Important Judgments of Bombay High Court (2025) - Legal Bites Year Update

Legal Bites presents a concise roundup of the most significant decisions delivered by the Bombay High Court in 2025—judgments that shaped constitutional principles, clarified personal laws, strengthened citizens’ rights, and guided administrative and regulatory frameworks.

From export incentives and reservation claims to maintenance rights, abortion autonomy, child custody, slum rehabilitation, and financial regulations, these rulings reflect the Court’s commitment to balancing legislative intent with constitutional values. This brief overview captures the essence of each decision, offering readers a quick yet meaningful understanding of the Court’s major contributions to the legal landscape in 2025.

Important Judgments of Bombay High Court (2025) 

Legal Bites Year Update

1) Exporters Entitled to Interest-Subvention Benefits

In Jindal Cocoa LLP & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. (2025), the Bombay High Court held that exporters cannot be denied interest-subvention benefits merely because export documents were submitted late, so long as the exports themselves were completed within the RBI-allowed 450-day period (extended due to COVID-19). Interpreting the RBI Master Circular purposively, the Court restored benefits for shipments completed on time but upheld denial for those where the exports exceeded the permissible period.

The ruling emphasises that export-promotion schemes should not be hindered by rigid technicalities when the core requirement—timely export—is met.

2) Caste Claim Based on Mother’s Caste Requires Proof of Upbringing

In Swanubhuti Jeevraj Jain v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025), the Bombay High Court held that a person cannot claim the mother’s caste for reservation benefits unless they can prove they were brought up in the mother’s caste environment and actually faced its social disadvantages.

Since Swanubhuti’s records showed she was raised in her father’s upper-caste household and had no evidence of caste-based hardship linked to her mother’s OBC community, the Court denied her request for an OBC caste certificate. The ruling affirms that the father’s caste applies by default unless strong contrary evidence is shown.

3) Talaq-e-Ahsan Continues to Be Legally Recognised in India

In Tanveer Ahmed & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the Bombay High Court reaffirmed that Talaq-e-Ahsan remains a valid and legally recognised form of divorce under Muslim personal law and is not impacted by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

Since the Act criminalises only instant triple talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat), the Court held that a single revocable pronouncement followed by the iddat period — the traditional elements of Talaq-e-Ahsan — continues to be lawful. As the husband had adhered to this permissible procedure, the FIR alleging an illegal divorce was quashed.

4) Custody Decisions Must Prioritise Child’s Welfare, Not Parents’ Religion

In Sahil Raju Gilani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025), the Bombay High Court held that in child-custody cases, a child’s best interests must prevail over religious personal laws. The Court ruled that religious affiliation or personal law alone cannot determine custody; instead, factors like the child’s welfare, stability, upbringing, and overall well-being should guide the decision. The judgment affirms that custody cannot be awarded purely on religious grounds, reinforcing that secular and constitutional principles must guide decisions affecting minors. 

5) Inclusive Housing Upheld, Forcible Relocation of Slum Dwellers to Outskirts Rejected

In NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025), Bombay High Court held that slum dwellers cannot be relocated to the outskirts merely to free up urban land, affirming their right to dignified housing within the city. Upholding Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of DCPR 2034, the Court allowed slum rehabilitation on reserved “open space” lands so long as 35% of the area is retained for public amenities. Emphasising constitutional rights to shelter and equality, the Court adopted a balanced approach that supports in-city rehabilitation while maintaining essential public-space requirements.

6) Parents Not Legally Bound to Shelter Son and Daughter-in-Law

In Chandiram Anandram Hemnani v. Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal & Ors. (2025), the Court clarified that elderly parents cannot be forced to provide residence to their married son and daughter-in-law under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Since the property was the parents’ self-acquired home and the daughter-in-law had no recognised “shared household” right — especially as she owned another property — the couple had no legal claim to stay there. Upholding their eviction, the Court emphasised that senior citizens’ rights to peaceful possession and autonomy outweigh cultural expectations of joint living.

7) Women’s Mental Trauma and Social Stigma Justify Abortion at 25 Weeks

In ABC v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025), the Bombay High Court allowed a 31-year-old woman to terminate her 25-week pregnancy, recognising that mental distress, financial insecurity, social stigma and lack of support constitute valid grounds for abortion even beyond the 24-week limit.

The bench emphasised that a woman’s reproductive autonomy, dignity and right to choice under the Constitution (Article 21) are paramount when continuation of pregnancy would cause grave injury to her psychological health.

Although no fetal abnormality or medical disorder was found, the court accepted that continuation would worsen her mental anguish, and thus permitted medical termination at a licensed institution.

8) Wife’s Employment Does Not Automatically Disqualify Her from Maintenance

In Shachindra Kamala Prasad Shukla v. Priya Shachindra Shukla (2025), the Bombay High Court reaffirmed that a husband cannot refuse to provide maintenance to his wife simply because she is employed. The Court held that what matters is whether her income can sustain the matrimonial standard of living; if it does not, she remains entitled to support. The husband’s financial capacity and the wife’s actual needs must be assessed holistically before denying maintenance. Employment alone is insufficient ground to deny her the right to support.

9) Bank Cannot Refuse to Open Account Solely for Lack of Aadhaar

In Microfibers Pvt. Ltd. v. Yes Bank Ltd. (2025), the Bombay High Court held that banks cannot refuse to open a bank account merely because the applicant does not possess an Aadhaar card — doing so is unlawful. The Court ruled that, following the decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018), Aadhaar is not mandatory for banking services; banks must accept other valid KYC documents as sufficient. As a result of the unlawful refusal, the Court awarded token compensation to the petitioner for losses incurred due to the delay in account opening.

10) Mere Confession of Love Does Not Amount to Sexual Harassment

In Ravindra Narete v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the Bombay High Court held that simply saying “I love you” to a minor, without any sexual intent or further inappropriate conduct, does not constitute sexual harassment under the IPC or POCSO. Since there was no physical contact, indecent remark, repetition, or behaviour indicating sexual motivation, the Court ruled that the essential ingredient of “sexual intent” was absent and therefore set aside the conviction.

11) Courts Cannot Compel Retrospective Correction of Legislative Mistakes

In Aarti Drugs Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (2025), the Bombay High Court rejected a plea to direct retrospective correction of a customs-tariff error, holding that courts do not have the power to amend or rewrite legislation — whether clerical or substantive errors. The Court observed that once Parliament enacts a law (like the Finance Act 2022), its contents represent the authoritative legislative will, and any correction must come from the Legislature itself under the doctrine of separation of powers. Even when the government later corrects the error prospectively through notification, the Court ruled it cannot mandate retrospective application.

12) Online Movie Ticket Convenience Fees Are Subject to Entertainment Duty

In FICCI-Multiplex Association of India & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025), the Bombay High Court held that convenience fees charged on online movie-ticket bookings—when exceeding ₹10 per ticket—form part of the “payment for admission” and are therefore liable to entertainment duty under the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act, 1923. The Court found that such fees are inseparable from the act of accessing the entertainment, rejecting the claim that online booking constitutes a separate, non-taxable service.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams