Introduction

Indian society has witnessed significant changes in the way personal relationships and family structures are formed. Alongside traditional marriages, live-in relationships have increasingly become a subject of legal consideration.

This evolution, however, raises difficult questions when a relationship breaks down and allegations of cruelty, harassment or dowry-related conduct arise.

One such question is particularly significant:

Can a man in a live-in relationship be prosecuted for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, or under the corresponding Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

The issue has reached the Supreme Court in proceedings arising from a judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The Supreme Court has specifically taken up the question whether a man in a live-in relationship or a relationship in the nature of marriage can be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC or the corresponding provision under the BNS.

The issue involves an important balance between protecting women from cruelty and ensuring that criminal liability remains firmly grounded in statutory language.

---

Section 498A IPC: The Background

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced to address cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman.

The provision provides criminal protection against conduct amounting to cruelty, including wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, as well as certain forms of harassment connected with unlawful demands.

With the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the corresponding provision is contained in Section 85, while Section 86 deals with the meaning of cruelty.

Therefore, while Section 498A remains relevant to offences committed during the operation of the IPC, conduct governed by the new criminal law framework is addressed under the corresponding provisions of the BNS.

---

The Central Legal Question: Who Is a “Husband”?

The statutory language of Section 498A refers to a “husband or relative of husband.”

The ordinary meaning of “husband” would suggest a legally recognised marital relationship.

This creates a difficult legal question when the parties have never formally married.

Can a man who lives with a woman in a relationship resembling marriage be treated as a “husband” for the limited purpose of applying the protection against cruelty?

Or would doing so amount to extending a penal provision beyond the language used by Parliament?

The answer requires the Court to reconcile two competing considerations:

• the protective purpose of the legislation; and
• the principle that criminal liability must have a clear statutory foundation.

---

The Karnataka High Court’s Approach

The issue arose before the Karnataka High Court in Lokesh B.H. & Others v. State of Karnataka.

In its judgment dated 18 November 2025, the Karnataka High Court considered whether Section 498A could apply where the relationship was not a legally valid marriage but was a live-in relationship bearing the attributes of marriage.

The High Court adopted a purposive approach and held that the expression “husband” in Section 498A could, in appropriate circumstances, extend to a person in a void or voidable marital relationship and to a live-in relationship bearing the essential attributes of marriage, provided the statutory ingredients of cruelty were otherwise satisfied.

The High Court’s reasoning focused on the nature and substance of the relationship rather than treating formal validity of the marriage as the only determining factor.

Importantly, the High Court did not treat the existence of a live-in relationship by itself as sufficient. The allegations would still have to satisfy the statutory requirements relating to cruelty.

---

The Supreme Court’s Intervention

The Karnataka High Court’s interpretation was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2240–2241 of 2026.

In its order dated 13 February 2026, the Supreme Court expressly identified the question for consideration as whether a man in a live-in relationship or a relationship in the nature of marriage can be prosecuted for an offence under Section 498A IPC or the corresponding provision under the BNS.

Considering the importance of the issue, the Court brought the Union of India into the proceedings and sought assistance on the legal question. The Court also appointed Ms. Nina R. Nariman as amicus curiae and directed the filing of counter and rejoinder affidavits.

The Supreme Court also stayed further proceedings in the underlying matter pending consideration of the issue.

---

A Crucial Distinction: Not Every Live-in Relationship Is a Relationship in the Nature of Marriage

It would be incorrect to assume that every live-in relationship automatically becomes a “relationship in the nature of marriage.”

Indian law has recognised that some live-in relationships may possess characteristics sufficiently similar to marriage to attract particular legal protections, while others may simply constitute cohabitation without the characteristics of a marital relationship.

The distinction can therefore become highly fact-specific.

Relevant considerations may include:

• the duration of the relationship;
• the nature of the shared household;
• the manner in which the parties represented themselves to others;
• financial arrangements;
• domestic responsibilities;
• the degree of permanence of the relationship; and
• the intention and conduct of the parties.

Consequently, the mere fact that two persons lived together does not, by itself, establish a relationship in the nature of marriage.

