Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court reconsidered maintenance, enhanced the wife’s monthly support to Rs.30,000 and the children’s to Rs.1,50,000 total, and held PF/ESPP deductions are not compulsory.
The Supreme Court held that the respondent-husband’s income and financial disclosures demonstrate his ability to pay a higher amount; the appellant, unmarried and living independently, is entitled to maintenance reflective of the marital standard of living and to secure her future; accordingly, permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife was enhanced to Rs.50,000 per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, and no further mandatory support for the adult son was directed.
Source excerpt
Given (a) the parties lived together for only about two months, (b) the husband had remarried, (c) the marriage had irretrievably broken down and the Court would not interfere with the divorce decree, and (d) the respondent was not forthright in disclosing income and assets, a one-time permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000 payable within three months was equitable to meet the appellant's rights without imposing an unreasonable burden on the respondent; the divorce decree granted below is upheld insofar as finalising the grant of divorce.
Source excerpt
While the father is entitled to interim visitation as natural guardian, visitation arrangements must prioritize the child's health and welfare; accordingly the place of visitation ordered by the courts below (Karur) was modified and visits were directed to take place in Madurai under specified conditions.
Source excerpt
The Court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and, exercising its discretionary power under Article 142, dissolved the marriage and awarded a one-time permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,00,000 to the wife and Rs.1,00,00,000 to the son (to secure his higher education and financial independence), holding that interim maintenance proceedings became infructuous on dissolution but the wife's financial interest required protection by permanent alimony determined in light of the established legal factors.
Source excerpt
When the husband is willing to undergo a potentiality test, the High Court should not have set aside the Trial Court order directing such a test; the Trial Court's order directing the husband to undergo the medical potentiality test is to be maintained and the High Court order is modified to that extent.
Source excerpt
Where parties have lived separately for about fifteen years, have made serious reciprocal allegations, are settled in their separate lives and reconciliation is not possible, the Trial Court and High Court erred in adopting a hyper-technical approach in refusing relief; cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) is to be applied contextually and the petitioner need only prove the case on a preponderance of probabilities; accordingly a decree of divorce was warranted and granted.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court under Article 142(1) has constitutional power to do 'complete justice' in a 'cause or matter' and, in matrimonial disputes, may in exceptional and carefully circumscribed cases grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent (including dispensing with the Section 13-B procedural waiting period) or dissolve marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown even if the other spouse opposes, and may quash related proceedings, provided such exercise respects fundamental public policy, is factually justified on objective factors, and safeguards interests (children, maintenance) of th…
Source excerpt
Given the appellant-wife's lack of income, residence with parents in Mathura, financial and emotional dependence, her inability to travel to Etah and the settled principle that wife's convenience is a primary consideration in matrimonial transfer applications, the Court held it was just and proper to transfer Original Suit No.23 of 2018 from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura and set aside the High Court order refusing transfer.
Source excerpt
Given the appellant's residence in Chennai, her young age, lack of independent income, dependence on aged parents who cannot accompany her to Vellore, and the existence of two related proceedings in Chennai, the ends of justice required transfer of F.C.O.P. No.125 of 2020 from the Family Court, Vellore to the Family Court, Chennai and clubbing of the three related cases; the High Court order rejecting the transfer petition was set aside.
Source excerpt
Explore more
