1. PERUMAL V. PONNUSWAMY- Hindu man married Christian woman; younger child claimed property share.

A
marriage ceremony conducted with Hindu rituals suggests conversion to Hinduism, even without formal purification rituals.

2. Sir Dinshaw Manockji Petit v. Sir Jamsetji Jeejeebhoy-Conversion to Zoroastrianism requires adherence to prescribed
rituals; a child born to a Parsi father and an alien mother is considered Parsi.

3. RAM PRASAD V. DAHIM BIDI- Child born to Hindu father, Christian mother; religion upbringing unclear.Unless
proven otherwise, a child is recognized to belong to the religion of its birth or origin.

4. RAJ KUMAR GUPTA V. BARBARA GUPTA-Child born to Hindu mother, non-Hindu father; custody and
guardianship dispute.In cases of mixed-religion parentage, the child typically follows the religion of the father; Hindu
Guardianship and Wards Act allows non-Hindu parents to be guardians.

5. bUDANSA ROWTHER V FATHIMA BEEVI-Hindu married woman converted to Islam, married Muslim man; dispute
over marriage legality. 1st defendant's marriage with her Hindu husband was still subsisting in spite of her conversion her
marriage to another man of a different religion was not merely irregular in the eye of Mahomedan Law, but absolutely illegal
and prohibited. The plaintiff must then be regarded as an illegitimate child of the muslim mother.

6. State of Bombay v Narsu Appamalli AIR 1952 BOM 84-Challenge to legislation penalizing Hindu bigamy but
excluding Muslims. Personal laws, including those of Hindus and Muslims, are not considered "laws" under Article 13 of the
Constitution; hence, not subject to constitutional review. The foundational sources of both the Hindu and the Mahomedan
laws are their respective scriptural texts.

7. Gurunatha v Kamalabhai-In the absence of specific Hindu law, courts can decide cases based on principles of justice,
equity, and good conscience.

8. Aja P Mathew v State of Telangana-Inter-faith marriages under the HMA are considered void; only Hindus can marry
under this Act.

9. Shivonandh v Bhawanthumma-Marriage is binding in nature. Needs to be performed befre the consecrated fire by
Saptapadi. It is said to be a religious tie that bears that characteristics of a permanent and eternal union having a sacrosanct
existence.

10. Maksood Ahmad v State of NCT of Delhi & Anr-When a person is converting to an inter-faith marriage, one cannot
whimsically discontinue the marriage in the future, but needs to be aware of the implications of his/her conversion.

BIGAMY

BHAU RAO SHANKAR LOKHNADE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

For bigamy charges to apply, the second marriage must be validly solemnized as per applicable law.

RAM SINGH V. R SUSILA BAI AND ANO.**:- Dispute over solemnization of second marriage; lack of proof of essential
ceremonies.Proper solemnization with essential ceremonies like saptapadi and sacred fire invocation is necessary for a valid
marriage; absence of proof renders second marriage void.

Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh-Alleged bigamous second marriage; insufficient proof of solemnization. A
second marriage not solemnised following the religious ceremonies is no marriage in the eyes of law- In such a case,
prosecution for the second marriage fails.

NATURE OF MARRIAGE

4. Tekait Mon Mohini Jemadai vs Basanta Kumar Singh-RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL Dispute over conjugal
rights; disagreement on wife's residence. Hindu marriage is both a contract and a sacrament; husband's attempt to waive
marital rights through prenuptial agreement deemed void.

5. Purushotamdas v Purushotamdas-The marriage of Hindu person is a contract made by their parents.

6. Bhagwati Saran Singh v. Parameshwari Nandan Singh-marriage, apart from being a holy concept or a sacrament, is
also a civilian contract between two parties.

8. Dhanjit Vadra v Beena Vadra-Parties to a valid Hindu marriage requested that a petition for divorce u/s 13 of ICA be
converted to a petition u/s 13-B for divorce by mutual consent? Appeal allowed, and the petition for divorce under
Sectn 13 treated as petition for divorce by mutual consent under Sectn 13-B in the light of the fact that they are living
separately for more than 1 yr, settlement between the parties, absence of collusion. The Court observed that section 13-B
radically changed the concept of Hindu marriage being a sacrament by treating it as an ordinary form of contract that can be
ended by competent parties by mutual consent.

