Marriage, divorce, maintenance and succession
Hindu and Muslim personal law, maintenance and women's property rights.
15 of the 27 judgments in our library on this topic: the ones other judgments here cite most, oldest first.
0 of 15 read
Start: Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano BegumYour progress is kept in this browser. Sign in to keep it on every device and count it in your reading streak.
23 April 1985 · 5 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano BegumA five-Judge Bench held that a divorced Muslim wife unable to maintain herself may claim maintenance from her former husband under Section 125 CrPC, and that Mahr is not a sum payable 'on divorce' under Section 127(3)(b).
On this path for: Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 2, Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
14 May 1993 · 2 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Goutam Kundu v. State of West BengalCourts in India cannot order a blood group test as a matter of course; the husband must first make out a strong prima facie case of non-access to displace the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
On this path for: Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
28 September 2001 · 5 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Danial Latifi v. Union of IndiaThe Court upheld the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, reading Section 3(1)(a) to require the husband to make, within the iddat period, a reasonable and fair provision for the divorced wife's future, not limited to iddat.
On this path for: Section 3, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986; Section 4, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986; Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
15 December 2006 · 2 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
S.R. Batra v. Taruna BatraA house owned exclusively by the mother-in-law is not a 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, and the daughter-in-law cannot claim a right to reside there; the High Court's order letting her stay was set aside.
On this path for: Section 2(s), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 17, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 19(1)(f), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
2 July 2014 · 2 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Arnesh Kumar v. State of BiharPolice must not arrest automatically for offences punishable with up to seven years; they must record why arrest is necessary under Section 41 CrPC, and Magistrates must scrutinise those reasons before authorising detention.
On this path for: Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
16 October 2015 · 2 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Prakash v. PhulavatiThe Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 is prospective: a daughter gets coparcenary rights under amended Section 6 only if both she and her coparcener father were alive on 9 September 2005.
On this path for: Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended by Act 39 of 2005)
6 October 2016 · 2 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas HarsoraThe words 'adult male' in the definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 violate Article 14 and were struck down, so women and non-adults can be respondents; the proviso became otiose.
On this path for: Section 2(q), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 3, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 19, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
22 August 2017 · 5 judges · cited by 3 judgments in this library
Shayara Bano v. Union of IndiaBy a majority of 3:2 the Supreme Court set aside the practice of talaq-e-biddat (instant triple talaq), the majority judges resting on different grounds: manifest arbitrariness under Article 14, and inconsistency with the Quran and Shariat.
On this path for: Section 2, Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
12 September 2017 · 2 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Amardeep Singh v. Harveen KaurThe six month waiting period for the second motion in a mutual consent divorce under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directory; the court hearing the matter may waive it on stated conditions.
On this path for: Section 13B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
1 February 2018 · 2 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. AmarDaughters of a Mitakshara coparcener, though born before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, were held entitled to an equal share with sons in a partition suit that was still pending when amended Section 6 came into force in 2005.
On this path for: Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (before and after the 2005 amendment)
4 November 2020 · 2 judges
Rajnesh v. NehaAffirming interim maintenance to the wife and son, the Court issued country-wide directions under Article 142 on overlapping maintenance claims, a mandatory Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, criteria for quantum, maintenance from the date of application, and enforcement.
On this path for: Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 28A, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
1 May 2023 · 5 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun SreenivasanThe Supreme Court can, under Article 142(1), waive the six-month period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act on a settlement, and can dissolve a marriage that has irretrievably broken down even if one spouse opposes.
On this path for: Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 23(1)(a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
17 October 2023 · 5 judges
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of IndiaThe Court unanimously held there is no fundamental right to marry and declined to read the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex couples; by majority it declined to recognise civil unions or joint adoption by unmarried couples.
On this path for: Section 4, Special Marriage Act, 1954
10 July 2024 · 2 judges
Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of TelanganaA divorced Muslim woman may claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC; the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 adds to that remedy and does not displace it.
On this path for: Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 3, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986; Section 5, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
3 August 2026 · 2 judges
Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of KarnatakaSection 498A IPC applies to a live-in relationship between consenting adults that qualifies as a relationship in the nature of marriage, with an established intent to marry; the word "husband" is read purposively, and Arnesh Kumar safeguards apply.
On this path for: Section 2(f), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Test yourself: 170 practice questions on landmark judgments, with explanations.