COMPILATION OF LANDMARK JUDGMENTS OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ON FAMILY MATTERS, Compiled By Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority

Case Law Jurisprudence

 [Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce]

 (Judgments mentioned below includes citation and short note for reference an

Please refer the full judgment for conclusive opinion) 

1. Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742 

S.13(1)(i-a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Mental Cruelty - For considering dissolution of marriage on grounds of mental cruelty, the result of such mental cruelty must be such that it is not possible to continue with matrimonial relationship. In other words, the wronged party cannot be expected to condone such conduct and continue to live with his/her spouse. Degree of tolerance will vary from one couple to another and court will have to bear in mind the background, level of education and status of parties to determine whether cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage. Held, complaints against appellant husband which irreparably damage reputation and mental peace of appellant would amount to mental cruelty.

2.               XXv.XXX,2021SCCOnLineKer3495

Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for along time may lead to mental cruelty.Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty. Frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

A husband's licentious disposition disregarding the autonomy of the wife is a marital rape, albeit such conduct cannot be penalised,it falls in the frame of physical and mental cruelty and is a ground for divorce.

3.               NarasimhaSastryv.SuneelaRani,(2020)18SCC247

S.13(1)(i-a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Cruelty - mere lodging of complaint or FIRcannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty,but when a person under goes a trial in which he is acquitted of allegation of offence under S.498AIPC levelled by wife against husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has been meted out on husband, particularly when serious allegations were made.

4.               Mangayakarasiv.M.Yuvaraj,(2020)3SCC786

S.13(1)(i-a)Hindu MarriageAct,1955- Mental Cruelty - Unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations of dowry demand or such other allegations which  expose the husband or his relatives to criminal litigation constiute mental cruelty and furnish groudn for dicvorce.

		.
5.	Beenav.ShinoG.Babu2022SCCOnLineKer 778 Due to incompatibility,the marriage failed and one of the spouses was with holding consent for mutual separation, the court can very well treat that conduct itself as cruelty.
6.	Xv.Y,Mat.AppealNo.485OF2019Judgmentdated 30.09.2021 The ground for cruelty recognized under the statutory provisions to grant divorce based on the fault of a spouse is on account of the fact thatan innocent party can seek remedy of divorce. When both parties are found to beat fault,can the Court decline divorce? In the doctrine of comparative rectitude,we find answers to this.The Courts in common law jurisdiction of tenresort to this doctrine when both spouses are found to have committed marital misconduct.
7.	RavinderKaurv.ManjeetSingh,(2019)8SCC 308 Mere allegations of illegitimate relationship,even if due to misunderstandings,did not amount to inflicting mental cruelty. High Court dissolving marriage on pre-conceivednotion of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, held, not proper.
8.	SumanSinghv.SanjaySingh,(2017)4SCC85 S.13(1)(i-a)Hindu MarriageAct,1955-Mental Cruelty-Isolated incidents that have occurred 8-10 years prior to filing of petition cannot furnish subsisting cause of action and would not constitute cruelty to enable claim of divorce Incidents alleged should be recurrent or continuing and proximate to the filing of petition.
9.	RajTalrejav.KavitaTalreja,(2017)14SCC194 S.13(1)(i-a)HinduMarriageAct,1955-MentalCruelty-Filingfalsecasesandmakingrecklessallegationsagainst husband, his family members and his colleagues amounts to act of cruelty. Held, mere filing ofcomplaint is not cruelty if there are justifiable reasons to file complaint. Mere inaction on complaint oracquittalincriminalcasemaynotbegroundtotreatsuchaccusationsmadebywifeascruelty.Ifallegationsare patently false then such conductof the spouse levelling the accusation would be an act of cruelty.
10.	Narendrav.K.Meena,(2016)9SCC455 S.13(1)(i-a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Mental Cruelty -Unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the Respondent wife and the threats and attempt to commit suicide by her amounted to mental cruelty and therefore, the marriage deserves to be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground stated in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
11.	Ramchanderv.Ananta,(2015)11SCC539 S.13(1)(i-a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Cruelty is to be taken as a behaviour by onespouse towards theother which causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of thelatter that it is not safe for him/her tocontinue in the matrimonial relationship.Instances of cruelty are not to be taken in isolation; cumulativeeffectofthefactsandcircumstancesemergingfromtheevidenceonrecordtobetakenandafairinferenceis to be drawn as to whether the plaintiff has been subjected to mental cruelty by theconduct of the otherspouse.
12.	VidhyaViswanathanv.KartikBalakrishnan,(2014)15SCC21 S.13(1)(i-a)HinduMarriageAct,1955-MentalCruelty-Denialofsexualintercoursebywifeforlongtimewithout sufficient reason amounts to mental cruelty.
13.	MalathiRaviv.B.V.Ravi,(2014)7SCC640 S.13(1)(i-a)HinduMarriageAct,1955-MentalCruelty-Mentalcrueltyanditseffectcannotbestatedwitharithmeticexactitude.Itvariesfromindividualto individual,fromsociety to society and also depends onstatus of the persons.
14.	K.Srinivasv.K.Sunita,(2014)16SCC34 It is now beyond cavil that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it would invariablyand indubitably constitute matrimonial cruelty, such as would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce

15.	U.Sreev.U.Srinivas,(2013)2SCC114 S.13(1)(i-a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Mental Cruelty - Conduct of wife exhibiting dislike indifferenceand contempt towards ‘sadhna’ of husband in music, causing embarrassing situations, making wildallegations against husband and his family to malign reputation amounts to mental cruelty.
16.	K.SrinivasRaov.D.A.Deepa,(2013)5SCC226 S.13(1)(i-a)Hindu MarriageAct,1955-Cruelty isevidentwhereonespousetreatstheotherandmanifestssuchfeelingsintheothersoastocauseareasonableapprehensioninthemindoftheotherthatitwouldbeharmfulorinjurioustoresidewiththeotherspouseMentalCruelty-Stayingtogetherunderoneroofisnota precondition for mentalcruelty. Mental Cruelty - False complaint/ criminal proceedings &indecent/defamatorystatements made in complaint singly and cumulatively amount to mental crueltywarrantinggrantofdivorce.Makingunfoundedindecent/defamatoryallegationsagainstspouseorhis/herrelatives, filing repeated false complaints or cases in court,issuingnoticesornewsitemswhichmayhaveadverseimpactonjoborbusiness prospectsareillustrativecasesofmentalcrueltywhichwouldwarrant grant of divorce.
17.	VishwanathAgrawalv.SarlaVishwanathAgrawal,(2012)7SCC 288 S.13(1)(i-a)Hindu MarriageAct,1955-Crueltyhasan inseparablenexuswithhumanconductand isalwaysdependant on social strata or milieu, way of life, relationship,temperaments and emotions which areconditions by social status False allegations against husband, false prosecution cause deep mental painandsuffering and amounts to mental cruelty.
18.	PankajMahajanv.Dimple@Kajal,(2011)12SCC1 S.13(1)(i-a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Mental Cruelty - Repeated threats to commitsuicide amount tomental cruelty.
19.	SumanKapurv.SudhirKapur,(2009)1SCC422 Cruelty is a course of conduct of one spouse which adversely affects the other spouse.The cruelty may bemental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If the cruelty isphysical, it is a question of degree whichis relevant. If it is mental, the enquiry mustbeginastothenatureofthecrueltreatmentandthenastotheimpactofsuchtreatmentonthemindofthespouse.Whetheritcausereasonableapprehensionthatitwouldbeharmful or injurious to live with the other is a matter of inference to be drawn takinginto account thenature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. Theconcept of legal cruelty changesaccording to the changes and advancement of socialconcept and standards of living. To establish legalcruelty, it is not necessary thatphysical violence should be used. Continuous cessation of maritalintercourseor totalindifferenceonthepartofthehusbandtowardsmaritalobligationswouldleadtolegalcruelty.
20.	SamarGhoshv.JayaGhosh,(2007)4SCC511 Held, no uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance to determine mentalcruelty.Fourteenillustrative(but not exhaustive) instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with thecases of MENTAL CRUELTY enumerated
21.	NaveenKohliv.NeeluKohli,(2006)4SCC558 S.13(1)(i-a)Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Cruelty is a course of conductof one which isadversely affectingthe other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional orunintentional. The cruelty alleged maylargelydependupon thetypeoflifethepartiesareaccustomed toortheir economicand socialconditions,their culture and humanvalues to which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its ownmerits.
22.	VijaykumarRamchandraBhatev.NeelaVijaykumarBhate,2003(6)SCC 334 Levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlockand allegations of extramarital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as wellasthehealthofthewife.Suchaspersionsofperfidiousnessattributedto thewife,viewedinthecontext ofan educated Indian wifeand judged byIndian conditionsand standards would amount to worst formof insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiatecruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed.