---

Why the Distinction Matters in Criminal Law

The distinction assumes even greater importance when criminal liability is involved.

Criminal law operates differently from purely social or welfare legislation.

A court dealing with a criminal prosecution must determine whether the statutory ingredients of the offence are satisfied. A relationship cannot be brought within the scope of a penal provision merely because it resembles another category in a general social sense.

At the same time, an excessively formal interpretation may potentially exclude persons whom the protective purpose of the legislation was intended to safeguard.

The Supreme Court therefore faces a delicate interpretative exercise:

How far can the protective purpose of Section 498A or Section 85 extend without effectively rewriting the statutory expression “husband”?

---

Protection Against Cruelty Remains the Central Concern

The objective of Section 498A was to address cruelty against women within a domestic or marital setting.

Cruelty may take several forms, including serious physical or mental harm and harassment connected with unlawful demands.

The protective objective of the legislation cannot be overlooked merely because the relationship is unconventional.

However, protection must operate within the framework of the law.

A person facing criminal prosecution must still be entitled to the ordinary safeguards of criminal jurisprudence, including the requirement that the prosecution establish the ingredients of the offence.

Thus, protection and due process are not competing values; both are essential to a fair legal system.

---

The Significance of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The issue has acquired additional importance because the IPC has now been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Section 85 of the BNS corresponds to Section 498A IPC, while Section 86 defines cruelty.

The Supreme Court’s order specifically refers to both Section 498A IPC and the corresponding provision under the BNS.

Consequently, the eventual judicial interpretation may have significance beyond the particular IPC-era proceedings from which the issue arose.

---

Changing Social Relationships and the Law

The issue is part of a broader development in Indian jurisprudence.

Courts have increasingly encountered legal questions arising from relationships that do not fit neatly within the traditional framework of marriage.

These questions have arisen in areas such as:

• protection against domestic violence;
• maintenance;
• legitimacy and rights of children;
• property and succession;
• matrimonial remedies; and
• criminal liability.

The law must therefore continually determine how established statutory concepts should operate when social relationships evolve.

But such development must take place within the constitutional and statutory framework rather than by disregarding legislative language.

---

A Balance Between Social Reality and Statutory Interpretation

There are compelling considerations on both sides.

In favour of a broader interpretation

A woman who has lived in a relationship substantially resembling marriage may face serious cruelty and harassment. Excluding her from protection solely because the relationship was not formally solemnised could potentially undermine the protective purpose of the legislation.

In favour of a cautious interpretation

Section 498A and Section 85 are criminal provisions. Expanding criminal liability beyond the language enacted by Parliament raises concerns regarding statutory interpretation, fair notice and the limits of judicial law-making.

The challenge is therefore not simply to choose between these two approaches.

The real task is to determine whether the existing statutory language can legitimately accommodate the relationship without creating criminal liability beyond what the law permits.

---

What the Supreme Court May Ultimately Clarify

The proceedings provide an opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify several important questions, including:

1. Whether the expression “husband” can extend to a man in a relationship in the nature of marriage.
2. Whether the concept of a relationship in the nature of marriage can be applied within a criminal provision such as Section 498A.
3. What factual characteristics must be established before such a relationship can attract the provision.
4. Whether the same interpretation should inform the corresponding provision under Section 85 of the BNS.
5. How the protective purpose of the legislation should be reconciled with the principle of strict construction of penal provisions.

The answers could have considerable significance for future cases.

---

Why This Issue Matters Beyond One Case

This is not merely a dispute about terminology.

The interpretation of the word “husband” could determine the extent to which criminal law can respond to relationships that function like marriages without being formally recognised as marriages.

At the same time, the case demonstrates why legal developments involving changing social structures require careful judicial consideration.

The law must protect individuals from genuine abuse while ensuring that criminal provisions are not expanded beyond their legitimate statutory boundaries.

---

Conclusion

The question of whether Section 498A IPC—or its corresponding Section 85 of the BNS—can apply to a live-in relationship is a significant developing issue in Indian criminal and family law.

