A strange case has come to light in front of Bisrakh Kotwali police of Greater Noida West, where there is a dispute between husband and wife regarding the expenditure of half of the house. The husband wants his wife, who is an MBA professional and works in an MNC company in Malaysia, to bear the hotel, house and other expenses equally, but the wife expressed her objection. Due to lack of reconciliation with the police, the dispute between the two reached the point of divorce.

Deepak and Aarti (name changed), residents of Gaur-1 City Society, Greno West, are husband and wife. Both of them did MBA from IIM. After which he got a job in a private company in Malaysia on a hefty package. Both of them work. But during this time there was a dispute between the two regarding household expenses.

The wife alleges that whenever they go out to eat or go shopping, the husband asks her to repay half the money, that is, to give him the money he had spent. Initially he gave the money for his expenses but after that there started a dispute between the two. The wife says that the husband should bear all the expenses.

The matter reached divorce

There were frequent disputes between the two regarding half of their respective expenses, after which the quarrel between the two kept increasing. The dispute between the two regarding expenses increased so much that the matter reached Bisrakh Kotwali police. The police tried to make both the husband and wife sit together and make them understand. But, even the police could not convince them.

It is alleged that the husband is not ready to bear her expenses. Bisarkh police station in-charge Manoj Kumar Singh said that there was a dispute between the husband and wife regarding household expenses. The dispute between the two has reached the point of divorce.

talks about women empowerment

According to the police, the wife also wants that like every husband, she should bear his expenses. Whenever she asks her husband to give her share of the money, he calls for women empowerment. After this, tension has increased between the two and they both want to divorce.

Iqra Hasan explained the meaning of these two words of Vande Mataram, the statement went viral

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 22, 2025) directed a woman officer of the Indian Police Service (IPS) to apologize to her husband and father -in -law, on whom she has filed a case and she is sitting in jail. The court has also directed the IPS wife in strict tone that she will not use her position and power against her husband. The court has directed the apology to publish in prestigious English and Hindi Daily Newspapers.

According to PTI report, IPS officers were living separately from husband from 2018. The court, using its extraordinary powers, allowed the husband and wife living separately to end the marriage and canceled several civil and criminal cases filed against each other. The Supreme Court also quashed the High Court’s decision, in which the husband was instructed to give the woman a living allowance of Rs 1.5 lakh every month.

A bench of Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai and Justice Augustine George Christ instructed the female IPS officer and her parents to apologize unconditionally from the husband’s family living separately. The bench ordered the end of a long legal battle between them after the marriage was broken in 2015 using the powers provided under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Article 142 gives the Supreme Court the right to issue any order required for complete justice in any case pending before them. The bench noted the arguments of both the parties that they wanted to resolve all the disputes including the daughter’s custody matters and settle all pending cases to avoid any litigation in future and maintain peace.

On the issue of custody of the daughter, the bench said, ‘The child’s custody will be with the mother. Father … and her family will have the right to monitor the girl for the first three months and then on the basis of convenience and goodness of the girl … The first Sunday of every month can be met at the teaching site of the girl from 9 am to 5 pm on Sunday of every month, or as per permission permission under school rules and regulations.

The bench also considered the fact that the woman voluntarily agreed to give up her claim of any kind of alimony from her husband. As a result, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court order to maintain Rs 1.5 lakh per month to the wife.

The bench said in its order, ‘To end the long legal battle between the two sides and to ensure complete justice, all pending criminal and civil lawsuits filed against each other from both sides, including cases filed against wife, husband and her family members in any court or forum in India, but are not limited to the same, as they are, they are canceled and taken back.’

The bench also canceled the cases filed against him on behalf of the third party, which both sides were not aware of. The court considered the fact that the husband and her father are in jail due to the cases filed by the IPS wife. The bench asked the female officer and their parents to apologize unconditionally.

The apology was directed to publish in the national edition of a prestigious English and Hindi daily. The bench directed the female officer to never use his position and power as an IPS officer against her ex -husband.

