The Supreme Court held that the six-month waiting period for mutual-consent divorce under s.13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory and may be waived where reconciliation is impossible, the statutory separation is over, and the parties have genuinely settled custody, maintenance and alimony. The waiting period exists to allow second thoughts, not to prolong an agreed parting.
In a cross-border custody dispute over two minor sons, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's 'welfare alone' approach. The Court held that while the child's welfare is paramount, financial capacity, standard of living, comfort and education of the children — and the conduct of the parents — are all relevant. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Supreme Court held that psychological or psychiatric evaluation of children in custody and visitation disputes is not barred, but is permissible only on demonstrable necessity, with minimum intrusion, institutional neutrality and proportionality, the child's welfare paramount. Courts must distinguish therapeutic care from adversarial evaluation and guard against parental-alienation dynamics.
In 1986 a two-judge Bench led by Bhagwati, CJI held that the discriminatory Travancore Christian Succession Act 1916 had already been repealed in 1951, so Syrian Christian daughters of former Travancore take an equal share with sons under the Indian Succession Act 1925. A digest of the facts, the statutory ratio, and the retrospectivity controversy that followed.
In 1995 a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that a Hindu husband who converts to Islam cannot validly contract a second marriage while his first Hindu marriage subsists — the second marriage is void and the convert is guilty of bigamy under Section 494 IPC. A digest of the facts, the ratio on conversion and bigamy, and the obiter call for a Uniform Civil Code.
In 1999 the Supreme Court read down 'after' in Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, holding the mother a natural guardian whenever the father is absent or indifferent.
The Supreme Court (April 2026) held that a reliable, consented DNA report on record overrides the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under s.112 / s.116.
On 8 January 2025, the Telangana High Court reaffirmed in the BNS era that a parent who is a natural guardian taking the child from the other parent is not kidnapping under Section 137(2) BNS, and that custody disputes belong before the family court.
In 2013 the Supreme Court mapped the multi-factor test for a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, holding that knowledge of a partner's subsisting marriage ordinarily defeats the claim.
On 24 June 2025, a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court held that a Muslim wife's right to dissolve her marriage by khula needs no husband's consent, and that Sharia councils and Muftis have no power to grant or refuse a divorce.
In 2017 a two-judge bench installed Family Welfare Committees to screen Section 498-A complaints; in 2018 a three-judge bench withdrew that extra-statutory machinery, restoring the Arnesh Kumar arrest discipline.
In 2020 the Supreme Court issued binding pan-India guidelines on maintenance across overlapping statutory regimes, prescribed a mandatory Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, and ruled that maintenance is payable from the date of the application.
A three-judge bench overruled S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra in 2020, holding that a 'shared household' under the Domestic Violence Act is not confined to property in which the husband holds title and can include a home owned by the in-laws.
On 12 May 2026, a two-judge bench expunged findings of cruelty and desertion against a dentist wife who had relocated from Kargil to Ahmedabad for tertiary medical care and to pursue her practice, holding that 'marriage does not eclipse her individuality' and retaining the divorce decree on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142.
Justice Neerja K. Kalson held that a maternal grandmother in actual care and custody of her granddaughter has sufficient eligibility to maintain a section 125 CrPC application on the minor's behalf where the parental relationship has broken down; the minor's statutory right to maintenance cannot be defeated by a technical objection to who instituted the petition.
On 19 April 2024, the Supreme Court held that a Hindu marriage is invalid without the requisite Section 7 ceremonies; a registration certificate alone confers no marital status.
Calcutta HC holds a spouse who concealed a prior marriage and 498A history cannot win a cruelty divorce; clean hands and constructive desertion bar relief.
On 28 September 2001, a five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — but read its principal provision as requiring the husband to make reasonable and fair provision for the maintenance of the divorced wife beyond the iddat period, including for her future. The judgment is the foundational doctrinal contribution that preserved the maintenance architecture of Shah Bano through interpretation of the 1986 Act, and supplies the doctrinal frame within which the more recent Mohd Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana operates.
On 10 July 2024, a two-judge bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023) against her husband, and that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 operates in addition to — not in derogation of — that secular maintenance right. The judgment is the most consequential restoration of the Shah Bano line in the post-1986 period.