The Supreme Court has reiterated that the mere unnatural death of a wife in her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to convict the husband for dowry death under Section 304B of the IPC. The prosecution must prove essential ingredients, including:
Unnatural Death: The wife must have died under unnatural circumstances, such as suicide or homicide.
Within 7 Years of Marriage: The incident must have occurred within seven years of the marriage.
Cruelty or Harassment: The woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
Demand for Dowry: The cruelty or harassment must be linked to demands for dowry and should have occurred soon before her death.
The Court emphasized that suspicion or assumption cannot replace substantial evidence. A clear nexus between harassment for dowry and the death of the wife is mandatory for conviction.
The Supreme Court of India has held that an irretrievably broken down marriage can be dissolved on the ground of cruelty. Even if one of the spouses does not consent to divorce, the court can grant it if the relationship has become unworkable, emotionally dead, and beyond repair.
Mental & Physical Cruelty – Continuous mental harassment, false allegations, and lack of cohabitation for a long period can amount to cruelty.
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – If a marriage is beyond reconciliation, forcing the parties to stay together serves no purpose.
Article 142 of the Constitution – The Supreme Court can invoke this provision to grant divorce in exceptional cases.
Precedents – The court has repeatedly observed that long-pending matrimonial disputes, lack of conjugal relations, and constant litigation indicate an irretrievable breakdown.
The Orissa High Court recently reaffirmed that disputes concerning marital status fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. This means that matters like divorce, annulment, judicial separation, or declaration of marital status must be decided by Family Courts and not civil or other courts.
The Orissa High Court recently emphasized that filing an affidavit disclosing assets and liabilities is mandatory in maintenance proceedings. The court expressed concern over the failure of family courts to comply with the Supreme Court’s guidelines on this matter.
The Supreme Court, in cases like Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), had made it clear that both parties must disclose their financial status through affidavits in maintenance cases to ensure fairness and prevent concealment of income. The Orissa High Court’s observations highlight the importance of adhering to these directives to ensure justice in family disputes.
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that a "quarrel" involves both parties and cannot, by itself, be a reason to grant a divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The court emphasized that cruelty must be determined based on specific circumstances where one spouse's conduct causes harm, suffering, or a serious negative impact on the other spouse. Mere disagreements or arguments, which are common in any marriage, do not amount to cruelty unless they reach an extreme level that makes cohabitation impossible.
The ruling aligns with the provisions of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which mandates that both parties must maintain their consent until the final decree is passed. If one party withdraws consent before the decree, the court cannot proceed with granting a divorce based on the earlier agreement.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled in 2024 that a Family Court can take any material as evidence, even if it does not strictly fulfill the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. This decision aligns with the broader principle that family courts are meant to ensure justice in a less rigid, more flexible manner, prioritizing the welfare of the parties—especially in matrimonial disputes.
Relaxed Evidence Rules: Family courts operate under the Family Courts Act, 1984, which allows them to accept evidence that may not strictly comply with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Objective: The main aim is to ensure fairness and justice rather than strict adherence to procedural technicalities.
Wider Discretion: The ruling reinforces that family courts have the discretion to consider documents, recordings, and other materials even if they might be inadmissible in a regular civil or criminal court.
This judgment is significant for family law practitioners and litigants, as it broadens the scope of admissible evidence in cases related to divorce, child custody, maintenance, and domestic disputes.
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that domestic violence cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) can be transferred from a Magistrate's Court to a Family Court.
Transfer Justification:
The court observed that Family Courts have jurisdiction over matrimonial matters, including domestic violence cases involving spouses.
It emphasized that consolidating cases in Family Courts can lead to better adjudication and efficiency.
Legal Basis:
Section 26 of the PWDV Act, 2005 allows domestic violence proceedings to be initiated in civil, family, or criminal courts.
The judgment aligns with the Family Courts Act, 1984, which mandates Family Courts to handle disputes related to marriage and family issues.
Impact of the Ruling:
Victims can approach the Family Court instead of a Magistrate for reliefs like protection orders, residence rights, maintenance, and child custody.
Reduces multiple legal proceedings in different courts, ensuring speedier justice.
The Allahabad High Court in 2024 ruled that a Family Court cannot decline jurisdiction on its own unless:
An objection is raised by the opposite party, challenging the jurisdiction.
A superior court passes a transfer order, directing the case to another competent court.
This means that unless one of these conditions is met, the Family Court is required to hear and decide the matter. The ruling reinforces the principle that a Family Court cannot suo motu (on its own motion) reject a case on jurisdictional grounds.
The Allahabad High Court (2024) has directed judicial officers to mandatorily pass an order requiring parties to file a ‘Disclosure of Assets & Liabilities’ affidavit in maintenance proceedings.
Mandatory Compliance: Courts must ensure that both the applicant (seeking maintenance) and the respondent (liable to pay) submit detailed affidavits disclosing their financial status.
Transparency & Fairness: The affidavit will provide clarity on the actual financial condition of both parties, helping courts determine a just and reasonable maintenance amount.
Based on Supreme Court Guidelines: The directive aligns with the 2020 Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, which laid down guidelines for financial disclosure in maintenance cases.
Avoiding Misrepresentation: The court emphasized that hiding or misrepresenting financial details affects the rightful claim of the dependent spouse and children.
11. Gauhati High Court (2024) set aside a Family Court's interim maintenance order because it was passed without affidavits disclosing the parties' assets and liabilities.
The Gauhati High Court (2024) set aside a Family Court's interim maintenance order because it was passed without affidavits disclosing the parties' assets and liabilities.
Affidavit Filing is Mandatory: The court reiterated that both parties must file a ‘Disclosure of Assets & Liabilities’ affidavit before any maintenance order is passed.
Reliance on Supreme Court Guidelines: Referring to the Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) judgment, the High Court emphasized that financial transparency is crucial in maintenance cases.
Invalid Interim Order: Since the Family Court granted interim maintenance without verifying the financial status of both parties, the order was deemed improper and set aside.
Fairness in Maintenance Proceedings: The court stressed that maintenance orders should be based on real financial capacity, ensuring neither undue hardship nor unjust enrichment.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court (2024) ruled that an interim maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not an interlocutory order and is therefore appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Interim Maintenance Order is Not Interlocutory:
The court clarified that an order granting or refusing interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 has substantial consequences affecting the rights of parties.
Hence, it cannot be considered a mere interlocutory order (which is generally non-appealable).
Appeal Can Be Filed Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984:
Since the order decides an important issue (maintenance) and affects the rights of a party, it qualifies as an appealable order under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act.
The Family Courts Act allows appeals against final orders and orders not purely interlocutory in nature.
Distinguishing from Purely Procedural Orders:
Pure interlocutory orders are those that do not decide any rights and are procedural (e.g., adjournments, evidence admission, etc.).
However, interim maintenance directly affects financial obligations, making it appealable.
✅ Parties dissatisfied with an interim maintenance order can now challenge it in appeal, ensuring greater judicial scrutiny.
✅ Prevents arbitrary maintenance orders, allowing higher courts to correct errors.
✅ Ensures financial justice, especially in cases where maintenance is unfairly granted or denied.