The Supreme Court has reprimanded the ex -girlfriend who accused its partner of rape on Monday (May 26, 2025) for breaking the relationship. The court said that the sorrow in the consensual relationship or the distance between the loving couple cannot be the basis for starting a criminal process and it not only puts the burden on the courts, but also stains the accused’s domination. The court said that from the record, it does not seem that the boy only promised marriage and made a physical relationship with the woman without her will, while she was already married to someone else.

The Supreme Court made this comment in July 2023, dismissing the criminal case registered against a person in Maharashtra. The person was accused of raping a woman by falsely promising marriage. A bench of Justice BV Nagratna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said that even if the allegations made in the FIR are considered correct, but the record does not seem that the complainant’s consent was taken against his will and only on the promise of marriage.

The bench said, ‘In our view, this is not a case in which a false promise to marry in the beginning. There cannot be a sourness in the consent -formed relationship or distance between partners, starting a criminal process. The Supreme Court said, “This kind of conduct not only puts a burden on the courts, but also tainted the person accused of such heinous crime.”

The bench said that the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against misuse of provisions and has said that it is indispensable to prosecute a person in the crime of rape by considering every violation of marriage promise as a false promise. The Supreme Court gave its verdict on the appeal filed by the accused, in which the Bombay High Court’s order of June 2024 was challenged. The High Court had dismissed his plea to cancel the case registered against him for alleged crimes including rape in Satara.

The court said that the case has been registered on the complaint of the woman, who has alleged that during June 2022 to July 2023, the accused forcibly made sex with her by making false promises of marriage. However, the accused denied the allegations. The bench said that after the FIR was registered, the accused approached the lower court for anticipatory bail, which was approved in August 2023.

The Supreme Court said that the accused and the complainant were familiar with each other since June 2022 and admitted themselves that they often interacted and fell in love. The bench said, “It is not worth believing that the complainant promised to have a physical relationship with the appellant (accused), while the woman was already married to someone else.”

The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and quashed the order of the High Court. The bench said, “Keeping in mind that the appellant’s age is only 25 years, it would be in the interest of justice that he does not face adjacent trial and hence the proceedings are canceled.”

Also read:-
The Supreme Court gave a heart touching advice to the couple who came for divorce, said- Go on dinner date, we have arrangements …

Can a Muslim women demand a permanent amount in the court after divorce? If that woman marries again, can the living amount be changed? The Supreme Court will consider these important legal questions. He has appointed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Siddharth Dave as Amicus Curie for his assistance.

The matter has reached the Supreme Court via Gujarat High Court. The High Court justified the decision of the Ahmedabad Family Court, in which after divorce, Rashidbhai Qureshi was asked to give a permanent alimony of Rs 10 lakh to his ex -wife Asma Banu. In this decision given in 2019, the Family Court accepted the wife’s petition and called the Nikah in 2009 canceled. Along with this, there was a lump sum and permanent alimony.

In the High Court, it was argued on behalf of the husband that the law allows the Muslim wife to file an application of CRPC 125 with only the magistrate for alimony. The husband also has to make this payment only for the period of Iddat (3 months). The husband claimed this based on the Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights on Divors) Act, 1986.

Husband praise Rashidbhai’s lawyers also said that if the wife is not capable of any income, then there is a provision of monthly living amount till she is married again. In such a situation, it was wrong to fix the outright survival amount from the Family Court. The High Court rejected these arguments.

In the judgment given in 2020, the then Judge of the High Court Justice JB Pardiwala (now the Supreme Court judge) said that the Muslim marriage of 1939 gives Muslim women the right to go to the civil court to revoke the marriage. The Family Courts Act of 1984 gives the family the power to fix the permanent maintenance amount in the case of a legal marriage case. In such a situation, the order of the Family Court is right. The High Court also said that the husband has to pay a lump sum amount of money at once. It has no relationship with the woman to marry or not.

Hearing the petition of the husband who reached the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra has appointed 2 senior lawyers as Amicus Curies. The court has asked the two senior lawyers to submit written arguments, saying the next hearing on 15 April.

Also read:-
The Supreme Court angry about the bridges falling in Bihar, said to the Nitish government CJI- We know that scheme that scheme, now transfer …