23.	A.Jayachandrav.AneelKaur,(2005)2SCC22 S.13(1)(i-a)HinduMarriageAct,1955-MentalCrueltyhastobeconsideredinthelightofthesocialstatus ofparties,theireducation,physicalandmentalconditions,customsandtraditions.Courttodrawinference and decide on the basis of the probabilities of the case having regard to the effect on the mind of the complainantspousebecauseoftheactsoromissionsoftheotherspouse.Toconstitutecruelty,the conduct complained of should be grave and weighty whereupon it can be concluded that the spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than ordinary wear andtearofmarriedlife.However,wheretheconductcomplainedofitselfisbadenoughandperseunlawful or illegal, the impactor injurious effecton theother spouseneed notbe considered.In such cases, cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.
24.	ParveenMehtav.InderjitMehta,(2002)5SCC706 S.13(1)(i-a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Mental Cruelty is a state of mind and feelings and is therefore necessarilyamatterofinferencetobedrawnfromthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase.Properapproach requirestheassessmentofthecumulativeeffectoftheattendingfactsandcircumstancesestablishedbythe evidence.Individualinstancesofmisbehaviourseeninisolationwouldnotbe sufficienttoestablishmental cruelty. Held, person enjoying normal health being deprived of normal cohabitation by spouse and thus undergoing anguish and frustration could be said to have been subjected to mental cruelty. Repeatedly causing embarrassment in social situations could amount to mental cruelty.
25.	G.V.N.KameswaraRaov.G.Jabilli,(2002)2SCC296 S.13(1)(i-a)Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Mental Cruelty is conduct which causes and isintended to causesuffering to one’s spouse and which ultimately makes matrimoniallife intolerable. Cruelty does notnecessarily involve life-threatening conduct orconduct resulting in bodily injury or damage to health orconduct which gives rise to areasonableapprehensionofdangertolife,limborhealth.Solitaryincidentsoroccasional outbursts of anger or rudeness would not amount to cruelty. Court is required to considerwhethertheconduct ofrespondent is such thatithasbecomeintolerable to sufferany longerand to live together has become impossible.
26.	R.Balasubramanianv.VijayalakshmiBalasubramanian,(1999)7SCC311 S.13(1)(i-a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Mental Cruelty - Unfounded allegation of adulteryagainstwifeis aseriousallegationamountingtocruelconductbythehusband and entitles wife to seek relief against him.
27.	S.HanumanthaRaov.S.Ramani,(1999)3SCC620 S.13(1)(i-a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Mental cruelty means mental pain, agony orsuffering caused byeitherspouse,ofsuchmagnitudethatitseversthebondbetweenhusbandandwifeandmakesitimpossiblefor the party that has suffered to live withthe other party.
28.	V.Bhagatv.D.Bhagat,(1994)1SCC 337 S.13(1)(i-a)Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Mental Cruelty must be of such nature that the parties cannot be reasonably expected to live together. It has to be determined in the facts and circumstances of the case.
29.	N.G.Dastanevs.S.Dastane,(1975)2SCC326 Appeal for annulment of marriage or alternatively for judicial separation on groundof cruelty was filed.Court found that respondent was guilty of cruelty but appellantcondoned it and subsequent conduct ofrespondent was not such as to amount to arevival of original cause of action.
CaseLawJurisprudence [Maintenance/DVA/Divorce] (Judgmentsmentionedbelowincludescitationandshortnoteforreferenceanddiscussionpurposeduringthe course of the programme. Please refer the full judgment for conclusive opinion)
30.	Rajneshv.Neha,(2021)2SCC324 Remedyofmaintenanceisameasureofsocialjusticeasenvisagedunderthe Constitutiontopreventwives andchildren fromfallingintodestitutionandvagrancy.Held,thereisaneed forframingguidelinesunder Article 142 of the Constitution for ensuring timely disposal of applications seeking maintenance.

