Matrimonial and Maintenance Cases

In Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma & Ors [2026 INSC 54], the Supreme Court examined whether a daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law is considered a "dependant" under Section 21(vii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and is thus entitled to maintenance from his estate under Section 22.

In Indian jurisprudence, an extra-marital relationship or adultery by a mother does not automatically disqualify her from child custody. The courts consistently maintain that a "bad wife" is not necessarily a "bad mother." Adultery does not equate to parental incompetence; an affair cannot be the sole grounds for denying custody unless it is proven that the conduct directly results in the neglect or abandonment of the child.

The Supreme Court, in Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and Anr [2025 INSC 55], clarified that proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC are essentially civil in nature.

When a person fails to comply with a maintenance decree, Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides the Magistrate with specific powers to enforce the payment. These powers include the attachment of property and, as a last resort, the imprisonment of the defaulter.

In Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar [2026 INSC 73], the Supreme Court observed a disturbing trend where parties in matrimonial disputes increasingly use fabricated and AI-generated evidence.

In the case of Safia v State of Kerala [2025: KER:91029], the Kerala High Court clarified that maintenance can be granted starting from the date the application was filed,  under Section 125(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

In Ratheesh Chandran v. Rema Devi S [2025:KER:91285], the Kerala High Court declared that a highly qualified wife, who is not employed, cannot be denied maintenance on the ground that she has the capacity to earn based on her qualifications.

In Rajeeavan v. Rantin [2025: KER: 86193], the High Court of Kerala observed that the wife’s temporary job even if provides some income would not discentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband if she asserts that he said income is insufficient for her maintenance.