LANDMARKS JUDGEMENTS ON HINDU LAWS

CONDITIONS OF MARRIAGE VOID & VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

CASE LAW

HELD

1.       Yamunabai v. Anantrao, AIR 1988 SC 644

The Supreme Court of India ruled that a second marriage contracted under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when the first marriage is still valid, is void ab initio. Consequently, the woman in the second, void marriage does not hold the legal status of a "wife" under the Act and is therefore not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.

2.       Priya Bala v. Suresh Chandra, AIR 1971 SC 1153

The Supreme Court ruled that for a bigamy conviction under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must present concrete, affirmative evidence demonstrating that the second marriage was solemnized by performing the necessary essential ceremonies. A mere admission or acknowledgment by the accused of having contracted a second marriage is insufficient to prove the offense.

3.       Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1531

The Supreme Court held that a Hindu man cannot contract a second marriage after converting to Islam if his first marriage, performed under the Hindu Marriage Act, has not been dissolved by a court. Conversion to another religion does not automatically dissolve a valid marriage under Indian law. A subsequent marriage without a valid divorce is considered bigamous and is punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

4.       Bhaurao v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1564

The Supreme Court ruled that for a marriage to be considered solemnised, it must be performed with proper ceremonies and in due form, as defined by the specific customs and requirements of a Hindu marriage.

5.       Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, AIR 2006 SC 1158

The Supreme Court of India mandated the compulsory registration of marriages for all Indian citizens, irrespective of religion, in the state or union territory where the marriage is solemnized.

6.       Rathnamma v. Sujathamma, AIR 2020 SC 541

The Supreme Court held that there is no evidence of performance of necessary marriage ceremonies in terms of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 therefore, mere registration of an agreement of marriage is not sufficient to prove marriage.

7.       Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1364

Proper solemnization of marriage, celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form, is crucial for constituting bigamy.

8.       Lata Singh v. State of UP., (2006) 5 SCC 475

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not prohibit inter-caste marriages and that adults have the right to marry anyone of their choice without any interference.

RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS, JUDICIAL SEPARATION & DIVORCE

9.       Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar, AIR 1984 SC 1562

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for the restoration of conjugal rights, affirming that it did not violate Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution.

10.   Russel v. Russel (1897) AC 395

In this case, the term 'cruelty' was defined for the first time. The court ruled that cruelty encompasses conduct that poses a danger to life, limb, or health—both physical and mental—or gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of such behaviour.

11.   Dastane v, Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner bears the burden of proving cruelty by a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Cruelty constitutes conduct that creates a reasonable apprehension of harm or injury, making it intolerable for one spouse to live with the other.

12.   Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, AIR 2002 SC 591

The Supreme Court upheld the legal principle that a party cannot take advantage of their own wrong to obtain a divorce on the grounds of desertion.

13.   Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746

The Supreme Court established that the six-month "cooling-off" period under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory but directory. A court may exercise its discretion to waive this waiting period in exceptional cases where reconciliation is impossible and the parties' settlement is genuine

14.   Digvijay Singh v. Pratap Kumari, AIR 1970 SC 137

The Supreme Court defined legal impotency as a physical or mental condition that makes the consummation of marriage a "practical impossibility".

15.   R. Lakshmi Narayan v. Santhi, AIR 2001 SC 2110

The Supreme Court ruled that to annul a marriage based on a spouse's mental disorder, the petitioner must prove that the ailment is of such a degree that it renders the individual unfit for normal married life. The court established a strict, heavy burden of proof for the party seeking the annulment.

16.   Bipin Chandra v. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176

The Supreme Court clarified that desertion requires both the fact of separation and the intention to abandon the marital relationship (animus deserendi) for the statutory period of two years without reasonable cause.

17.   Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, AIR 2010 SC 1099

The Supreme Court held that it possesses the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even if statutory requirements, such as the mandatory six-month waiting period for divorce by mutual consent, are not met, as long as the Court is satisfied that all efforts to reconcile the parties have failed and the marriage is beyond repair. 

18.   Manisha Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar, AIR 2010 SC 1042

The Supreme Court significantly broadened the definition of "cruelty" as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It established that cruelty is not limited to physically dangerous acts but also includes mental agony and distress caused by the behavior of a spouse.

19.   Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar, (2011) 5 SCC 234

The Supreme Court ruled that a court is bound to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent if both parties file the second motion within the statutory six to eighteen month period, both motions are made after inquiry to satisfy the court of the petition's truth and the parties' consent, and the petition is not withdrawn by either party before the decree is passed.

MAINTENANCE

20.   Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903

The Supreme Court introduced uniform guidelines for spouse and child maintenance in India to address conflicting orders, procedural delays, and enforcement issues arising from multiple overlapping maintenance laws. The Court emphasized a standardized approach, mandating the use of Affidavit of Disclosure for transparency in financial matters and ensuring maintenance is awarded from the date of the application.

21.   Abhilasha v. Prakash. (2020) SCC OnLine SC 736

By virtue of Section 125(1)(c) CRPC, an unmarried daughter even though she has attained majority is entitled for maintenance, where such unmarried daughter is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury is unable to maintain itself.

22.   Manish Jain v. Akansha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801

The Supreme Court held that the judicial discretion to award interim maintenance must be exercised judiciously, without getting swayed by the merits of conflicting arguments. A court must consider the income of both spouses when determining a reasonable amount for maintenance pendente lite.

ADOPTION

23.   Basavarajappa v. Gurubasamma, (2005) 12 SCC 290

The Supreme Court determined that upon adoption, the adoptee is integrated into the adopting family with the same rights as a natural-born son. The adopted child becomes a coparcener in the Joint Hindu Family property after severing all ties with the natural family.

24.   Gurudas v. Rasarajan, (2006) 8 SCC 267

The performance of Datta Homam is not a prerequisite for the validity of adoption according to Section 11(vi)(proviso). Even if Datta Homam is conducted, the adoption is considered to have occurred at the time of actual giving and receiving, rather than at the time of the religious ceremony.

GUARDIANSHIP

25.   Gita Hariharan v. RBI, (1999) 2 SCC 228

The Supreme Court held that the term "after" in Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act does not necessarily mean after the father's death but signifies "in the absence of" the father. This means a mother can be a natural guardian if the father is absent, indifferent, or incapacitated, ensuring the child's best interests and promoting gender equality within Indian personal laws. 

26.   Mohini v. Veerendra Kumar, (1977) 3 SCC 513

The Supreme Court established the "welfare of the minor" as the paramount and decisive consideration in child custody matters, overriding the personal rights of the parents. The decision clarified that a parent's claim to custody is not absolute but is secondary to ensuring the child's well-being.

27.   Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42

The Supreme Court established that the welfare and best interest of the child is the "paramount consideration" when determining custody arrangements, superseding the rights of the parents. The court affirmed that the statutory right of a parent to be a natural guardian cannot override what is best for the child.

JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY & COPARCENARY

28.   Radhamma and others v. Muddu Krishna and others, (2019) 3 SCC 611

The Supreme Court held that under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a Hindu male's undivided interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property can be disposed of by a Will or other testamentary disposition.

29.   Dodamuniyappa through LRs v. Muniswamy and others, 2019 (4) ALT 294

The Supreme Court ruled that property inherited from a father by his sons becomes joint family property in the hands of those sons, reinforcing the concept of coparcenary property under Hindu law and ensuring that all coparceners are protected from unilateral agreements concerning the property.

30.   Rukhmabai v. Laxminarayan, AIR 1960 SC 335

The Supreme Court established that the typical state of every Hindu family is that of a joint family, presumed to be joint in food, worship, and estate, and it continues as such.

31.   Sitabai v. Ram Chandra, AIR 1970 SC 343

The Supreme Court held that a Hindu joint family does not dissolve simply because there is a temporary reduction to a sole surviving coparcener. The property remains joint family property as long as there's a possibility of a male member being added through adoption or birth, maintaining the character of the property.

32.   Krishna Prasad v. C.I.T. Bangalore, AIR 1975 SC 498

The court ruled that for the purposes of income tax assessment, a single unmarried individual cannot constitute a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The core legal question was whether an unmarried male Hindu, who received a share of property after a partition, could be assessed as an HUF, even though he had no other family members.

33.   Makhan Singh v. Kulwant Singh, AIR 2007 SC 1808

The Supreme Court of India clarified that while a Hindu family is presumed to be joint, there is no automatic legal presumption that all property held by a member of that family is joint family property. The burden of proving that a specific property is a joint family asset lies with the party making that claim.

34.   Arunachalam v. Murugantha, AIR 1953 SC 495

The Supreme Court held that under Mitakshara law, a father possesses absolute authority over his self-acquired property and can gift or sell it to a third party or one son without the consent of other sons.

35.   Rani v. Shanta, AIR 1971 SC 1028

The Supreme Court ruled that "legal necessity" for alienating Hindu joint family property does not require actual, absolute compulsion. The court explained that the determining factor is the "pressure upon the estate which in law may be regarded as serious and sufficient," a situation a prudent manager would address.

36.   Balmukund v. Kamlavati, AIR 1964 SC 1385

The Supreme Court of India affirmed that a Karta (manager) of a Hindu joint family can only alienate joint family property for a compelling legal necessity or to confer a clear, proximate benefit upon the family.

37.   Vineeta Shanna v. Rakesh Shanna, (2020) 9 SCC 1

The Supreme Court of India settled the ambiguity surrounding the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The court affirmed that daughters have equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property by birth, regardless of whether their father was alive when the 2005 amendment came into effect.  

38.   Bhagwat Sharan v. Purushottam, (2020) 6 SCC 387

The burden lies on the person alleging that property is a joint property of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) to prove its status as such.

39.   Vineeta Shanna v. Rakesh Shanna, (2020) 9 SCC1

The Supreme Court in this landmark case reaffirmed the distinction between "unobstructed heritage" and "obstructed heritage" to clarify the inheritance rights of daughters under the Hindu Succession Act.

40.   Arshnoor Singh v. HarpaJKaur, (2020) 14 SCC 436.

The Karta (manager) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) can alienate (sell or transfer) coparcenary property only under specific, limited circumstances. These include situations of legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. A Karta does not have an absolute, unrestricted power to sell joint family property.