31.	Shyju.P.Kv.Nadeera,Mat.AppealNo.173OF2015Judgmentdated05.10.2021 Application for maintenance pendente lite and expense of the proceedings would only lieinaproceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Before striking off the defence for non-compliance of an order of pendentelitemaintenance,anopportunityhastobegiventoshowcausewhythedefenceshouldnotbestruck off or reasonable time has to be given to clear the arrears of maintenance ordered.
32.	RanaNahidv.SahidulHaqChisti,(2020)7SCC657 AppropriateforumtoadjudicateclaimofmaintenanceundertheMuslimWomen(ProtectionofRightson Divorce) Act, 1986.
33.	SanjeevKapoorv.ChandanaKapoor,(2020)13SCC172 Embargo inS.362Cr.P.C.prohibiting courttoalterorreviewitsjudgmentorfinalorderdisposingof thecase is not applicable to an order of maintenance passed under S. 125 Cr.P.C. The legislative scheme delineated by Ss. 125 & 127 Cr.P.C. clearlyenumerate thecircumstances and incidents provided in Cr.P.C. where the courtpassing a judgment or final orderdisposing the case can alter or review the same. S.125 Cr.P.C. isa social justice legislation &maintenanceof wives,children andparents isa continuousobligation enforced thereunder. The interpretation orconstruction advancing justice and protecting awoman for whose benefit theprovisions have been engrafted must be adopted.
34.	SwapanKumarBanerjeev.StateofW.B.,(2020)19SCC342 Delayof1yearinclaimformaintenance-Delaywillmakenodifferencebecauseitisforthewifetodecide whenshewantstofileapetitionformaintenance.Shemayhavefeltcomfortablewiththeearningsshehad upto thattimeormayhavenotwanted toprecipitatematterstill shewascontesting thedivorcepetitionby filing a claim for maintenance. Mere fact that wife did not file a petition for grant of maintenanceduring pendencyofmatrimonialproceedingsisnogroundtohold thatsheisnotentitled to filesuchpetition later on. Maintenance-sufficiencyofincomeofwife-Held,itisforthehusbandtoleadevidence to show sufficiency of income of wife. In absence of such evidence no presumption can be raised that the wife is earning sufficient amount to support herself.
35.	RakeshMalhotrav.KrishnaMalhotra,(2020)14SCC 150 After grant ofpermanent alimonyunderS. 25of theHindu MarriageAct, 1955,properforum for seekingmodificationthereofisunderS.25(2)orS.24(3)oftheHMA.ApplicationcannotbemadeunderS.125Cr. P.C. for maintenance overand abovewhathas been granted by the court while exercising powerunderS.25 of theHMA.Thoughan initial adjudication underS.125 Cr.P.C. followed bya full adjudicationunderthe relevant Act is permissible, the reverse is not.
36.	Kaushalyav.MukeshJain,(2020)17SCC822 Interim Maintenance pending computation of income of husband- Case remanded byHigh Court- Held,appellant wife cannot be left in the lurch without any order ofmaintenance pending an uncertain futuredatewhen remanded proceedings would bedecided.Keepinginmindthattheapplicationformaintenance remainedpendingfornearlyadecade,therewouldbeseriousmiscarriageofjusticeifanorderofremand simpliciterispassedwithoutprovidinganyfinancialsecuritytotheappellant.Orderoftrialcourtforgrant ofmaintenance shalloperateasan ad interimdirection and arrearspayable to theappellantshallbepaid in six monthly instalments.
37.	LalitaToppov.StateofJharkhand,(2019)13SCC796 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Act or omission definingdomestic violence isbroadenoughtoincludeallaggrievedpersonsincludinganotlegallyweddedwifeandthosenotentitledtomaintenanceunderS.125 Cr.P.C.UnderPWDVA the victim would be entitled to more relief than whatiscontemplated under S.125 Cr.P.C.
38.	Kamalav.M.R.MohanKumar,(2019)11SCC491 Longcohabitationbetweenmanandwomenledtopresumptionofmarriageentitlingmaintenancetothe
	womanandchildrenborntothem.Broadandexpansive	interpretationshouldbegiventoterm‘wife’under

	S.125 Cr.P.C.
39.	AjayKumarv.Lata,(2019)15SCC352 DirectionforinterimmaintenanceisconfirmedincaseofsharedhouseholdinancestraljointHindufamilyproperty and joint business between brother and deceasedhusband.
40.	NutanGautamv.PrakashGautam,(2019)4SCC734 DirectionofHighCourtcompellingwifetochooseonlyoneforum,eitherunderS.125Cr.P.C.orSs.12/19 ofProtectionofWomenfromDomesticViolenceAct,2005to seek maintenance, held to be impermissible.
41.	Shailjav.Khobbanna,(2018)12SCC199 Capability of wife to earn is not a sufficient reason to reduce maintenance awarded.Capable of earningand actually earning are two different requirements
42.	SanjayKumarSinhav.AshaKumari,(2018)5SCC333 MaintenancegrantedunderS.24oftheHindu MarriageAct,1955would supercedemaintenancegrantedunder S. 125 Cr.P.C.
43.	KalyanDeyChowdhuryv.RitaDeyChowdhuryneeNandy,(2017)14SCC200 Powerofcourttomodifyorvarydischargepermanentalimonyormaintenanceduetochangeincircumstances.
44.	ManishJainv.AkankshaJain,(2017)15SCC801 Grantofmaintenancependetelite-Discretionaryexerciseofjurisdictionwhilegrantingalimonypendente lite should be judicious and can neither be arbitrary nor capricious but should be guided on sound principles of matrimonial law, and to be exercised within the statutory provisions having regard to the object of theAct. Whiledeterminingquantumofinterimmaintenance,Courtmusthaveregardtoincomeof the parties, and is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes claim has no independentincomesufficienttosupporthim/herortomeetnecessaryexpenses.Financialpositionofwife’s parents as well as education of wife who could support herself is inconsequential.
45.	HiralP.Harsorav.KusumNarottamdasHarsora,(2016)10SCC165 We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and declare that the words “adultmale”inSection2(q)ofthe2005ActwillstanddeletedsincethesewordsdonotsquarewithArticle 14oftheConstitutionofIndia.Consequently,theprovisotoSection2(q),beingrenderedotiose,alsostands deleted. We may only add that the impugned judgment has ultimately held, in para 27, that the two complaints of 2010, in which the three female respondents were discharged finally, were purported to be revived,despitetherebeingnoprayerinWritPetitionNo.300of2013forthesame.Whenthiswaspointed out,MsMeenakshiArora veryfairlystatedthatshewouldnotbepursuingthosecomplaints,andwouldbe content to have a declaration from this Court as to the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act.We,therefore,recordthestatementofthelearnedcounsel,inwhichcaseitbecomesclearthatnothing survivesin the aforesaid complaintsofOctober2010. With thisadditionalobservation, this appeal stands disposed of.
46.	ShamimaFarooquiv.ShahidKhan,(2015)5SCC705 Husbandcannotbepermittedtopleadthatheisunabletomaintainthewifeduetofinancialconstraintsaslong as he is capable of earning
47.	JaiminibenHirenbhaiVyasv.HirenbhaiRameshchandraVyas,(2015)2SCC 385 GrantofMaintenance-whetherfromthedateofapplicationorfromdateoforder.Held,directionofHigh CourtthatmaintenanceshouldbepaidonlyfromdateofordercannotbeupheldparticularlywhentheHigh Court has not given any reason why it has not directed maintenance from the date of application for maintenance. Needforreasoned orders-itisneitherappropriatenordesirablethatacourtsimply statesthatmaintenance shouldbepaidfromeitherdateofapplicationordateoforder withoutgiving properreasons for the same. Ss.125&354(6)mustbereadtogether.AsperS.354(6)Cr.P.C.thecourtshouldrecordreasonsinsupport

