

(Para 27)

B. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18, 20 – Maintenance to wife/ daughter – Admitted fact on record that the husband is a software professional working at Singapoor at the time of marriage -- Case of the defendant / husband is that subsequently he lost job and that presently he is an un-employed -- When he is pleading that he is unemployed, he has to prove the same, which he failed – Irresistible conclusion that has to be drawn is that the defendant having sufficient means, failed to maintain the plaintiffs -- Plaintiff No.1/ wife claimed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for herself and Rs.5,000/- for the 2nd plaintiff/ daughter is reasonable and the same requires to be granted – In all they are held entitled to Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 09.10.2003.

(Para 28-32)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6, 8 -- Writ of habeas corpus – Custody of new born child -- Agreement of adoption before birth – Petitioner is natural mother, no registered agreement -- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not envisage an agreement to adopt a child, who is not yet born -- Thus, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot claim to be in lawful custody of the minor child in question -- Writ petition allowed and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are directed to hand over the custody of the baby boy to the petitioner forthwith -- It is open to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to take steps to enforce any agreement, which they have, in an appropriate Court of law.

(Para 1-5)

A. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890) , Section 25 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Custody of minor child – Writ of habeas corpus – Scope of -- Where the court is of the view that a detailed inquiry is required the Court may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of a Writ Court and direct the parties to approach the Civil Court -- It is only in exceptional cases, where the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor will be determined in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in a petition for Habeas Corpus -- Where in the circumstances of a particular case the ordinary remedy of the Civil Courts is either not available or is ineffective, a writ of Habeas Corpus is certainly maintainable, moreso, where it is shown that the detention of the minor child by a parent or others was illegal, without any authority of law and was also to the detriment of the child.

(Para 16)

B. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6, 13 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890) , Section 25 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Custody of minor child – Writ of habeas corpus – Paramount consideration ought to be the welfare of the child and due weight should be given to the child's comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development, familiar surroundings etc. -- Question of the welfare and interest of a minor child has to be judged on the consideration of the acknowledged superiority of the mother's love and affection for her children -- Girl child is less than five years old -- She was brought back to India by respondent no. 7 and 8 (grand-parents) on 23.1.2020 after which due to COVID-19 the petitioner-mother was unable to see her till March 2022 -- Even if the child had refused to go with the mother, that by itself does not have any significance as a child of such tender age does not know what is in her best interest -- Minor girl child may have developed a bond with the respondent nos.7 & 8 with whom she is residing for the last more than two years because of which she might have stated that she does not wish to go with her mother -- However, in the long term for the benefit and welfare of the child, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the welfare of the child would be better taken care of by the grandparents viz-a-viz the mother -- Even otherwise, in the case of child who is less than 05 years old the custody should ordinarily be with the mother – Petition allowed, custody of the minor child ordered to be handed over to the petitioner (mother) immediately.

(Para 17-21)

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 7 -- Death of Parents – Interim custody of Child – Grandparents compare to maternal aunt -- Custody of the minor remained with the grandfather pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court -- Nothing observed by the High Court that during the interim custody period, the appellant-paternal grandparents did not take proper care of the minor and acted detrimental to the interest of the minor – Minor also shown willingness to stay with the appellant – They have also managed to get admission of the minor in a school in Ahmedabad -- Minor will get better education in Ahmedabad, which is a Metro City compared to the education in Dahod where maternal aunt resides -- Being a retired person, the paternal grandparents would devote more time and take care of minor better than respondent No. 4 who is serving in the government department – Income and/or the age and/or the bigger family cannot be the sole criteria to tilt the balance and not to give the custody of the grandson to the paternal grandparents – Held, High Court has committed an error in not handing over and/or continuing the custody of the corpus-grandson to the appellant-paternal grandparents and to give custody of the corpus to respondent No. 4-maternal aunt of the corpus -- Custody ordered to be given to grand-parents subject to the final outcome of the proceedings u/s 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, pending before the competent court.

(Para 7.1-8)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 – Will -- Ancestral property/ Co-parcenery property – Plea of – Proof of -- Contention that the suit properties is ancestral in the hands of testator  and upon his death the plaintiffs derived a share in the same – Held, it was incumbent upon appellant/plaintiff to establish that the suit properties were ancestral, however, the plaintiffs miserably failed to establish this stand -- There is no revenue record or other document showing that the suit properties devolved upon testator from his father and forefathers --  In the absence of any evidence, it cannot be held that the suit properties were ancestral.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Will – Suspicious circumstance -- Merely because the daughters of the Testator have been left out from the Will is not sufficient ground to discard it.

