Family Courts Act, 1984

A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench allowed a husband's appeal against the Family Court's refusal of divorce and dissolved the marriage (paras 1, 20). It held that the wife's bigamy complaint against him, a police constable, closed by an accepted negative final report, and her Section 498A case ending in his acquittal amounted to cruelty, as did more than 15 years of separation; it also found that she had deserted him without justified reason (paras 14-17).

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai held that a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under the Special Marriage Act can be presented in the court within whose limits the husband resides, since the wife may choose that forum and territorial objections can be waived (paras 6-7). It set aside the Thanjavur Family Court's dismissal for want of jurisdiction and itself dissolved the marriage (para 9).

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court upheld a divorce granted to a husband on the ground of cruelty, holding that a wife's frequent stays at her maternal home without valid reason, and her pressure on her husband, an only son, to set up a separate residence away from his parents, amounted to cruelty (paras 9-10). It dismissed her appeal against the Cuddalore Family Court's decree of 08.07.2026 (para 11).

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a Muslim wife's appeal and declared her marriage dissolved after a Family Court had refused a decree, although both spouses agreed that the husband had pronounced talaq in three successive tuhrs and that they had signed a mubarat agreement for divorce by mutual consent (paras 2, 14, 26-27). The Family Court's insistence on two witnesses rested on precedents decided under Shia law, which did not govern the parties (para 12). The High Court also issued guidelines for Family Courts in Rajasthan (para 28).

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur held that a husband's ex parte divorce decree from a Gujarat court bars the wife's fresh divorce petition by res judicata, but not her claims for permanent alimony under Section 25 and stridhan under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It partly allowed her appeal and remitted those claims to the Udaipur Family Court (paras 11.2, 14-15.1).

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur held that a woman claiming a post reserved for divorcees must hold a divorce decree from a competent court on the cut-off date. A customary divorce, even in Scheduled Tribe/Tribal Sub Plan communities, cannot replace the decree, because a custom cannot supersede the terms of a recruitment process (paras 14-15). The appeals of the Public Service Commission and the State were allowed and the Single Bench judgments set aside (para 17).

The Rajasthan High Court held that an order granting interim maintenance in a pending application under Section 125 CrPC is an interlocutory order, so a criminal revision against it is barred by Section 397(2) CrPC and, where a Family Court passed it, by Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. Bound by its Division Bench ruling in Anu v. Ratan Lal Sharma, it dismissed cross revisions by a husband and by his wife and daughter as not maintainable (paras 21-24).

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowed a husband's appeal against a Family Court order that refused to waive the six-month waiting period in a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent and kept the case for 28.02.2022. Following Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, it held Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act directory, waived the period and directed the Family Court to pass the divorce decree (paras 11-14).