The Karnataka High Court has taken a broad, purposive approach, holding that the expression “husband” can extend to a relationship in the nature of marriage where the statutory ingredients of cruelty are satisfied.

The Supreme Court has since taken up the issue for consideration. The matter has continued through subsequent hearings in March and May 2026, but the central substantive question remains pending in the material presently available.

The ultimate challenge is to strike an appropriate balance between protection from cruelty, changing social realities, and the fundamental principle that criminal liability must remain rooted in law.

---

Final Thoughts

The evolution of family and personal relationships presents new questions for the legal system.

But legal development should not be driven solely by changing social practices, nor should established legal concepts be applied without regard to contemporary realities.

The more difficult and important task is to find the balance between the two.

The Supreme Court’s consideration of the issue in Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka is therefore significant—not merely because of its implications for live-in relationships, but because it raises a broader question about how criminal law should respond when social relationships evolve faster than statutory language.

---

MENTO ISAC
Advocate | Proprietor – Mento Associates

Disclaimer

This article is intended solely for general informational and educational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. It does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular case. The applicability of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita depends upon the facts, applicable law, the precise nature of the relationship, and the conduct alleged. The legal position discussed in this article is subject to further judicial determination.

Are Foreign Divorce Decrees Valid in India?
Legal Position for NRIs and International Couples

In an increasingly interconnected world, matrimonial relationships frequently transcend national boundaries. Indian citizens, NRIs, and Overseas Citizens of India often live, work, and settle abroad, leading to a growing number of matrimonial disputes involving foreign courts and cross-border legal issues.

One of the most common misconceptions in such situations is the belief that once a foreign court grants a divorce, the marriage automatically stands dissolved in India. Legally, that assumption can sometimes create serious complications.

When Is a Foreign Divorce Decree Recognised in India?

Under Indian law, a foreign divorce decree is not automatically recognised merely because it is valid in another country. Indian courts independently examine whether the decree satisfies the requirements of Indian law before treating the marriage as legally dissolved in India.

Recognition of foreign judgments in India is governed primarily by Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A foreign judgment may not be recognised if the foreign court lacked jurisdiction, if principles of natural justice were violated, if the decree was obtained by fraud, if the judgment was not passed on merits, or if it is contrary to Indian law or public policy.

Supreme Court Position on Foreign Divorce Decrees

The leading judgment on this subject is the decision of the Supreme Court in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi. The Court held that foreign divorce decrees may be recognised in India only if the foreign court exercised jurisdiction recognised under Indian law, the grounds of divorce are recognised under the applicable matrimonial law in India, and the respondent spouse voluntarily participated in or genuinely contested the proceedings.

Situations Where Indian Courts Commonly Recognise Foreign Divorces

Indian courts are generally more willing to recognise foreign divorce decrees in cases involving mutual consent proceedings, where both parties accepted the foreign court’s jurisdiction, and where the grounds of divorce are recognised under Indian matrimonial law.

When Can Indian Courts Reject a Foreign Divorce Decree?

Indian courts frequently refuse recognition in situations involving ex parte decrees, inadequate notice to the spouse residing in India, lack of proper participation in proceedings, jurisdiction assumed merely because one spouse relocated abroad, or divorces granted on grounds not recognised under Indian law.

Can a Foreign Divorce Decree Be Challenged in India?

Yes. Foreign divorce decrees can be challenged before Indian courts, particularly where the decree was obtained unilaterally, where the spouse did not effectively participate in the proceedings, where there was procedural unfairness, or where fraud or suppression is alleged.

In many situations, parties also approach Indian Family Courts or Civil Courts seeking declarations regarding the validity and enforceability of foreign divorce decrees in India.

Legal Risks of Assuming Automatic Recognition

Failure to properly secure recognition of a foreign divorce decree can create significant legal complications in India. A person considered divorced abroad may still legally remain married under Indian law.

This can potentially result in allegations of bigamy upon remarriage, continuation of maintenance obligations, inheritance disputes, custody litigation, and prolonged matrimonial proceedings in India.

