Family, Marriage & Divorce

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.

The Supreme Court (SC), in Aditi Alias Mithi v Jitesh Sharma [2023 INSC 981 ] directs the courts in India to follow the detailed guidelines issued by it in Rajnesh v Neha &  Another [(2021) 2 SCC 32], including filing of the uniform format of Affidavit for Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, in maintenance proceedings.

The Kerala High Court in xxx v yyy 2nd February 2023 says a wife is eligible for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC even if there is an agreement by which a wife waives her right of maintenance. This is because such an agreement is against public policy. Therefore, such an agreement is ab initio void and not enforceable.

The Kerala High Court says, in Jayaprakash E P v Sheney P & Connected Case [2025:KER:5702], that even if the wife holds a temporary job and earns some income, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband, provided she claims that her income is insufficient for her maintenance.