(Para 14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Restitution of conjugal rights petition – Transfer from Bathinda Camp at Phul to Faridkot – Distance between two town is 60 K.M – Both the towns adjoin each other and are interconnected by the well metalled road with all types of conveyance and facilities -- Being a civil matter, presence of the applicant is not required and the husband is trying to seek restoration of his rights of matrimonial relationship and the wife is trying to evade her obligations rather goes against the very conduct of the wife – Transfer application dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 25 – Divorce -- Cruelty – Long separation – Non-giving consent to mutual divorce -- Whether the relationship of the husband and wife has come to an end and if the respondent-wife is not ready to give mutual divorce to the appellant-husband, whether this act of her, would amount to cruelty towards husband, keeping in view the fact that she is not staying with her husband for the last about 23 years and there is no scope that they can cohabit as husband and wife again -- Marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably since long and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again – Not to grant decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties -- Firstly efforts were made to resolve the matrimonial dispute through the process of mediation, which is one of the effective mode of alternative mechanism in resolving the personal dispute but the mediation failed between the parties -- Appeal allowed, decree of divorce granted in favour of the appellant-husband -- Appellant-husband to make an F.D. of Rs.10 lakhs as permanent alimony in the name of the respondent-wife.

(Para 11-19)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Cruelty to husband -- Divorce -- Respondent/ wife  filed a complaint u/s 499 and 500 IPC against the father of the appellant/ husband, however, same has been dismissed – In petition u/s 17 against the appellant-husband and his family members, wherein appellant was directed to pay half rent of the tenanted premises i.e. Rs.4,925/- per month to the respondent, whereas the petition qua other family members of the appellant was dismissed – Besides this, respondent-wife also moved complaints to the Army authorities against the appellant, which have affected his service career and have lowered his reputation -- As a result of which appellant had to suffer immense mental as well as physical cruelty – Held, above-said facts are sufficient to return a finding that appellant-husband has been met with cruelty by the respondent-wife -- Decree of divorce granted.

(Para 10-15)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Hindu woman’s right to maintenance -- Absolute right of Hindu Woman on property -- Where a Hindu widow is in possession of the property of her husband or of the husband’s HUF, she has a right to be maintained out of the said property -- She is entitled to retain the possession of that property in lieu of her right to maintenance -- Section 14(1) and the Explanation thereto envisages liberal construction in favour of the females, with the object of advancing and promoting the socio-economic ends sought to be achieved by the said legislation – Facts and circumstances clearly established that she had long settled possession of the suit property, which she had acquired in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance, prior to the commencement of the Act of 1956, which entitled her to become a full owner of the suit property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the said Act – Her pre-existing right to maintenance, coupled with her settled legal possession of the property, would be sufficient to create a presumption that she had a vestige of right or claim in the property, though no document was executed or specific charge was created in her favour recognizing her right to maintenance in the property – Held, High Court had rightly held that she had pre-existing right to maintenance in the suit property that had ripened into full ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956.

(Para 14-21)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) – Divorce – Cruelty – Desertion – FIR and other litigation – Acquittal in FIR and dismissal of domestic violence case – Effect of -- Marriage between the parties on 13.12.1992 -- Four children from this wedlock born are staying with the respondent-husband – Divorce has been granted on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by Trial Court -- Even one complaint lodged by the wife found to be false against the husband and his family members amounts to cruelty – Even if husband and wife are staying together and husband does not speak to the wife, it would cause mental cruelty and a spouse staying away by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings can make the life of other spouse miserable – After the acquittal in the FIR and dismissal of the domestic violence complaint, enough mental cruelty has been caused to the husband – No illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree which calls for interference by this Court -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 4-10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(i)(b) – Transfer of divorce petition from Panchkula to U.T. Chandigarh – Primary reasons for the wife that it was difficult for her and not convenient to attend the hearings in Panchkula on each and every date of hearing in view of the fact that her husband is a police constable – Panchkula and Chandigarh are adjoining to each other and alongwith Mohali are termed as tri-city and are interconnected and there is not much of a difference between the two what to talk of the distance which could be a cause for inconvenience and hardship for the wife -- Section 24 of the CPC cannot be so loosely construed so as to come to the aid of the wife on frivolous and flimsy reasons for getting the matter transferred -- Petition is nothing but a pure misuse of the process of the law and there being no merits stands dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of minor child – Appellant/ father is a drug-addict; he is facing trial in six cases under the NDPS Act and remained behind bars in those cases from time to time -- Further, the age of the child was below five years, therefore, as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, custody of the minor child has rightly been given to the respondent/ mother -- Moreover, no offer has been made by the appellant to secure the future of the minor child – Appeal by father dismissed. Roxann Sharma’s case 2015 AIR (SCW) 2925 relied.

(Para 1,3,4)