	oforderpassedbyitinbotheventualities.
48.	Badshahv.UrmilaBadshahGodse,(2014)1SCC188 Maintenanceofsecondwife-Held,inviewofthefactthathusbanddupedthesecondwifebynotrevealing the fact of his earlier marriage, the husband cannot deny maintenance to the secondwifeashecannotbe permittedtotakeadvantageofhisownwrong.GivingpurposiveconstructiontoS.125Cr.P.Candapplying mischief rule, the womanwouldbetreatedasalegallyweddedwifeforthepurposeofmaintenanceunder S.125 Cr.P.C.
49.	ShamimBanov.AsrafKhan,(2014)12SCC636 MaintenanceunderS.125Cr.P.C.toMuslimwomen-ApplicationunderS.125Cr.P.C.nottoberestrictedto thedateofdivorce.FilingofapplicationunderS.3oftheMuslim Women(ProtectionofRightsonDivorce) Act, 1986 after divorce for grant of mahr and return of gifts would not disentitle the wife to sustain her application under S. 125 Cr.P.C.
50.	SunitaKachwahav.AnilKachwaha,(2014)16SCC715 Merelybecausethewifewasearningsomething,itwouldnotbeagroundtorejectherclaimformaintenance.
51.	IndraSarmav.V.K.V.Sarma,(2013)15SCC755 Whether the non-maintenance of the appellant in a broken live-in-relationshipwill amount to domesticviolence.
52.	DeokiPanjhiyarav.ShashiBhushanNarayanAzad,(2013)2SCC137 Mere production of a marriage certificate issued under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 insupport of the claimed first marriage of the appellant with Rohit Kumar Mishra was not sufficient foranyof the courts, including the High Court, to render a complete and effective decision with regard to themaritalstatusofthepartiesandthattooinacollateralproceedingformaintenance.Consequently,weholdthat in the present case until the invalidation of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent ismadebya competentcourtitwouldonlybecorrecttoproceed on thebasisthattheappellantcontinuestobethewifeoftherespondentsoastoentitlehertoclaimallbenefitsandprotectionavailableundertheDVAct, 2005
53.	DarshanGuptav.RadhikaGupta,(2013)9SCC1 A perusal of the grounds on which divorce can be sought under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, would reveal, that the same are grounds based on the ‘fault’ of the party against whom dissolutionof marriage is sought. In matrimonial jurisprudence, such provisions are founded on the ‘matrimonialoffence theory’ or the ‘fault theory’. Under this jurisprudential principle, it is only on the ground of anopponent’sfault,thatapartymayapproachaCourtforseekingannulmentofhis/hermatrimonialalliance.In other words, if either of the parties is guilty of committing a matrimonial offence, the aggrieved partyalone is entitled to divorce.Theparty seekingdivorceunder the“matrimonialoffence theory” / the “faulttheory”mustbeinnocent.Apartysuffering“guilt”or“fault”disentitleshimself/herselffromconsideration
54.	SandhyaManojWankhadev.ManojBhimraoWankhade,(2011)3SCC650 Thelegislatureneverintendedtoexcludefemalerelativesofthehusbandormalepartnerfromtheambitofa complaint that can be made under D.V Act, 2005
55.	PylaMutyalammav.PylaSuriDemudu,(2011)12SCC189 ValidityofamarriagecannotbeagroundfortherefusalofmaintenanceiftheotherrequirementsofS.125 Cr.P.C. are fulfilled. S. 125 proceeds on the basis of a de facto marriage and not marriage de jure. The nature ofproofofmarriage required fora proceeding underS.125 need notbe strong or conclusive since the object of S. 125 is to afford a swift remedy.

56.	VinnyParmvirParmarv.ParmvirParmar,(2011)13SCC112 While dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, this Court has observed that while grantingpermanent alimony, the Court is required to takenoteof the fact that the amount ofmaintenance fixed forthe wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of lifeshewasusedtowhenshelivedwithherhusband.Atthesametime,theamountsofixedcannotbeexcessiveor affect the living condition of the other party.
57.	ShabanaBanov.ImranKhan,(2010)1SCC666 FamilyCourthasexclusivejurisdictiontoadjudicatetheapplicationsfiledunderS.125Cr.P.C.
58.	AnilKumarJainv.MayaJain,(2009)10SCC415 This doctrine of irretrievable break-down of marriage is not available even to the High Courts which donot have powers similar to those exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.Neitherthecivilcourtsnoreven theHigh Courtscan,therefore,passordersbeforetheperiodsprescribedundertherelevantprovisionsoftheActorongroundsnotprovidedforinSection13and13-BoftheHinduMarriage Act, 1955.The second proposition is that although the Supreme Court can, in exercise of itsextraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, convert a proceeding under Section 13 of theHindu Marriage Act, 1955, into one under Section 13-B and pass a decree for mutual divorce, withoutwaiting for the statutory period of six months, none of the other Courts can exercise such powers.
59.	VishnuDuttSharmav.ManjuSharma,(2009)6SCC379 It has been held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce as it is notcontemplatedundersection13andgrantingdivorceonthisgroundalonewouldamounttoaddingaclausetherein by a judicial verdict which would amount to legislation by Court
60.	ChandPatelv.BismillahBegum,(2008)4SCC774 Wifeandchildrenfromirregular(fasid)marriageareentitledtomaintenanceunlessthemarriagehasbeen declared void.
61.	S.R.Batrav.TarunaBatra,(2007)3SCC169 InterpretationofthedefinitionofSHAREDHOUSEHOLDasappearinginSec.2(S)ofP.W.D.VAct.
62.	RohtashSinghv.Ramendri,(2000)3SCC180 A woman after divorce is entitled to claim maintenance from former husband if she cannot provide for herself and remains unmarried. Husband remains under a statutory duty and obligation to provide maintenance to his former wife. The fact that the divorce was based on desertion is no ground to deny maintenance.Thoughthemaritalrelationscame to an end by thedivorce, the respondent continues tobea ‘wife’ within the meaning of S. 125 Cr.P.C. on account of Explanation (b) to sub-section (1).
63.	DanialLatifiv.UnionofIndia,(2001)7SCC740 ThereisnodiscriminationwheretheStateprovidesa schemeformaintenanceandpreventionofvagrancy foraparticulargroup,andtheschemeisequallyormorebeneficialthanthatprovidedintheearliergeneral then prevailing.
64.	NoorSabaKhatoonv.Mohd.Quasim,(1997)6SCC233 Rightof minor child to claim maintenanceunder S. 125 Cr.P.C. from their muslim father - Held, rightnot affected by S. 3(1)(b) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Benefit of S. 125 Cr.P.C.is available irrespective ofreligion and itwouldbeunreasonable,unfairandinequitabletodenythis benefittothechildren only on the grounds of being born to muslim parents.
65.	Vanamalav.H.M.RanganathaBhatta,(1995)5SCC 299 The expression ‘wife’ in S. 125(4) Cr.P.C does not have the extended meaning of including a woman who hasbeendivorced.Incaseofdivorceobtainedbymutualconsent,Suchdivorcedwifewhohasnotremarried andisentitledtomaintenanceunderExplanationtoS.125Cr.P.C.cannotbedebarredbyinvokingS.125(4) Cr.P.C.AwifewhoobtainsdivorcebymutualconsentcannotbedeniedmaintenancebyvirtueofS.125(4).

