Wife (IPS Officer) & her Family to publish Public Apology for Filing Frivolous Cases

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.

Proof of Entrustment of Ornaments in Petition for Recovery of Gold

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.

Entrustment of Gold by Wife to Husband in Matrimonial Cases

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.

Maintenance Not to be Granted Without Considering Affidavit on Assets & Liabilities

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.

Wife can Claim Maintenance Despite having Compromise Agreement

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.