News

\”The right of the petitioners to marry a person of their own choice is indelible and protected under the Constitution, which cannot be diluted in any manner whatsoever,\” the court said. In a recent legal decision, the Delhi High Court emphasized that your constitutional right to marry the person you choose remains strong and unchanging, […]

A recent decision from the Delhi High Court states that, according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, you can\’t have a second marriage if your ex-spouse or you are still alive, even if you both agree. This ruling was made by a group of judges, including Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna.

“The very fact that the wife had not only claimed but also accepted pendente lite maintenance during the appeal from the first husband fortifies that the marriage was not finally dissolved.” Delhi High Court\’s Determination on Marriage Legitimacy: In the present litigation, an appeal was initiated under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984,

The Delhi High Court has delineated the position that in circumstances where both spouses possess equivalent qualifications and earn comparable incomes, the wife is not eligible for interim maintenance, as prescribed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. A divisional bench, comprised of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, has reaffirmed

“The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted pursuant to the 59th Report of the Law Commission wherein it was stressed that in dealing with the disputes concerning the family, the family court should adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings.” The Delhi High Court made an important decision about court

Family Court Judge Harish Kumar accepted majority of the allegations made by Dhawan against his estranged wife and held that she subjected him to mental agony and cruelty. In a recent judicial pronouncement rendered on Wednesday, a family court situated in Delhi successfully adjudicated the contentious matter involving Shikhar Dhawan and Aesha Mukerji. The outcome

The Delhi High Court has opined that the act of establishing friendships, whether at the workplace or elsewhere, by individuals, including married couples, during periods of separate residence due to vocational obligations, does not per se constitute cruelty. The Court has articulated that a person living in solitude may seek solace in forming friendships, and

The Court also noted that making friends at the workplace or talking to them is not a cruel act or an act of ignoring the wife, particularly when the spouses were living apart due to the nature of their work. The Delhi High Court has judicially determined that in the context of divorce proceedings, the

The Delhi High Court has observed that a husband living with another woman, after long years of separation from his wife with zero possibility of re-union during the ongoing divorce proceedings, cannot disentitle him from seeking divorce on proven grounds of cruelty by the wife. A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that a divorced daughter cannot claim maintenance from her maternal side (mother or brother) under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA). The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Sharma observed that there were 9 categories of dependents under Section 21 of the HAMA,