The year 2009 saw many judgments, which will go down in history for setting the wheels of justice right. There were a slew of judgments passed by all rungs of the judiciary that sought to redefine the family laws. WITNESS Bureau zeroes in on a few interesting nevertheless important family law judgments, passed by various courts acrossthe country in the preceding year.

• The Supreme Court held that it is empowered to grant divorce by mutual consent under section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even if the wife or the husband withdraws it during the proceedings in the lower court and prior to the passing of the decree. At the same time, the apex court made it clear that this doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not available to the high courts, since they do not have powers similar to those exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
• The Bombay High Court held in a judgment that family courts have the power to jointly decide two different claims between warring couple. The court upheld an order, which was passed by a family court, to club two different petitions, one by the husband and other by the wife, and to decide them together on merits to avoid further delay and multiplicity of trials. It was also in the interest of justice to decide both petitions together.
• The Supreme Court held that the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (the Act) will also apply to live-in relationships. The apex court pointed out that the object of the Act was to prevent harassment of a woman “who enters into a marital relationship with a person and later on, becomes a victim of the greed for money. A person, who enters into a marital arrangement, can not be allowed to take shelter behind a smokescreen to contend just because there was no valid marriage so the question of dowry does not arise?”
• The Supreme Court directed a woman to pay Rs 10,000 to her estranged husband, who was unemployed and a resident of Chennai in order to enable him to fight their matrimonial ispute in a Bangalore court. This was a departure from the norm under section 125 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr PC) wherein it is the duty of the husband to pay maintenance allowance to the wife or his parents during a divorce proceeding or thereafter.
• A Session Court in Delhi stated that being a patriwala or a roadside vendor is no excuse to escape the compensation a wife can claim from a husband during divorce. The appellant’s lawyer contended that the appellant was a vendor and was not even able to earn Rs 150/- to 200/- per day due to the increasing cost of vegetables. However, the court found out that the man was paid a hefty dowry by the bride’s family, which included a car and an air-conditioner.
• In an important judgment, the Supreme Court observed that a Muslim woman can claim maintenance under section 125 of the Cr PC as long as she does not remarry, even after the Iddat period is over. However, according to Muslim personal laws, after termination of the marriage, by way of either divorce or death of the husband, a Muslim woman has to observe a waiting period called Iddat, before she can choose to remarry and loses her right to maintenance once this period is complete.