Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 9

Supreme Court Grants Divorce but Orders One-Time Alimony: Sau. Jiya vs. Kuldeep (2025) INSC 135

/ Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 125, Family Courts Act, 1984, Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13, Judges, Prasanna B. Varale, Vikram Nath

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of permanent alimony in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Dispute/Divorce Case Name: Sau. Jiya vs. Kuldeep [Judgment Date]: January 31, 2025 Date of the Judgment: January 31, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 135 Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale Can a marriage be dissolved even if […]

Supreme Court Grants Divorce but Orders One-Time Alimony: Sau. Jiya vs. Kuldeep (2025) INSC 135 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Use of Mediator and Counselor Reports in Child Custody Cases: Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra (2019)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 75, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 81, Family Courts Act, 1984, Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 12, Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 6, Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 9, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Use of Mediator and Counselor Reports in Child Custody Cases: Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of mediator and counselor reports in child custody cases. CASE TYPE: Family Law, Child Custody Case Name: Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra Judgment Date: 15 February 2019 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Clarifies Use of Mediator and Counselor Reports in Child Custody Cases: Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overrules Restrictions on Videoconferencing in Matrimonial Disputes: Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh (2017) INSC 847 (9 October 2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 25, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Family Courts Act, 1984, Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 11, Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 22, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 23(2), Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether videoconferencing can be used in matrimonial disputes under the Family Courts Act, 1984. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Law. Case Name: Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh. Judgment Date: 9 October 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 9 October 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 847 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J. (Majority Opinion), Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,

Supreme Court Overrules Restrictions on Videoconferencing in Matrimonial Disputes: Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh (2017) INSC 847 (9 October 2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top