66.	Capt.RameshChanderKaushalv.VeenaKaushal,(1978)4SCC 70 MaintenancefixedbycivilcourtunderS.24oftheHinduMarriageActpendingdivorceproceedingsbywifehas no relevance for fixation of maintenance under S. 125 Cr.P.C.
CaseLawJurisprudence [Matrimonial Property] (Judgmentsmentionedbelowincludescitationandshortnoteforreferenceanddiscussionpurposeduringthe course of the programme. Please refer the full judgment for conclusive opinion)
67.	JaidevRajnikantShroffv.PoonamJaidevShroff,(2022)1SCC683 Ifwifedecidestoshifttoanypropertyfallingwithintheparametersofbeing“similar”toaccommodationofhusband, or otherwise, husband directed to pay rent of saidpremises. Held, “similar” does not mean“identical”.
68.	KrishnaBhattacharjeev.SarathiChowdhury,(2016)2SCC705 Entrustment of Stridhan to husband - Held, stridhana property is the exclusive property is the exclusive property of the wife. On proof that she entrusted the property or dominion over the stridhana property to herhusbandoranyothermemberofthe family,thereisnoneedtoestablishanyfurtherspecialagreement to establish that the property was given to the husband or any other member of the family. It is always a questionoffactineachcaseastohowthepropertycametobeentrustedtothehusband or family member. The concept on continuing offence gets attracted from the date of deprivation of stridhan. Neither the husband nor the other family members can have any right over the stridhan, they remain the custodians.
CaseLawJurisprudence [Section 498A] (Judgmentsmentionedbelowincludescitationandshortnoteforreferenceanddiscussionpurposeduringthe course of the programme. Please refer the full judgment for conclusive opinion)
69.	K.V.PrakashBabuv.StateofKarnataka,(2017)11SCC176 Mental cruelty in Section 498-A Expln (a) has nothing to do with demand of dowry. Itis associated withmental cruelty that can drive a woman to commit suicide and isdependent on the conduct of the personconcerned, the milieu and strata from whichthe persons come.
70.	VinodKumarSubbiahv.SaraswathiPalaniappan,(2015)8SCC336 Makingitimpossibleforanycloserelativetovisitorresideinthematrimonialhomewouldalsoindubitablyresult in CRUELTY to the other spouse
71.	BhaskarLalSharmav.Monica,(2014)3SCC383 CrueltyunderS.498Ahasatwofoldmeaning.Whileinstancesofphysicaltorturewouldbeplainlyevidentfrom thepleadings, conductwhich has causedor is likely tocausemental injurywould be farmore subtle.
72.	ArneshKumarVs.StateofBihar,2014(8)SCC273 AllstategovernmentsdirectedtoinstructitspoliceofficersnottoautomaticallyarrestwhenacaseunderS. 498AIPCisregistered,buttosatisfythemselvesaboutthenecessityforarrestundertheparametersflowing from S. 41 CrPC.
73.	PinakinMahipatrayRawalv.StateofGujarat,(2013)10SCC48 CrueltyunderS.498AIPCincludesbothphysicalandmentalcruelty.Mentalcrueltyvariesfrompersontoperson, depending upon the intensity and degree of endurance.Themerefactthatthehusbandhasdevelopedintimacywithanotherwomanduringthemarriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations as suchwould not amount tocruelty under the Explanation to Section 498A IPC.
74.	KantilalMartajiPandorv.StateofGujarat,(2013)8SCC 781 Proof of Cruelty under S.498A (a) IPC- Evidence when not admissible due to finalityof finding on chargeunder S. 306- Letter written by deceased to police stationcomplaining of ill-treatment and mental crueltywouldberelevantonlyunderS.32(1),IndianEvidence Act,1872.EvidenceadmissibleunderS.32(1)cannotbe admitted toprove offence under S. 498A.

75.	PreetiGuptav.StateofJharkhand,(2010)7SCC 667 Allegationsofharassmentbyhusband’scloserelationswhohadbeenlivingindifferent cities and rarely or never visited the place of residence of the complainant wife are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
76.	NeeluChoprav.Bharti,AIR2009SC(Supp)2950 Forlodgingapropercomplaintmerementioning ofrelevantsectionsand languageof those sections is not sufficient. Particulars of offence committed by each accused and role played by them in committing that offence need to be stated.
77.	Mohd.Hoshanv.StateofA.P.,(2002)7SCC414 Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question offact. The impact ofcomplaints, accusations or taunts on a person amounting to crueltydepends on various factors like thesensitivity of the individual, social backgrounds,environment, education etc. Mental cruelty varies fromperson to person depending onthe intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage or endurance towithstand suchmental cruelty. Each case has to be decided on its own facts to decide whether crueltyhasbeen established or not.
		173
CaseLawJurisprudence (Judgmentsmentionedbelowincludescitationandshortnoteforreferenceanddiscussionpurposeduringthe course of the programme. Please refer the full judgment for conclusive opinion)
1.	XXXXv.XXXXX,RPNO.936of2021Judgmentdated 28.10.2022 The right to terminate themarriageat the instanceofa Muslim wife isan absoluteright, conferred onher by the holy Quran and is not subject to the acceptance or the will of her husband.
2.	ShafinJahanv.AsokanK.M.(2018)16SCC408 Held,Thechoiceofapartnerwhetherwithinoroutsidemarriagelieswithintheexclusivedomainof each individual. The exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction should not transgress into the area of determining the suitability of partners to a marital tie.Thatdecision restsexclusivelywith theindividuals themselves.Neitherthestatenorsocietycanintrudeintothatdomain.ThestrengthofourConstitutionlies in itsacceptanceofthepluralityanddiversityofourculture.Intimaciesofmarriage,includingthechoices whichindividualsmakeonwhetherornottomarryandonwhom tomarry,lieoutsidethecontrolofthe state.Courtsasupholdersofconstitutional freedoms must safeguard these freedoms.
3.	Mayrav.StateofU.P.,2021SCCOnLineAll805 Personalliberty,choiceandprivacyisa facetofbasicHumanRights,a fundamentalrightconferred upon individuals.Choiceofwomaninchoosingherpartnerinlifeisalegitimateconstitutionalright.Itisfounded

