"Breaking Stereotypes: 14 Landmark Judgments Favoring Husbands!
In this informative video, we shed light on 14 pivotal court judgments that challenge the conventional narrative, protecting husbands' rights in maintenance cases, marriage disputes, and divorce proceedings.
Discover how these landmark judgments:
Set precedents for husband's rights
Challenge traditional maintenance laws
Ensure fairness in matrimonial disputes
Provide relief to wrongly accused husbands
Watch till the end to understand the changing landscape of Indian law.
Taglines:
1. "Husband's Rights: Breaking Stereotypes"
2. "14 Landmark Judgments: Changing the Narrative"
3. "Matrimonial Justice: Fairness for Husbands"
4. "Challenging Traditional Maintenance Laws"
5. "Empowering Husbands: Know Your Rights"
Hashtags:
#HusbandsRights #MatrimonialDisputes #DivorceCases
#MaintenanceCases #LandmarkJudgments #IndianLaw
#MarriageDisputes #FairnessForHusbands
#HusbandEmpowerment #KnowYourRights
#FamilyLaw #MatrimonialLaw #DivorceLaw
#SupremeCourtJudgments #HighCourtJudgments

Here are 14 judgments favoring husbands in maintenance cases, marriage disputes, and divorce cases:
Shiv Kumar Yadav v. Smt. Santoshi Yadav (2004): The High Court of Chattisgarh ruled that a wife who leaves her matrimonial home without sufficient reason is not entitled to maintenance ¹.
Lalit Mohan v. Tripta Devi (1988): The Jammu & Kashmir High Court granted maintenance to a husband who was injured and unable to work, citing the wife's income and the husband's inability to support himself ¹.
Smt Kanchan v. Kamalendra (1992): The Bombay High Court stated that a skilled husband cannot rely solely on his wife's income and that granting maintenance would promote idleness ¹.
Yashpal Singh Thakur v. Smt Anjana Rajput (2001): The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled in favor of the husband, citing the wife's admission that she would not return to the matrimonial home ¹.
Gurbinder Singh v. Manjit Kaur (2010): The court ruled that a husband's maintenance claim was valid due to his wife's sufficient income and his inability to work ¹.
Alok Kumar Jain v. Purnima Jain (2007): The court granted maintenance to the husband, considering the wife's income and the husband's medical expenses ¹.
Rani Sethi v. Sunil Sethi (2011): The Delhi High Court ruled that a wife's claim for maintenance was invalid due to her own sufficient income and assets ¹.
Nivya V M v. Shivaprasad M K (2017): The Kerala High Court granted maintenance to a husband who was unable to work due to health issues ¹.
Hemlataben v. State (2010): The court ruled that a husband's maintenance claim was valid due to his wife's government job and his own unemployment ¹.
Kumaresan v. Aswathi (2002): The court granted maintenance to a husband who was injured and unable to work, citing the wife's income ¹.
Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy v. M. Devaki (2002): The court ruled that a husband's maintenance claim was valid due to his wife's sufficient income and his own medical expenses ¹.
Govind Singh v. Smt. Vidya (1999): The Rajasthan High Court stated that a husband who voluntarily incapacitates himself from earning cannot claim maintenance ¹.
Rajesh Burman v. Mitul Chatterjee (Burman): The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the husband, citing the wife's admission of desertion ².
Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar: The Delhi Judicial Academy discussed the court's role in matrimonial cases, emphasizing the importance of considering both parties' circumstances ³.

S. M. RAZIAQ ALI, MA, MBA, ML, DLL, PGDCA,
Advocate, Notary.
35/3 Siyali Street, Pudupet,
Chennai 600002
Phone 044 28591882
Cell: 9444085595
S. M. RAZIAQ ALI, MA, MBA, ML, DLL, PGDCA,
Advocate, Notary.
35/3 Siyali Street, Pudupet,
Chennai 600002
Phone 044 28591882
Cell: 9444085595