Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number 8595722509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Allahabad High Court: In a petition challenging the order passed by the Family Court, wherein the Court rejected the petitioner’s application for a waiver from submitting the marriage registration certificate, a Single Judge Bench of Manish Kumar Nigam, J., held that a Hindu marriage does not become invalid merely because it is not registered. Therefore, the Family Court cannot insist on the production of a marriage registration certificate in a mutual divorce petition. The Court clarified that the petition for divorce had been filed under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act, 1955’), seeking divorce by mutual consent. There was no dispute between the parties regarding the fact of the marriage, as both parties had admitted...

X v. Y., R/ First Appeal No. 1709 of 2025, decided on 23-7-2025 Gujarat High Court: In an appeal against the Family Court order dated 19-4-2025, wherein the appellants’ plea for declaration of dissolution of marriage by ‘Mubaraat’ was dismissed, the Division Bench of A.Y. Kogje* and N.S. Sanjay Gowda, JJ, held that an agreement of ‘Mubaraat’ was not required to be in a written format to be considered a valid procedure for divorce by mutual consent.Thus, the Court remanded the case back to Family Court, holding that the Family Court had jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (the Act) to adjudge the suit. Background Appellant 1 and 2 were married with 3 children born out of wedlock. Due to constant conflicts, the appellants could not sustain their married life together and had therefore, decided to mutually dissolve their marriage. They had approached the Family Court for declaration of dissolution of marriage by ‘Mubaraat’ under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Ap...

SLP (Crl.) No. 4862 OF 2025 ANIL KUMAR APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. RESPONDENTS The Supreme Court recently set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision to impose a pre-arrest bail condition that the accused shall resume conjugal rights with his wife and maintain her with dignity and honour as his lawful wife. The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih called out the imposition of such a condition not traceable to Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. “The spouses seemingly, at one point of time, had drifted apart and resided separately for some time. Imposing a condition that the appellant would maintain the respondent no.2 with dignity and honour is beset with risk in that it can generate further litigation.”, the court said. In such state of affairs, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should have considered the prayer of the appellant for pre-arrest bail entirely on its own merit instead of imposing a condition which is not tr...

In a matrimonial appeal arising under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Telangana High Court has declined to dissolve a marriage on the ground of the husband’s alleged impotency, holding that the wife had failed to substantiate her claim through credible medical evidence. The appellant, a 38-year-old software engineer, had approached the High Court challenging the dismissal of her divorce petition by the Family Court. She alleged that her 33-year-old husband, a government employee, was sexually impotent and had concealed his condition prior to their marriage in 2013. The petition sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of non-consummation due to alleged erectile dysfunction and cruelty, alongside a claim for permanent alimony amounting to ₹90 lakh. The appellant contended that the marriage remained unconsummated despite the couple living together in the United States for a prolonged period. She relied on her personal statements and referred to unspecified medical issues and failed su...