	on individualchoicethatisrecognized in ConstitutionunderArticle19.Consentoffamilyorcommunityor clanisnotnecessaryoncetwoadult individualsagree toenterinto awedlock,it isamanifestationoftheir choice which is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution. In protecting consensual intimacies, Constitutionadoptsasimpleprinciple:Statehasnobusinesstointrudeintothesepersonalmatters.Rightto privacy is implicit in right to life and liberty guaranteed to citizens of this country by Article 21. A citizen has a right to safeguard privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among other matters. Duty of court is to uphold right and not to abridge sphere of right unlessthereisavalidauthorityoflaw.Choiceofapartner,whetherwithinoroutsidemarriage,lieswithin exclusive domain of each individual. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable.Absoluterightofanindividualtochoosealifepartnerisnotinleastaffectedbymattersoffaith. UnlawfulConversionAct,2021,perse,doesnotprohibitinterfaithmarriage.MarriageRegistrar/Officer, however,lackspowertowithholdregistrationofmarriage,merelyforreasonthatpartieshavenotobtained necessaryapprovalofconversionfromdistrictauthority.Suchanapprovalisdirectoryandnotmandatory. If interpreted otherwise Act would not satisfy test of reasonableness and fairness and would fail to pass muster of Article 14 and Article 21.
4.	GoolrokhM.Guptav.BurjorPardiwala,(2020)2SCC 705 Right of Zoroastrian/Parsi women married to non-Zoroastrian/Parsi to enter inside Zoroastrian prayer hall/ fire temple – Petitioner permitted on compassionate grounds to attend funeral prayers and death ceremonies pf parents inside prayer hall as per memorandum of agreement between petitioner and respondents.
5.	GoolrokhM.Guptav.BurjorPardiwala,2012SCCOnLineGuj 2058 Whether,thepetitioner-abornParsiwoman,byvirtueofcontractingacivilmarriagewithanon-parsiman under the Special Marriage Act, ceases to be a Parsi? Held,AParsiwomanbycontractingacivilmarriagewithanon-Parsiunderthe Special Marriage Act would cease to be Parsi and would be deemed and presumed to have acquired the religious status of her husband unless declaration is made by the competent court forcontinuation of her status of Parsi Zoroastrian after her marriage. DissentingOpinion Held, the petitioner was well within her right to retain her religious identity, continue to followtheParsi ZoroastrianreligionandtoberecognisedasParsiZoroastrianevenafterthemarriage.Held,awomanwho is born Parsi Zoroastrian does not cease to be so merely by virtue of solemnizing the marriage under the Act of 1954 with a man belonging to another religion.
6.	Nandakumarv.StateofKerala,(2018)16SCC602 Arts. 21 and 226 Constitution of India - Freedom of choice - Right to marry or have live-in relationship with person of own choice- Scope of High Court’s jurisdiction - held,wheredetenueappearsbeforecourt, isfoundtobeamajorandclaimstobelivingwiththeappellantaftermarryinghimintemple,Highcourthas no jurisdiction to furtherascertain ageofappellantat thetime ofmarriage and finding hima minoratthe timeand finding lackofsufficientevidenceofmarriage, conclude thatmarriage wasunlawful,andentrust custodyofdetenuetoherfather.Detenuebeingamajorhasfreedomtomarryortohavelive-inrelationship with anyone of her choice.
7.	LataSinghv.StateofUP,(2006)5SCC475 TheSupremeCourtquashedcriminalproceedingsinitiatedagainstan inter-castecouplebytheirrelatives whodisapprovedofthemarriage.Italsonotedthatviolenceagainstinter-casteandinter-religiouscouples wasaviolationoftheirfundamentalrightofmaritalchoiceandheldthattheStatewasunderanobligation to protect the choices of these individuals.
8.	Rev.Stainislausv.StateOfMadhyaPradesh,(1977)1SCC677 Article25guaranteestoallpersonsrighttofreedomandconscienceandtherightfreelytoprofess,practice andpropagatereligionsubjecttopublicorder,moralityandhealth.Theword 'propagate'hasbeenusedin theArticleasmeaningtotransmitorspreadfrompersontopersonorfromplacetoplace.TheArticledoes notgrantrightto convertotherperson toone'sownreligionbutto transmitorspreadone'sreligionby an expositionofitstenets.ThefreedomofreligionenshrinedinArt.25isnotguaranteedinrespectofone

	religion only but covers allreligions alike which can be properly enjoyed bya personif he exercises his rightinamannercommensuratewiththelikefreedomofpersonsfollowingotherreligion.Whatisfreedom foroneisfreedomfortheotherinequalmeasureandtherecan,therefore,benosuchthingasafundamental right to convert any person to one's own religion.
CaseLawJurisprudence (Judgmentsmentionedbelowincludescitationandshortnoteforreferenceanddiscussionpurposeduringthe course of the programme. Please refer the full judgment for conclusive opinion)
1.	NehaTyagiv.DeepakTyagi,(2022)3SCC86 The husband cannot be absolved from his liability and responsibility to maintain his son till he attains the ageofmajority.Whateverbethedisputebetweenthehusbandandthewife,achildshouldnotbemadeto

	suffer.Theliabilityandresponsibilityofthefathertomaintainthechildcontinuestillthechild/sonattains the age of majority.
2.	Xv.Y,Mat.AppealNo.142of2020Judgmentdated11.10.2021 Thejointparentalcaremustbethenormand,custodyto singleparentmustbeanexception.TheCourthas alsotofind,hownegativefactorsattributedtoaspousewouldreflectuponthechild.Withoutconductingsuch an inquiry, the Court cannot deny custody to a spouse merely stating that spouse lives in adultery.
3.	SmithaAntonyv.KoshyKurian2022SCCOnLineKer 2477 Family Court is theproper forum to decide on the question ofguardianship of the personorthecustodyof oraccesstoanyminor.TheHighCourtexercisingsupervisory powerunderArticle227oftheConstitution cannotbyepasstheFamilyCourttodecide on the question of guardianship of the person or custody of or access to any minor.
4.	D.S.G.v.A.K.G.,(2020)12SCC248 Whileexercisingparenspatriaejurisdiction,theCourtisrequiredtogivedueweighttotheordinarycomfortof the child, contentment, intellectual, moral and physicaldevelopment, health, education and generalmaintenance,andthefavourablesurroundings.TheCourtisnotboundeitherbystatutes,norbystrictrulesof evidence,nor procedure or precedent. In deciding the issue of custody, the paramountconsiderationshould be the welfare and well-being of the child.
5.	NutanGautamv.PrakashGautam,(2019)4SCC734 Paramountconsiderationsarewelfare,interestanddesireofthechild.Directionswereissuedtoadmitchildin a particular school of his/her choice.
6.	AmitKumarv.Sonila,(2019)12SCC 711 Modification of terms of custody only where the children so desire or the appellanthusband failed to takecare of children. Mere factum of second marriage of appellanthusband and children born from suchmarriage not grounds for modification of termsof custody.
7.	SheoliHativ.SomnathDas,(2019)7SCC490 The purpose and object of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is not mere physicalcustody of minor butdueprotectionofward’shealth,maintenanceandeducation.Poweranddutyofcourtistoseekthewelfareof the child including physical, moraland ethical.
8.	GaytriBajajv.JitenBhalla,(2012)12SCC471 Object and purpose of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is not merely physical custodyoftheminorbut due protection of the rights of ward’s health, maintenance and education. In considering the question of welfare ofminor, due regard has, of course, to begiven to therightofthefatherasnaturalguardianbutif thecustodyofthefather cannotpromote thewelfareof the children,hemaybe refused such guardianship.
9.	VivekSinghv.RomaniSingh,(2017)3SCC231 The welfare principle is aimed at serving twin objectives. In the first instance, it is to ensure that the child growsand develops in thebestenvironment. Thebestinterestofthe child hasbeen placed atthevanguard of family/custody disputes according to the optimal growth and development of the child and has primacy overotherconsiderations.Thisrightofthechildisalsobasedonindividualdignity.Thesecondjustification behindthewelfareprincipleisthepublicinterestthatstandsservedwiththeoptimalgrowthofthechildren. Child-centric human rights jurisprudence that has been evolved over a period of time is founded on the principlethatpublicgooddemands proper growth of the child, who are the future of the nation.
10.	LahariSakhamuriv.SobhanKodali,(2019)7SCC311 Thecrucialfactorswhichhavetobekeptinmind bythecourtsforgauging thewelfare of the children and equally for the parents can be, inter alia, delineated, such as (1) maturity and judgment; (2) mental stability; (3) ability to provide access to schools; (4) moral character; (5) ability to provide continuing involvementinthecommunity; (6) financial sufficiency and last but not the least the factors involving relationshipwith the child, as opposed to characteristics of the parent as an individual.

11.	RoxannSharmav.ArunSharma,(2015)8SCC318 The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act postulates that the custody of an infant or a tender-aged child should be given to his/her mother unless the father discloses cogent reasons that are indicative of and presagethelikelihoodofthewelfareandinterestofthechildbeingunderminedorjeopardisedifthecustody is retained by the mother. However, it is immediately clarified that S. 6(a) or for that matter any other provision including those contained in the Guardians and Wards Act, does not disqualify the mother to custody of the child even after the latter’s crossing the age of five years.
12.	TejaswiniGaudv.ShekharJagdishPrasadTewari,(2019)7SCC 42 In child custodymatters, thewrit ofhabeas corpus is maintainablewhere it is proved that thedetention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law.
13.	PremvatiMeenav.StateofRajasthanD.B.HabeasCorpusPetitionNo.333/2022dateofJudgment 01.11.2022 The High Courthasasked the Grandparents seeking custodyof their minorgrandson to deposit50kasan advance litigation cost.
14.	Mansiv.StateofPunjab,CRWP-7332-2022(O&M)DateofDecision:07.11.2022 The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday, while disposing of a habeas corpus petition filedbya motherallegingillegaldetentionofher2yearsoldchildatthehands ofherhusbandand in-laws,held that amother,evenifsheismentallyill,isentitledtothecustodyofaminorchild,especiallyifthechildisbelow the age of 5 years, unless the mental illness is such that it shall be detrimental to the health of the child
15.	Manyata Avinash Dolani v. State of Gujarat R/Special Criminal Application No. 9903 of 2021 Date of Judgment 30/09/2022 TheGujaratHighCourt,whiledealingwithapleafiledbythemotherofaminorchild,recentlyheldthatthe habeascorpuspetitionismaintainableeveninmattersofchildcustody,providedthatdetentionoftheminor child by the other parent or others is proved to be illegal and without any authority of law.
16.	RohithThammanaGowdav.StateofKarnataka,2022SCCOnlineSC937 TheSupremeCourtobservedthatthequestionof'whatisthewish/desire'ofthechildisdifferentanddistinct fromthequestion'whatwouldbethebestinterestofthechild'."Thequestion'whatisthewish/desireofthe child' can be ascertained through interaction, but then, thequestion as to 'what would be the best interest ofthechild'isamattertobedecidedbythecourttakingintoaccountalltherelevantcircumstances.When couples are at loggerheads and wanted to part their ways as parthian shot they may level extreme allegations against each other so as to depict the other unworthy to have the custody of the child. In the circumstances, we are of the view that for considering the claim for custodyof a minor child,unless very serious, proven conduct which should make one of them unworthy to claim for custody of the child concerned, thequestioncanandshallbedecidedsolelylookingintothequestionasto,‘whatwould be the best interest of the child concerned’.
17.	BinduPhilipsv.SunilJacob,(2018)12SCC 203 TheSupremeCourtofIndiahaspassedasorderwithsincerehopethatboththeparentsare highly educated and would understand and realise their duties and obligations towards their children being father and mother living separately. Role and importance of both the parents for children emphasized. Determining custodyand visitation,rights welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration.
18.	ABCv.State(NCTofDelhi),(2015)10SCC1 An analysis of the law relating to custody and guardianship of children born outside wedlock in various jurisdictionsindicatesthatthepreponderantpositionisthatitisthe unwed mother who possesses primary custodial and guardianship rights with regard to her children and that the father is not conferred with an equal position merely by virtue of his having fathered the child. In today’s society, where women are increasingly choosing to raise their children alone, we see no purpose in imposing an unwilling and unconcerned father on an otherwise viable family nucleus. It seems to us that a man who has chosen to forsakehis duties and responsibilities is not a necessary constituent for the well-being of the child.

19.	GauravNagpalv.SumedhaNagpal,(2009)1SCC42 The principles in relation to the custodyof a minor child are well settled. Theparamount consideration of thecourt in determining the question as to who should be givencustodyofaminorchild,isthe“welfareof thechild”andnotrightsoftheparentsunderastatuteforthetimebeinginforceorwhatthepartiessay.The court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to be noted.
20.	NilRatanKunduv.AbhijitKundu,(2008)9SCC413 Indecidingadifficultandcomplexquestionastothecustodyofaminor,acourtoflaw should keep in mind the relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpretinglegalprovisions.Itisahumanproblemandisrequiredtobesolvedwithhumantouch.Acourt while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, nay bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts,moralandethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally,or even more important, essential andindispensableconsiderations.Iftheminorisoldenoughtoformanintelligentpreferenceorjudgment, the courtmustconsider such preferenceaswell, though thefinal decision should rest with the court as to what is conducive to the welfare of theminor.”
21.	Mamtav.AshokJagannathBharuka,(2005)12SCC452                                                                      . Beforedeciding theissueasto whetherthecustodyshouldbegiven to themotherorthefatherorpartially tooneandpartiallytotheother,theHighCourtmust(a)takeintoaccountthewishesofthechildconcerned, and (b) assess the psychological impact, if any, on the change in custody after obtaining the opinion of a child psychiatrist or a child welfare worker. All this must be done in addition to ascertaining the comparative material welfare that the child/children may enjoy with either parent.
22.	GithaHariharanv.ReserveBankofIndia,(1999)2SCC228 FatherandMotherarethenaturalguardianofaminorHinduchild,andthemothercannotbesaidtobethe naturalguardianonlyafterthedeathofthefatherasthatwould not only be discriminatory but also against the welfare of the child.
23.	VikramVirVohrav.ShaliniBhalla, (2010)4SCC409 Welfareofchildisofparamountimportanceinmattersrelatingtochildcustodyandmayhaveprimacyeven overstatutoryprovisions.Childcustodybeingasensitiveissue,custodyordersareconsideredinterlocutory orders capable of being modified keeping in mind the needs of the child. Such orders even when based on consent can be varied if welfare of the child so demands. Every person has a right to develop his or her potentialandtherighttodevelopment isabasichumanright.Amothercannotbeaskedto choosebetween her child and her career.

