Family, Marriage & Divorce

A court cannot legally compel an indigent person (a person lacking means) to pay maintenance, as the legal obligation to pay is predicated upon the ability to pay. This was the core observation of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Jubairiya vs. Saidalavi N [2025: KER: 68937].

In a case Akza Rajan v. Rajan M.S [2023/KER/23485], the High Court of Kerala made a significant ruling about a father's duty to pay for his daughters' wedding expenses. The court ruled that unmarried daughters, aged 21 and 26, have a legal right to receive a reasonable amount for their marriages from their father, not just a moral one. This right, the court declared, applies to all fathers regardless of their religion. 

An individual involved in a Family Court matter may authorise another person to act as their agent through a Power of Attorney (POA). This instrument empowers the designated agent, or 'holder', to represent the principal's interests and perform specified acts. The legal framework governing this representation is robust, though subject to certain judicial safeguards and inherent limitations, particularly within the sensitive context of family law.

The High Court of Kerala, in Gangadharan v. Sreedevi Amma [2024(3) KHC 624], held that a court can order a DNA test only when there is a strong prima facie case (a case that seems valid at first glance), not merely a basic one. This requirement is a sine qua non, or an essential condition.

The Supreme Court (SC), in Shivangi Bansal v Sahib Bansal [2025 INSC 883] directed  the wife ( IPS Officer) and her family to issue a public apology for filing multiple frivolous cases for harassing her former husband and his family. After their separation in 2018, she filed 15 cases and he filed 10 cases before various Courts/ Authorities.

A newlywed wife cannot be expected to demand receipts or arrange for independent witnesses when entrusting her jewelry to her husband or in-laws at their request. The High Court of Kerala, in Prasad v. Greeshma [2025: KER:49786], held that consequently, her inability to produce documentary evidence or independent witnesses to prove such entrustment is not fatal to a Petition for the Recovery of Ornaments.

The guardianship of a minor person or its custody, Comes under Family Court. It has the jurisdiction to deal with such cases, under explanation to Section 7(1) (g) of the Family Courts Act.

A secretly recorded telephonic conversation of the spouse is admissible as evidence in matrimonial proceedings, says the Supreme Court (SC), in Vibhor Garg v Neha [2025 INSC 829], while setting aside the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court..

Even if a mother agrees to get done the DNA profiling test of her child to ascertain its paternity, the courts must still act as the 'custodian' of the rights of the child and consider the pros and cons of the said test before calling upon the minor to undergo the test, says the Bombay High Court in SKP v KSP [2025: BHC-NAG:6350].

Just because a wife is earning does not mean that she can be deprived of the support from her husband with the same standard of living to which she was accustomed to after her marriage, says the Bombay High Court, in KPS v PSS [2025:BHC-AS:25107].

In matrimonial cases concerning the recovery of gold ornaments, the burden of initial proof lies with the wife to establish the entrustment of those assets to her husband. The initial onus of proof is on the wife to substantiate that the amount and the gold ornaments were misappropriated by the husband and his family, and that money was entrusted to them in trust at the time of marriage.

In cases concerning the gold and cash given to a woman during her marriage, the courts should apply the principle of preponderance of probabilities as documentary proof of entrustment is not often available for the transaction.