A Delhi court upheld an order for a man to pay interim maintenance to his estranged wife and daughter, rejecting his plea that he was unemployed. The judges said a woman’s education cannot be used to deny support and stressed that able-bodied men cannot evade responsibility. Interim maintenance, the court noted, protects dependents’ dignity while legal proceedings continue.
The Supreme Court has referred the Sunjay Kapur family estate dispute to mediation. Former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud will oversee talks between Rani Kapur, Priya Kapur, and Sunjay Kapur’s children. The estate is valued at nearly Rs 30,000 crore, and a disputed will is at the centre of the conflict, with allegations it leaves the entire property to Priya Kapur.
Your news, in seconds
Get the Beige app — every story in 60 words, updated hourly. Free on iOS & Android.
The Karnataka High Court refused a wife’s request for higher maintenance despite her seeking an increase due to the husband’s one-acre land and possible inheritance from ancestral property. The court considered that the wife earned about Rs 1.5 lakh per month and that the husband’s available assets were limited, with the land mortgaged. It upheld the existing maintenance order.
The Delhi High Court has directed Priya Kapur, the proponent of late Sunjay Kapur’s Will, to address “legitimate suspicions” raised by his children. While the dispute continues, the court imposed protective safeguards on the family estate, including restrictions on alienating assets, to prevent any irreversible transfers until doubts are resolved.
The Supreme Court has urged Rani Kapur, 80, to pursue mediation to resolve her multi-crore estate dispute with daughter-in-law Priya Kapur. The court said continued litigation would be long and asked the parties to settle peacefully, citing Rani’s age and the benefits of an amicable process.
An Allahabad High Court case turned on deception and betrayal: a husband secured Rs 25.6 lakh in personal loans using his wife’s name, splurged it, then fled with her car and jewellery. When he later sought maintenance from her, the court imposed Rs 15 lakh in costs, citing false affidavits and abuse of his wife.
Never miss a story
Set alerts for the topics and sources you care about. Download Beige for free.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a husband’s appeal against interim maintenance, ruling that financial hardship cannot be used to dodge the legal duty to support a wife. The court also observed that if a person cannot maintain a family, they should reconsider marriage altogether, reinforcing maintenance rights during matrimonial disputes.
The Allahabad High Court upheld a maintenance order, ruling that financial hardship cannot be used to dodge a husband’s legal duty to support his wife and children. The court noted that when the wife lacks independent income and carries childcare responsibilities, the responsibility to provide remains non-negotiable.
The Bombay High Court said interim maintenance should be based on the wife’s financial necessity, specifically whether she has sufficient independent income to sustain herself. In directing the husband to deposit Rs 3 lakh, Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke clarified that the wife’s family’s financial background is irrelevant to the maintenance question, focusing instead on her own earning capacity and need.
The Supreme Court held that a husband cannot be ordered to pay child maintenance when conclusive DNA testing proves he is not the biological father, even if the child was born during the marriage. Rejecting a wife’s appeal, the court upheld lower courts that denied maintenance after non-paternity was established.
Reading on mobile?
Open Beige in the app for a smoother experience — free on iOS and Android.
Swipe through stories, personalise your feed, and save articles for later — all on the app.