Sahayata & Sahayata

Introduction In a progressive and people-centric judgment, the  Delhi High Court has clarified that completion of one year of separation is not mandatory for filing a divorce by mutual consent under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . This ruling marks a significant shift in matrimonial jurisprudence, emphasizing  individual autonomy, dignity, and practical justice over rigid statutory timelines . Court:  Delhi High Court (Full Bench) Case:   x v.  y 2025 DHC: 11467 FB Decision Date:  17 December 2025 Background of the Case The issue arose due to conflicting judicial views on whether parties must mandatorily complete  one year of separation  before filing the  first motion  for divorce by mutual consent under  Section 13B(1)  of the Hindu Marriage Act. An earlier Delhi High Court judgment ( Sankalp Singh v. Prarthana Chandra ) allowed early filing but insisted that the divorce decree could only take effect after completion of one ye...

  Case Summary Citation: 2025 INSC 1395 Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Augustine George Masih Date: 08 December 2025 📝 Background of the Case Two appellants (A-1: Dadu @ Ankush; A-2: Ankit) were convicted by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC for assault and outraging modesty of a Class XI girl. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction. The appellants approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition. ⚖️ Key Allegations by the Prosecutrix She was home alone at night when A-1 and A-2 came. A-2 allegedly pulled her dupatta and scratched her neck. When her brother (PW-2) arrived, both accused allegedly beat him. Allegation that A-2 knew she was a Scheduled Caste girl and acted with caste-based intention. 👩‍⚖️ Supreme Court’s Analysis The Supreme Court carefully analysed the written complaint, oral testimony, medical evi...

  The Delhi High Court in Shri X v. Smt. Y & Anr. Crl Rev P. 312/2023 (2025 DHC10936) has clarified a crucial legal position: a major unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance from her father under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) , even if the petition was originally filed under Section 125 CrPC . This judgment is significant for family law practitioners, matrimonial lawyers, and litigants seeking clarity on the rights of daughters under Indian law. Why This Judgment Matters This ruling strengthens the maintenance rights of daughters in India , especially in situations where: A daughter is studying and dependent on her parents The father disputes maintainability under Section 125 CrPC A combined application is filed before the Family Court There is a risk of multiple legal proceedings The High Court clarified that Family Courts can exercise jurisdiction under both CrPC and HAMA simultaneous...