Family Law August 2026 Roundup

The August 2026 Roundup on Family Law gives an insight into how the family law evolved in the month, through various judgments and rulings. The Courts pronounced judgments on various facets of family and personal law such as Proof of Adultery under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Live-In Relationships, father’s liability to maintain, protection against cruelty IPC to dowry death case and law related to maintenance.

HIGHLIGHT OF THE MONTH

SUPREME COURT | Not Married, But Still Protected: Supreme Court Extends Section 498-A IPC to Live-In Relationships

Supreme Court: In a landmark judgment raising an important question whether Section 498-A, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) extends to a man in a live-in relationship, while harmonising the principles of strict interpretation of penal statutes with purposive construction of socially beneficial legislation, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., held that:

Section 498-A to be applicable to “live-in relationships” that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage” with the intent to marry being established as an intrinsic part thereof.
The protection extends only to relationships between 2 consenting adults
The proposition of law as laid down should be limited to Section 498-A IPC only, and this extended interpretation shall not affect any other provision.
The safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 shall be strictly followed. No live-in partner or relative should be arrested without the mandated preliminary safeguards.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s refusal to quash the criminal proceedings with direction that the criminal proceedings should continue before the trial court, and the observations in the judgment shall not influence adjudication on merits.

[Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1470, decided on 3-8-2026]

MARRIAGE

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | “Marriages are being solemnised without verifying age of persons concerned”: Allahabad HC bars Aliganj Arya Samaj Mandir from solemnising marriages

In a writ petition filed by a young couple seeking protection, the Division Bench of Rajnish Kumar and Babita Rani, JJ., listed the matter while holding that it appeared that marriages were being solemnised in the Arya Samaj Mandir even without verifying the age of the persons concerned. Accordingly, the Court directed that until further orders, the Arya Samaj Mandir concerned shall not solemnise any marriage or issue any marriage certificate.

[Neha v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 24124, decided on 28-7-2026]

PATNA HIGH COURT | Proof of Hindu marriage requires ceremonies; Voter-list entry alone not conclusive: Patna HC

In a miscellaneous appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Family Court, whereby the alleged marriage between the appellant and respondent was held not to have been solemnised in accordance with the Hindu religious rites and rituals, the Division Bench of Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh*, JJ., held that the appellant had failed to prove the factum of her marriage with the respondent in accordance with the Hindu religious rites and rituals. The Court observed that, in the absence of any clinching evidence establishing the existence of a valid matrimonial relationship between the parties, the appellant had not made out a case for interference with the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court.

[X v. Y, 2026 SCC OnLine Pat 8373, decided on 5-8-2026]

MAINTENANCE

SUPREME COURT | Husband Must Prove Wife’s Adultery “Ex-Facie” to Deny Interim Maintenance: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of S. 125(4) CrPC

While deciding a case wherein the Court had to consider the husband’s obligation to pay maintenance on account of wife’s adultery, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., clarified that since the stipulation in Section 125(4), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is that if adultery is proved, then the wife would neither be entitled to interim nor final maintenance; therefore, Court opined that if a husband files an application under Section 125(4) CrPC and is, at the first instance, able to establish the charge of adultery through evidence ex facie, then only, there can be said to be a bar to interim maintenance.

[Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1461, decided on 31-7-2026]

SUPREME COURT | A mother’s daily care for her children counts too: Supreme Court on why her income, by itself, cannot halve father’s liability to maintain

In a significant judgment examining whether the fact that the mother was gainfully employed could, by itself, justify reducing the father’s contribution towards the interim maintenance of their minor daughters, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that “wife earns is not, by itself, a reason to halve the father’s liability” as the obligation to maintain the children is shared by both parents, it “cannot be divided by arithmetic alone”. Accordingly, the Court restored the Family Court’s award of ₹30,000 per month to each daughter, emphasising their needs, the father’s earning capacity, and the mother’s substantial contribution towards their daily care and upbringing.

[Sujata Kumari v. Rahul Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1675, decided on 20-8-2026]

SUPREME COURT | Wife’s waived maintenance claims cannot be revived through subsequent DV proceedings; daughter’s rights remain unaffected: Supreme Court

In an appeal, arising from the Kerala High Court’s dismissal of the appellant-husband’s petition seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), raising a substantial question as to whether monetary and maintenance claims that had been expressly relinquished by the wife under a settlement agreement and reaffirmed before the Family Court could subsequently be revived through proceedings under the DV Act, the Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan*, JJ., set aside the impugned judgment and quashed the DV proceeding, holding that a wife’s waiver of maintenance claims under a matrimonial settlement bars their revival through subsequent DV proceedings. However, the Court clarified that since the daughter, who had attained majority before the settlement was executed, was not a party to the settlement agreement, her independent rights survived.

