5 June 2025 Legal Updates

Kerala High Court Allows Transgender Parents To Be Shown As 'Parents' Instead Of Father Or Mother, Says Law Must Evolve With Society

(a) Case Title:

• Zahhad & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

(b) Court: 

• High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 

(c) Date of Decision: 

• 2nd June 2025 

(d) Bench: 

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. 

Key Facts:

The first petitioner (Zahad) assigned female at birth but identifies as a transgender man and the second petitioner (Ziya) assigned male at birth but identifies as a transgender woman. The third Petitioner is their biological child (born to Zahhad, the transgender man, after pregnancy). 

Issue:

The birth certificate issued by Kozhikode Corporation listed Zahhad as "mother" and Ziya Paval as "father," contrary to their gender identities.  The Petitioners sought a modified birth certificate describing both as "parents" (without gendered terms like mother/father) to avoid future discrimination against the child. 

Legal Challenge:

The Authorities refused, citing the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Kerala Rules, 1999, which mandate gendered parental details as per the prescribed forms.

Key Legal Principles Discussed:

1. Transgender Rights: 

In the case of NALSA versus Union of India, the Court recognized transgender persons as a "third gender" under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

2. Dynamic Interpretation of Law: 

The Court relied upon the judgment of Deepika Singh v. CAT (2023) to reiterate that Law must evolve to include non-traditional families (e.g., single parents, queer relationships).  The Court also relied upon ACB v. State (2015) wherein directions were issued to the Registrar to issue birth certificates to single/unwed mothers without father’s name. 

Judgment:

The court ordered the Kozhikode Corporation to issue a modified birth certificate in Form 5, replacing "mother/father" with "parents" and omitting gender references.  The Original register entries (with gendered terms) were to remain unaltered to comply with statutory requirements. 

Key Takeaway:

Law must adapt to protect transgender rights and atypical family structures. 

Child Custody | Parent Forcefully Shifting Minor To New Place Doesn't Make Them 'Ordinary Resident' For Granting Guardianship: Delhi High Court

(a) Case Title: 

• Sunaina Rao Kommineni v. Abhiram Balusu 

(b) Court: 

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi 

(c) Date of Decision: 

• 28th May 2025 

(d) Bench: 

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla & Hon’ble Ms. Justice Renu Bhatnagar 

Key Facts:

The Appellant/Wife (Sunaina Rao Kommineni) was an Indian-origin woman residing in the USA with her husband until November 2022.  The Respondent/Husband (Abhiram Balusu) was a Green Card holder working in Arizona, USA.  Their minor Child was Born in the USA (2017), and was an American citizen. 

Dispute:

The family visited India for a vacation in November 2022. The wife, with airport security assistance, retained the child in Delhi and filed for custody under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (G&W Act).  The husband obtained a custody order from an Arizona court (March 2023) directing the child’s return to the USA. When the wife refused, he filed a writ of habeas corpus in Delhi High Court. 

Legal Issues:

• Whether the Delhi Family Court had territorial jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Guardians & Wards Act (ordinary residence of the child). 
• Whether the child’s welfare justified overriding the Arizona court’s order. 

Key Legal Principles Discussed:

1. Jurisdiction under Guardians & Wards Act (Section 9): 

Courts emphasized that "ordinary residence" requires voluntary and habitual stay, not forced retention (relying on Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali, 2019).  The child’s brief stay in Delhi (113 days) due to the wife’s unilateral action did not establish ordinary residence. 

2. Comity of Courts & Foreign Orders: 

 Indian courts respect foreign custody orders unless contrary to the child’s welfare. The Arizona court’s order was based on the child’s habitual residence (USA) and joint parenting plan. 

3. Welfare of the Child (Paramount Consideration): 

 The Court considered the Child’s citizenship (USA) and social/educational ties (schooling in Arizona); Parental conduct: Wife’s unilateral retention was deemed disruptive and husband’s assurances wherein he offered financial support and separate accommodation for the wife in the USA. 

4. Habeas Corpus in Custody Disputes: 

Maintainable even if the child is with a parent, provided detention is illegal or against welfare. 

Judgment:

The Delhi High Court allowed the Writ Petition with following directions: 

• Wife directed to return the child to the USA by 1st July 2025. 
• Husband to bear travel costs and provide maintenance ($2000/month). 
• If wife refuses, child to be handed over to the husband for return to the USA. 

Personal Loans Or EMIs Are Voluntary Financial Obligations, Can't Override Husband's Obligation To Maintain Wife: Delhi High Court

(a) Case Title:

• Subhash v. Mamta @ Raksha

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 26, 2025

(c) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla & Hon'ble Ms. Justice Renu Bhatnagar

Facts

Marriage solemnized on February 27, 2009 under Hindu rites. One male child was born to the parties on March 11, 2015. The parties separated on March 16, 2020 due to differences. The Husband filed divorce petition under Section 12(1)(c) read with Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Wife filed application under Section 24 HMA seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month

The Family Court awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month (Rs. 8,000/- for wife, Rs. 7,000/- for child).  The Husband's assessed monthly income: Rs. 47,128/-.

Husband's Arguments (Appellant)

Family Court ignored his financial obligations: He had ongoing EMIs amounting to approximately 26,000/- plus an annual Mediclaim premium of Rs. 23,989/-. The Court also ignored that the wife is well-qualified and should not remain idle. Thirdly, the court ignored that he is only a contractual employee with limited means.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Principles

1. Income Calculation for Maintenance

• Only statutory and mandatory deductions are permissible (income tax, compulsory PF contributions)
• Voluntary financial obligations such as house rent, electricity charges, EMI’s, personal loan repayments and life insurance premiums cannot reduce maintenance liability.

2. Maintenance Not Defeated by Education/Capability

• Educated spouse's theoretical earning capacity doesn't defeat maintenance claim. Court must consider actual circumstances, not just potential to earn
• Distinction: Capable of earning ≠ Actually earning

3. Practical Considerations:

The Court noted that the wife was suffering from a medical condition. In addition she was responsible for the minor child’s care and upbringing. The physical, emotional, and financial responsibilities create genuine limitations on the wife. Her inability to work can be seen as practical constraint, not voluntary choice

Court's Decision

Appeal dismissed - Maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month upheld. Court found no illegality, perversity, or procedural impropriety. Family Court's findings based on cogent material (bank statements, tax returns, income affidavits).

Key Legal Takeaway:

• Section 24 HMA provides for interim maintenance during matrimonial proceedings
• Free income concept - maintenance calculated on actual earning capacity, not after voluntary deductions
• Education doesn't defeat maintenance - theoretical capability to earn is different from actual earning
• Practical circumstances matter - courts consider real-life limitations like childcare responsibilities and health issues
• Voluntary financial commitments cannot be used to avoid statutory maintenance obligations
• Burden of proof - appellant must show illegality/perversity in lower court's order