9. Anjona Dasi v Ghose Parties to a valid Hindu marriage requested that a petition for divorce u/s 13 of ICA be converted to
a petition u/s 13-B for divorce by mutual consent? petition for divorce under Sectn 13 treated as petition for divorce by
mutual consent under Sectn 13-B in the light of the fact that they are living separately for more than 1 yr, settlement
between the parties, absence of collusion. The Court observed that section 13-B radically changed the concept of Hindu
marriage being a sacrament by treating it as an ordinary form of contract that can be ended by competent parties by mutual
consent.

RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS

1.Ravi Kumar v Julmi Devi-The part alleging desertion must also prove that the other spouse had the animus
deserendi (intention to desert) along with the fact that they were living separately. The petitioner should also
prove that he/she has not behaved in any manner that provides a reasonable cause for living separately while
filing a suit u/s 9 of HMA.

2.Ranjana Kejriwal v Vinod Kumar Kejriwal-A suit for Restitution of conjugal rights can only be
maintained by a wife against a husband when their marriage is a legal marriage- Not available to a spouse
who is a party to a bigamous marriage.

3.Saroj Rani v Sudharshan Kumar-Court held that since Hindu marriage is a sacrament and Sc. 9 merely
induces husband and wife to live together in harmony, it is constitutionally valid. If further disputes arise,
divorce can be sought after 1 year.This case altered the position taken in T Sareetha v. Venkatasubbiah, where
the court held that Sc.9 is unconstitutional as it is a barbarous remedy which infringes the right to privacy and
dignity guaranteed under Art.21 of COI. It forces a spouse to live with the other and a woman to bear a child
against her will by being made to forcibly cohabit with her.

DIVORCE

1. Manish Goyal v. Rohini Goyal-Statutory requirement of 6 months for filing 2 nd motion is not mandatory, it
can be waived in case of extreme pain and hardships to the parties.. even if it may not meet statutory provisions
to do complete justice to the parties, where it finds the marriage is – totally unworkable, emotionally dead,
broken irretrievably, beyond salvage.

2. Amardeep Singh v. Hardeep Kaur- Waiver of the cooling-off period in mutual consent divorce is
permissible if parties have lived separately for an extended period, faced extreme hardship, and reconciliation is
unlikely.grounds for waiver 18 months,no reconciliation,settled disputes on matters like custody.

3. Naveen Kohli v. Neetu Kohli- Divorce can be granted when the marriage is irretrievably broken, as
prolonged separation and disputes indicate a lack of prospects for reconciliation, preventing perpetual bitterness.

4. Anil Kumar Jain v Maya Jain- she withdrew her consent for mutual divorce.The Supreme Court has the
authority to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142, even if one
party withdraws consent, to ensure complete justice.

LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP

1. Lata Singh v State of U.P:- attacked by ladys bro-the right to choose a partner under Article 21, recognizing
inter-caste marriages and affirming the validity of individual choice in marriage.

2. S. Kushboo v. Kanniammal-If there is a live-in relationship between two consenting individuals of

3. Alok Kumar v State & Anr.- Live-in relationships are walk-in and walk-out relationships where the parties
have no legal bond between them. It is a type of contractual relationship which gets renewed every day and can
be terminated by any party at any point of time. Those in such relatnships may also be a married party and
unmarried party. Parties to such relationship can’t complain of immorality or infidelity.

4. Indra Sharma v V.K.V Sharma-live in-claim for maintainence-A married couple has several rights and
obligations towards each other unlike the parties to a live-in relationship. All live-in- relationships are not
relationships in the nature of marriage and therefore would not be protected under the DV act.
5. Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Anr. V Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Others-Presumption of marriage
arises from long-term live-in relationships under Section 114 of IEA, granting legitimacy to children born from
such unions unless rebutted.