CaseLawJurisprudence (Judgmentsmentionedbelowincludescitationandshortnoteforreferenceanddiscussionpurposeduringthe course of the programme. Please refer the full judgment for conclusive opinion)
1.	VasviGroverv.ManishGrover,2023SCCOnLineDel8128 Keepinginviewthefactthatthisisamatrimonialdispute,thelearnedFamilyCourtshouldbemorelenient than it would be had it been a commercial dispute between the parties. A matrimonial dispute involves relationships and, therefore, requires a little more sensitivity by the learned Family Court.”
2.	Ramachandran@Chandranv.StateOfKeralaILR2022(2)Kerala671 The sexual act on promise to marry is an offence against the decisional autonomy of a womanhaving the choice to engage in physical intimacy. Thematerial facts related to consent, known to the offender or the accused, if not disclosed at the timeof the sexualact, the consent so obtained would violate thedecisional autonomy of the victim to engage in physical intimacy or not. If such fact was not disclosed, consent may fall under the category of 'misconception of fact' and the consent would be vitiated under thecategoryof misconception of factas referred to in Section 90 of the IPC.
3.	XXXXXv.XXXXX,R.P.No.936of2021Judgmentdated28.10.2022 In theabsenceofanymechanism in thecountryto recognizetheterminationofmarriageattheinstanceof the wife when the husband refuses to give consent, the court can simply hold that khula can be invoked withouttheconjunctionofthehusband.TherighttoterminatethemarriageattheinstanceofaMuslimwife isanabsoluteright,conferredonherbytheholyQuranandisnotsubjecttotheacceptanceorthewillofher husband.
4.	NishaHaneefav.AbdulLatheef,2022SCCOnLineKer1556 ThepowersoftheFamilyCourtareadjudicativepowerfollowingtherulesofprocedureasapplicableunder theadversarialsystem,ProactiveroleforsettlementofdisputesbetweenthepartiesandInquisitorialpower to enquire into the truth of the matter.
5.	T.Anjanav.J.A.JayeshJayaram2022SCCOnLineKer2043 Thescopeofenquiryin theFamilyCourtisnotconfinedwith theevidencebroughtbeforeitbytheparties. TheFamilyCourtiscompetenttoembarkuponanyenquirytoelicitthetruth.Themasteroftheproceedings before the Family Court is the presiding officer of the Family Court and not the parties. So long as the principlesof fairnessarefollowedandadhered to, thepowerof theFamilyCourtcannotbequestioned by the parties. If the Family Court is of the view that the opposite party would be affected or impacted, consequent upon not pressing the petition, it shall proceed with the case to find out the truth.
6.	MadhavendraL.Bhatnagarv.BhavnaLall,(2021)2SCC775 Interim Anti-suit Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1& 3 and S. 151 - If other party had already resorted to proceedingsbeforeanothercourtincludingcourtsoutsideIndia,ananti-suitinjunctioncanbeissuedifthe fact situation so warrants.
7.	ShijuJoy.A.v.Nisha,OP(FC).NO.352OF2020Judgmentdated23..3.2021 AFamilyCourtJudgeshouldrememberthattheprocrastinationisthegreatestassassin ofthelisbeforeit. FamilyCourtJudgesisexpectedtodecidethemattersasexpeditiouslyaspossiblekeepinginviewthe

	objects and reasons of the Act and the scheme of various provisions pertaining to grant of maintenance,divorce, custody of child, property disputes, etc.
8.	Xv.Y,Mat.AppealNo.434of2016DecidedOn:19.11.2021 Whenaspousehimselforherselfshutsupinoneortworoomsinthesamehouseandhavenothingtodowith theotherspouseandlivingseparately,effectively,desertionwouldexist.AccordingtoLordDenning,ifthe spousehadforsakenandabandonedcohabitation,acaseofdesertionwouldbeattracted.Spousemayhave reasons or dislikes to cohabit with the other spouse. If that reason or cohabitation reached to a point in declaring not to resume cohabitation, the Court has to hold that desertion commenced from that stage.
9.	Xv.YMat.Appeal.No.89of2020Judgmentdated09.04.2021 The right to invoke khula conferred upon a married Muslim women is an absolute right; akin to talaq conferred uponmarried Muslim men. In thematter ofkhula, there are differences of opinion in regard to procedures, methods etc. Family Court can grant divorce on the basis of the agreement executed between the parties, referring khula and mubaraat as a divorce based on mutual consent.
10.	DineshSinghThakurv.SonalThakur,(2018)17SCC12 Principles for grant or refusal of anti-suit injunction restraining another court outside its jurisdiction includinga foreign court-Such injunction deservesto be refused when by such refusal no grave injustice wouldbesufferedbypartyseekingsuchinjunction. Power should be exercised by courtcautiously, carefully, sparingly and not in a routine manner. Grant of injunction is governed by the doctrine of equity.
11.	PrateekGuptav.ShilpiGupta,(2018)2SCC309 The court held that unless, the continuance of the child in the country to which it has been removed, is unquestionably harmful, when judged on the touchstone of overall perspectives, perceptions and practicabilities,itoughtnottobedislodgedandextricatedfromtheenvironmentandsettingtowhichithad got adjusted for its well-being.
12.	NithyaAnandRaghavanv.State(NCTofDelhi),(2017)8SCC454 ItwasheldthatatthethresholdtheHighCourtisonlysupposedtoexaminewhether“theminorisinlawful custody”oftherespondentornotandanaturalguardianwouldconstituteasonebydefault.Thebiological mother is one such natural guardian. Once such a factor has been ascertained, only in exceptional cases can writ petitions for removal of guardianship of the child from the mother be entertained by the High Courts.
13.	ShayaraBanov.UnionofIndia,(2017)9SCC1 Thepracticeof‘talaq-e-biddat’–tripletalaqwasheldtobeviolativeofArticle14oftheConstitution
14.	AugustineKalathilMathewv.MarriageOfficer,2016SCCOnLineKer41114 The Kerala High Court has decided that mutual divorce in foreign courts are acceptable in India under section 13 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. it was clarified that although the general rule is that a foreign matrimonial judgment can be recognised inIndiaonlyifthejurisdictionassumedbytheforeigncourtaswell asthe groundson which therelief is granted are in accordance with thematrimonial law under which the partiesaremarried,suchjudgmentscanbeacceptedasconclusiveinIndiawheretheperson seekingrelief voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction of the forum and consents to the grant of the relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial lawofthe parties.
15.	ManasAcharyavsState&AnrCase,2012SCCOnLineDel4462 Thecourtemphasised thatthe resolution reached bymediation is legalandaccurate and that the decision reached during the mediation period is binding on all sides.
16.	RuchiMajoov.SanjeevMajoo,(2011)6SCC479 Repatriation of child on theprincipleof comityof courts - when not desirable. Interest and welfare of the minor being paramount, a competent court in India is entitled and duty bound to examine the matter independently, taking the foreign judgment only as an input for its final adjudication. Simply because a foreigncourthastakenaparticularviewregardingthe welfareofthe minorisnot enoughforthe courts inIndiatoshutoutanindependentconsiderationofthematter.Indiancourtshaveto decidetheissue regardingthevalidityofthedecreeinaccordancewithIndianlaw.Comityofcourtsdemandsconsideration

	ofanysuchorderissuedbyforeigncourtsandnotnecessarilytheir enforcement.
17.	AtharHussainv.SyedSirajAhmed,(2010)2SCC654 Whiledecidingthequestionofinterimcustody,thecourtmustbeguidedbythewelfareofthechildrensince Section12empowersthecourtto makeanyorderasitdeemsproper.Thefactorsthatmustbekeptinmind while determining the question of guardianship will apply with equal force to the question of interim custody. The strict parameters governing an interim injunction donothave fullplay in mattersof custody.
18.	B.S.Joshiv.StateofHaryana,(2003)4SCC675 The wife, had filed an FIR against the partner but later said that their marriage as well, and that the FIR was filed rashly and without thought. Supreme Court stated, “Courts should promote reconciliation, especially in matrimonial disputes of such kind.”
19.	Y.NarasimhaRaov.Y.VenkataLaksmi, (1991)3SCC451 Recognition of foreign judgment on matrimonial dispute- Held, the decree of foreign court dissolving marriage is without jurisdiction asneither the marriage was celebrated,northepartieslastresidedwithin the jurisdiction of that court. However, even presuming that the foreign court had by its rules rightly entertainedthedisputeandgrantedavaliddecree,itmustbeheldthatsincethejurisdictionoftheforumand the ground on which the decree was passed by the foreign court is not in accordance with the Act under which the parties were married and the respondent has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the court nor consentedto itspassing,itcannotberecognisedbythecourtsinthiscountryandisthereforeunenforceable.