Important Precautions Before Initiating Foreign Divorce Proceedings

Before commencing divorce proceedings abroad, parties should carefully examine the law governing the marriage, whether both spouses consent to foreign jurisdiction, whether the proposed grounds of divorce are recognised in India, and whether any matrimonial proceedings are already pending before Indian courts.

As a matter of prudence, mutual consent proceedings are generally safer, proper participation of both parties is essential, and unilateral ex parte divorces should be approached cautiously.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Is a US or UK divorce automatically valid in India?
No. Indian courts independently examine whether the decree satisfies the requirements of Indian law.

2. Can an ex parte foreign divorce be challenged in India?
Yes. Indian courts may refuse recognition where there was lack of notice, lack of participation, or procedural unfairness.

3. Can remarriage after a foreign divorce create legal issues in India?
Potentially yes, if the foreign decree is not recognised under Indian law.

4. Is mutual consent generally safer in foreign matrimonial proceedings?
In many situations, mutual consent proceedings are more likely to receive recognition in India.

Conclusion

Foreign divorce decrees occupy a complex area at the intersection of private international law and Indian matrimonial jurisprudence. A decree that is valid abroad may still face legal scrutiny in India if it does not satisfy the requirements of jurisdiction, fairness, natural justice, and compatibility with Indian matrimonial law.

With increasing global mobility and cross-border marriages, disputes involving foreign matrimonial judgments are becoming more common for NRIs, OCIs, and internationally placed Indian families. Timely legal advice and carefully structured proceedings can significantly reduce future disputes relating to remarriage, maintenance, custody, inheritance, and related matrimonial issues.

Mento Isac
Advocate & Legal Consultant
Bengaluru, India
Practising in Litigation, Dispute Resolution and Cross-Border Legal Matters

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are intended solely for general informational and academic discussion purposes and do not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. Readers are advised to seek specific legal consultation based on the facts and circumstances of their individual cases.

INTRODUCTION

The weaponization of domestic abuse allegations for one’s own benefit casts a shadow over the court system in India. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter referred to as ‘Act’) is considered to be one of the most important legislations designed to protect women. It provides legal protection not only from physical abuse but also from emotional, sexual and economic abuse within their matrimonial homes. However, there have been concerns emerging regarding the misuse of the Act, leading to innocent people facing dire consequences from false accusations.

METHOD

This research uses both qualitative and quantitative approach. The qualitative analysis was done through an examination of Supreme Court judgments, High Court judgment, legal documents and scholarly articles and the quantitative analysis was done by referring to government reports and NGO on the misuse of the Act.

RESULTS

The quantitative analysis shows that since the law’s passage, the number of DVA claims submitted has significantly increased, but there has also been a rise in the number of cases that have been dismissed for lack of proof or misuse. According to estimates, between 5% and 10% of cases are rejected because of misuse. The misuse of the Domestic Violence Act by women was reported by various NGOs and conviction rate was around 2% in 2014, this was later informed to the Rajya Sabha by the Government stating that “Sometimes ” provisions of the Domestic Violence Acts were misused. The Madras High court Bench also observed that the Act suffers from inherent flaws which tempt women to misuse its provisions,  resulting in men to dread being prosecuted under the law without any reason or wrong. Recently the Bombay High court also raised its concern regarding the rise in trend of women misusing the Act in order to build pressure on their estranged husbands.

The Qualitative analysis was done by reviewing case laws and documents related to the Act. Various courts after looking at the misuse of the Act issued few guidelines to be followed by magistrates while dealing with cases that fall under this Act. The Punjab and Haryana HC declared in the case Jaspal Kaur v State of Punjab (2011 SCC Online P&H 14859) that it is not necessary to send notice to all the respondents under section 13 of DV Act especially when it comes to distant relatives, In such cases the Magistrate is expected to carefully think about and consider all the information in regards with the case and then decide whether to send a notice to them or not. In the case of Mohd. Hussain v Shabnam Ara (CRM(M) No.714/2022) wherein the High court of J and K declared that if the magistrate feels the evidence is insufficient then the Magistrate can dismiss the proceedings of the case. In a recent case of the High court of Karnataka (Pramod R S v Lakshmi M R, Criminal Petition No.1511 of 2023), the court declared that if a DV case is filed by the wife after the filing of divorce by the husband in such a scenario the DV case won’t be of much importance but dismissing it would lead to the defeat of the Act. So in order to prevent injustice the DV case will be allowed to proceed but only based on the facts and circumstances of the case. In a similar case by the High court of Karnataka (Nagesh Gunddayal v State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 1511 of 2023) it was stated that the case would lose its significance due to fact that the complaint is made, after receiving the divorce notice from her husband.

CONCLUSION

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005, is a landmark legislation in India created with the sole purpose of shielding women from domestic abuse. The Act includes verbal, economic, emotional, and physical abuse in its broad definition of domestic violence. It offers a number of remedies, such as monetary compensation, residency orders and protection orders. However, since its inception, the Act has faced a number of objections and challenges, raising concerns about its validity and legitimacy. Due to personal motivations, this has resulted in instances when women use false charges, severely harming the wrongfully accused both financially and emotionally. Although the Act was created with the goal of protecting women, it is sometimes utilized to harm innocent people.

It’s time to stand up for those falsely accused under domestic violence laws. Those who make false claims, fueled by malicious intent, must face consequences. Amending the Act to include specific penalties for false accusations is crucial. We need to hold the misusers of these laws accountable for the financial and emotional damage they inflict on the wrongly accused.

It’s not uncommon for petitioners to include the husband’s entire family in their complaints, solely to inflict pain and suffering. To combat this unnecessary litigation and protect the accused, time-bound trials should be made mandatory under all domestic violence laws. This will provide much-needed relief to those wrongly accused and prevent them from enduring prolonged torment.

Let’s ensure justice for all. Let’s protect the wrongly accused by holding the false accusers accountable.

REFERENCES

• Live Law
• The Hindu
• SCC Online
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4768593/
• Swapan Kumar Das v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC Online Cal 242
• Bare Text of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
• High court of Karnataka
  
  

Authored by

THOMAS K JOSEPH

II Year SLCU

Intern

MENTO ASSOCIATES

• Adoption of child under Juvenile Justice Act 2015:

1. First obtain Adoption order issued by the District Magistrate.

2. The birth certificate will be issued within 5 working days on the receipt of application by registration authorities in the state, from the specialized adoption agency or adoptive parents after the receipt of order issued by the District Magistrate Court.

• Adoption of child under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956:

1. Adoption is valid based on registered adoption deed executed and registered by both the parties’ i.e. biological parents and adoptive parents.

2. The birth certificate will be issued on the receipt of application by registration authorities in the state to issue birth certificate from adoptive parents after the receipt of registered adoption deed.

3. Exception: In case of adopted child is more than one year old and his /her birth is not found registered earlier, then as per prescribed procedure of section 13(3) of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 (amended in 2023), an order of District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or by an Executive magistrate authorised by the District Magistrate should also be obtained before filing an application to registration authorities in the state to issue birth certificate.

• Ref: Circular bearing No. 2037376/2023/CARA dated 03-11-2023 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India.

Authored by:

Adv. Shirin Yusuf

FOR MENTO ASSOCIATES

Advocates

The Supreme Court in Arneshkumar v/s State of Bihar and another, observed that there is rampant misuse of the provisions of Sec. 498-A of IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In order to bring the situation under control the Supreme Court has passed the following guidelines.
The Supreme Court, through this judgement ensures that –
i. The Police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and
ii. The Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically.
The State Governments are directed by this Judgement:
1. To instruct the Police officers not to automatically arrest when the case is registered under section 498-A of the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, until it satisfies the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down in section 41 of CrPC.
2. The Police Officers to be provided with the check list containing specified sub-clauses under section 41(1)(b)(ii) of CrPC. The said check list shall be duly filled and the police officer shall furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while producing the accused before magistrate for further detention.
3. The Magistrate on inspecting the report furnished by the Police officer, only after recording its satisfaction, shall authorise the detention of the accused.
4. The decision not to arrest an accused is to be forwarded to the Magistrate within 2 weeks from the date of institution of case with a copy to Superintendent of Police which may be extended by the superintendent of Police for reasons to be recorded in writing.
5. Notice of appearance in terms of section 41 CrPC shall be served to accused within 2 weeks of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of District for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
6. Failure to comply with the directions given above, the police officer concerned shall be liable for departmental action and punished and , the contempt of court is to be instituted against them before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
7. Authorising detention without recording reasons as above said, by the Judicial Magistrate concerned, shall make the Magistrate liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court also clarifies that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under sec. 498-A of the IPC or sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but also to such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.
Authored by:
Shrinivasreddy Mudagannavar
Intern
Mento Associates

In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has held that children born out of live-in relationships shall be considered as legitimate off springs. Such kids will have all the rights of children born to legally wedded parents. These children will get the right to inherit the property left behind by their parents. The overall legal position regarding live-in relationships is still fluid in the absence of specific legislation in this regard. However, the Supreme Court through its various judgments have filled this lacuna to some extent.

The Supreme Court has ordered that any person, including members of minority communities like Christians and Muslims can adopt under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, even though their personal laws do not permit it. Under the personal laws of Christians and Muslims, the adoption rights are limited. Those who adopt children are deemed only to be their guardian and not legal parents and the children cannot inherit property. The biological parents could also claim their rights over the child. Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the adopted children have the same rights and responsibilities as biological children. A per the judgement of Supreme Court, a person has the choice to be governed by the secular law or the personal law. The court has further observed that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children),2000 Act is a small step towards the idea of a uniform civil code.

Adoption, to put in simple terms, is a process whereby a person assumes the parenting of another. Unlike guardianship, where only the responsibility for care and protection are vested with the guardian, adoption implies that the adoptive child and adoptive parents shall have towards each other the relationship of parent-child will all rights and responsibility.
In India, the Central Adoption Resource Authority or CARA- an autonomous body under the Ministry of Women and Child Development acts as the Central Authority in matters concerning in-country and inter-country adoption. CARA is also designated as the Central Authority to deal with inter–country adoptions in accordance with the Hague Convention on Adoption 1993, which was ratified by India in 2003.
Accordingly guidelines for adoption of children have been framed and the procedure has been laid down. Parents of foreign origin desirous of adopting a child must obtain permission of the concerned authority in their home country for adopting a child from India and make an application through an Enlisted Foreign Adoption Agency (EFAA). The EFAA is an adoption agency in the home country of the parents, authorized by and enlisted with the CARA for the purpose of inter-country adoption. Upon receiving an application, the EFAA will prepare a Home Study Report (HSR) detailing marital status, stability of relationship, economic stability, standard of living and other criteria of the adoptive parents before forwarding it to the Recognized Indian Placement Agencies (RIPA), which are Child Welfare Organizations authorized by CARA for placement of Indian children in inter country adoption. The application must be accompanied by other documents mentioned in Annexure 2 of the guidelines.
Upon receiving such an application, the RIPA will make attempts to match a child who is legally free for inter country adoption. A child is legally free for inter country adoption, if within a period of 30 days, the Adoption Coordination Agency or ACA is unable to match such a child with suitable Indian parents and the ACA certifies the same. The RIPA will thereafter forward the application along with the clearance certificate from the ACA and other documents prescribed in Annexure 3 to the CARA for a No Objection Certificate (NOC).
On being satisfied of the application, CARA will issue an NOC within a period of 15 days to the RIPA. After receiving the NOC, the RIPA shall file a petition before the competent court for adoption. The court may thereafter place the child with the Foreign Prospective Adoptive Parents (FPAP). As per the directions of the Supreme Court, such a petition must be disposed off within a period of 2 months. Subsequently the RIPA shall apply to the regional passport authority for the issuance of an Indian Passport. The passport authority may issue the same within a period of 10 days after which Visa/ entry permits shall be obtained from the concerned embassy. The adoptive parents shall thereafter accompany the child to their home country.
Authored by
Naqsha H Biliangady
Advocate
Mento Associates

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010, proposes certain amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 with a view to make them more in conformity with the changing social conditions.

Following are the major amendments proposed for the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

-The waiting period of 6 months for a Section 13-B petition (mutual consent divorce petition) is proposed to be removed.

-New sections 13-C, D, E are proposed to be inserted making irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. The parties should have lived apart for a minimum continuous period of 3 years before filing the petition, to avail this ground.

Following are the major amendments proposed to the Special Marriage Act, 1954:

-The waiting period of 6 months for a Section 28 petition (mutual consent divorce petition) is proposed to be removed.

-New Sections 28-A and 28-B are proposed to be inserted after Section 28, making irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. The parties should have lived apart for a minimum continuous period of 3 years before filing the petition, to avail this ground.

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ON CHILD CUSTODY MATTERS

Following are certain leading judgments of the Supreme Court of India and The High Court of Karnataka on matters relating to custody of a child.

1. Rosy Jacob v/s Jacob A Chakaramakkal (1973) 1 SCC 840

The Honourable Supreme Court of India held that children are neither mere chattels nor play things in the hands of the parents. In the modern changed social conditions, absolute right of parents over the destinies and lives of their children has yielded to the consideration of their welfare as human beings, so that they may grow up in a balanced manner to be useful members of society.

In matters of custody of children, factor that the father loves his children and is not otherwise undesirable cannot alone give him an edge over the mother who is equally affectionate towards her children. Courts have to distinguish between right of guardianship and right of custody.

2. Mausami Moitra Ganguly v/s Jayant Ganguly AIR 2001 SC 2179

The Honourable Supreme Court of India held that better financial resources of one parent, his or her love for the child may be one of the relevant considerations, but cannot be the sole determining factor for custody.

The Court further stated that stability and consistency in the affairs and routine of the children is also an important consideration.

In this case, custody was granted to the husband.

3. Nil Ratan Kundu and Anr v/s Abhijit Kundu 2008 AIR SCW 5769=(2008)9 SCC 413

The Supreme Court laid down that while dealing with custody, Courts are neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence and procedure nor by precedent. Paramount considerations are welfare and well being of the child. Strict parameters governing an interim injunction do not have full play in matters of custody.

4. Gaurav Nagpal v/s Sumetha Nagpal (2009) I SCC 42

In deciding matters of custody, the Supreme Court held that, Courts need to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings. Over and above physical comforts the moral and ethical values also have to be noted. The welfare and interest of the child is paramount in matters of custody. The principles of law in this regard are well settled. The welfare of the child is superior to the rights of the parent under a statute.

The Court has not only to look into the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding the issues.

Though provisions of special statutes which favour the rights of parents/guardians maybe taken into consideration, Court has to exercise its ‘parens patriae’ jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court further recognised that principles of custody under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act are not different to the principles of custody under the Guardians and Wards Act.

5. Athar Hussain v/s Syed Siraj Ahmed and Ors AIR 2010 SC 1417 (from Karnataka)

In matters of custody, welfare of the children is the sole and single yardstick, by which court shall assess the comparative merits of the parties contesting the custody.

The Court held that question of guardianship can be independent of and distinct from that of custody, in facts and circumstances of each case.

Second marriage of husband, is a factor to be taken into consideration while considering custody of child.

6. S. Anand v/s Smt. Lakshmi ILR 2012 Kar.2334

The Honourable High Court of Karnataka upheld the view of The Supreme Court that that the welfare interest of the child is paramount in matters of custody. The principles of law in this regard are well settled. The welfare of the child is superior to the rights of the parent under a statute.

The Court further held that the question of welfare needs to be considered in the background of relevant facts and circumstances. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. Better financial resources of one parent, his or her love for the child may be one of the relevant considerations, but cannot be the sole determining factor for custody.

Following the ruling of the Supreme Court, the High Court said that Courts need to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings. Over and above physical comforts the moral and ethical values also have to be noted.

In the given case, there was an allegation of immoral life by wife against the husband. The custody was granted to the wife.

Author: Naqsha Biliangady,Advocate, Mento Associates.