6. S.P.S Balasubramanyam v Suruttayan:A married man lived with an unmarried woman as her husband for a
long timePresumption of marriage from long-term cohabitation stands, indicating a marital relationship
even without formalities; omission in will does not negate the marital status.

7.Bharata Matha & Others v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Others- Children from live-in relationships have
the right to inherit self-acquired property of parents, but ancestral property rights are not granted, ensuring
equitable distribution based on parentage.section27

8vidayathari v. Sukranabai-The deceased married the A and lived with her for a long term while his marriage
with the R was subsisting. Whether A or R would be the legal widow and, in whose name, should the succession
certificate be issued?Held- The R was the legal widow Children born out void 2nd marriages will also be
considered legal heirs. Children born out of live-in relationships to be given the status of legal heirs entitled to
inherit property of both parents.

ADOPTION

1. BRAJENDRA SINGH V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH -Adoption by a married person requires

2. SHABNAM HASHMI V. UNION OF INDIA- Despite adoption being prohibited under Muslim law, the
Juvenile Justice Act allows Muslims to adopt, reflecting secular principles overriding personal law. JJ Act is a
secular Act applicable to all people regardless of their religious beliefs- The concept of adoption
being prohibited under Muslim law does not bar a Muslim from adopting a child under JJ Act. Thus, a
Muslim may choose to be governed by personal law and may choose not to adopt a child, or they may choose to
adopt a child under the JJ Act.

3. STATE BANK OF INDIA V. SHWETHA SAHU- X, an unmarried Hindu man adopted a child. X died and
the adopted daughter sought to get his job on compassionate grounds.Held, ‘dependant’ as defined under the
relevant Act includes only a brother or a sister in case of an unmarried man. Hence, daughter of the unmarried
man cannot claim the job.

4. ABHILASHA V. PRAKASH-A distinction exists between Section 20(3) of HAMA and Section 125 of CrPC
unmarried daughter.

5. AVTAR SINGH V. JASBIR SINGH*-The absence of provisions for a daughter-in-law to claim maintenance
from her father-in-law under HAMA, even if her husband is incapacitated, prompted the Law Commission to
recommend an amendment, recognizing the wife's plight.suggestion 19[4]

6. **Merubhai Mandanbhai Odedara And Anr. vs Raniben Merubhai Odedara- responsible for
maintenance.While a wife can seek maintenance under both Section 125 and HAMA, any amount granted under
Section 125 must be deducted from the maintenance awarded under HAMA, with the husband primarily
responsible and son secondary responsible.

7. PANDU RANG V. BABU RAO-Parents are entitled to maintenance under Section 20 of HAMA if they
are unable to sustain themselves due to old age or infirmity, irrespective of whether they discharged
parental duties.

8. VIJAY MALTI V. RAJIV VIJ-In determining maintenance for a minor daughter after divorce, the financial
capacity and social status of the parents are considered, with the father obliged to maintain the daughter in line
with his superior financial status.

MUSLIM LAW

1. **SHAFIN JAHAN V. ASHOKAN KM (PPS)**Upheld the right to marry a person of choice regardless of
parental objections, emphasizing the adult's constitutional right to autonomy in marital decisions
*PARSI LAW

1. **Sir Dinshaw Manockji Petit v. Sir Jamsetji Jeejeebhoy**

- **Ratio**: Established the criteria for being recognized as a Parsi, emphasizing lineage, conversion
procedures, and the community's acceptance.

2. **GOOLROKH GUPTA V. BURJOR PADRIWALA**

- **Ratio**: Contested the automatic religious conversion of Parsi women upon marriage to non-Parsis,
underscoring the need for legal recognition and protection of individual religious identity.

**CHRISTIAN LAW**

1. **SUBHASH CHNADRA INDU DAS PARMER V. STATE OF GUJARAT**

- **Ratio**: Affirmed the legality of marriages between Christians and non-Christians under the
Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, without requiring conversion, safeguarding personal choice in
matters of marriage.

2. **USHA ABRAHAM V. JACOB ABRAHAM**

- **Ratio**: Established the criteria for valid consent in marriage, emphasizing the importance of
understanding the nature and consequences of the marital contract, particularly in cases of mental
incapacity.