[Reji Baby v. Subi Mary, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1697, decided on 24-8-2026]

SUPREME COURT | Supreme Court Enhances Maintenance for Wife Undergoing Cancer Treatment and Minor Children; Rejects PF & ESPP Deductions as Permanent Charges

In a case concerning determination of just and adequate maintenance for a wife undergoing cancer treatment and 2 minor children, a Division Bench of Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh* and Sanjay Karol, JJ., reconsidered the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Delhi High Court. The Court held that deductions towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs), unlike mandatory deductions such as income tax and professional tax, ultimately accrued as benefits to the husband and could not be treated as permanent charges. Taking in account the wife’s cancer treatment expenses and her responsibility of caring for the 2 children, the Court enhanced her monthly maintenance to ₹30,000 and the children’s maintenance to ₹75,000 each, totalling ₹1,50,000 per month with effect from 1 January 2025.

[Harpreet Sawhney v. Puneet Sharma, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1526, decided on 10-8-2026]

SUPREME COURT: 92 Videos, 237 Photos to Prove Adultery! Who Took Them? SC Questions the Unregulated World of Private Investigators; Urges Legislature to Frame Laws

While deciding a case revolving around bar on grant of interim maintenance to wife in case her adultery is proved by the husband through evidence ex facie in an application filed under Section 125(4), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol* and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., noted that in this case the husband mainly presented photos to prove his wife’s infidelity and that the manner of the photographs did lead the Court to believe that the same may have been procured through private investigators/detectives.

[Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1461, decided on 31-7-2026]

DIVORCE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Mere expiry of statutory period under S. 13(1A) HMA does not confer an absolute right to divorce where party seeks to take advantage of his own wrong: Delhi HC

In an appeal filed under Section 19, Family Courts Act, 1984, assailing the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, whereby the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband under Sections 13(1-A) and (1)(ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) was dismissed, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ., examined whether the mere expiry of the statutory period following a decree for restitution of conjugal rights entitles a spouse to a decree of divorce. The Court held that Section 13(1-A) HMA does not confer an absolute or vested right to divorce merely upon proof of non-resumption of cohabitation; the relief remains subject to Section 23(1)(a) HMA, which bars a petitioner from taking advantage of his or her own wrong. Finding that the appellant-husband had himself failed to make bona fide efforts towards reconciliation, had frustrated the respondent-wife’s attempts to enforce the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and had simultaneously disputed the validity of the marriage while seeking its dissolution, the Court held that he was disentitled to relief. The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Family Court’s decision.

[X v. Y, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6229, decided on 18-8-2026]

DOWRY

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | After 47 years, doubt prevails over conviction: Allahabad HC acquits husband in 1979 dowry death case

In a criminal appeal arising out of the conviction of a husband for the alleged dowry death of his wife, the Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan and Jai Krishna Upadhyay, JJ., allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the unexplained delay of more than 4 years in lodging the FIR, contradictory medical evidence regarding the cause of death, and the incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence created serious doubt, entitling the appellant to the benefit of doubt. The Court observed that “where the core question whether the death was homicidal, accidental or suicidal remains shrouded in doubt, the prosecution’s case necessarily fails. The conviction of the accused cannot be based on mere presumption of homicide”.

[Triveni v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 23563, decided on 30-7-2026]

SUPREME COURT | Frame charges in 60-90 days, no unnecessary adjournments: SC gives directions for effective Speedy Trials in Dowry & Cruelty cases

In a significant ruling, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ., while taking note of affidavits and data filed by several High Courts, States and Union Territories in pursuance of orders passed by the Court in State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2801, passed another set of important directions addressing the systemic delay and ineffective implementation attending prosecutions under Sections 304-B, Section 498-A, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DPA). The directions ranged from determining timelines for progression of trial, classification, monitoring of dowry related cases to raising awareness and consolidating institutional mechanisms.

In the aforesaid order dated 15 December 2025, the Court took note of the rampant prevailing menace of dowry, ineffectiveness of the relevant laws and the misuse of Section 498-A, IPC and DPA and stated that, “This oscillation between ineffectiveness and misuse creates a judicial tension which needs urgent resolution”. Therefore, in order to bring about a concentrated effort to eradicate the evil of dowry on part of all the involved parties i.e., legislature, law enforcement, judiciary, civil society organizations etc., the Court deemed it appropriate to issue directions to ensure concentrated efforts to eradicate dowry

[State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajmal Beg, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1711, order dated 20-8-2026]

CUSTODY

SUPREME COURT | “Astonished”: SC faults Family Court acting “in the teeth of” High Court’s express visitation order; calls for judicial caution in future

In a custody and visitation dispute concerning the minor daughter of the parties, while also taking serious exception to the manner in which the Family Court dealt with the mother’s application seeking restoration of custody, the Division Bench of K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli, JJ., was “astonished” that, despite the High Court having expressly taken note of the mother’s relocation to Pune while modifying the visitation arrangement, the Family Court acted “in the teeth of the express directions of the High Court” and proceeded on findings that disregarded that position. Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order and directed the father to comply with the High Court’s directions. The Court stated that the judicial officer was expected “to be more cautious in future”.

[Sandeep R. v. Manpreeth R., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1733, decided on 25-8-2026]

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply