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

Legal Bites presents a concise year update on Important Judgments of the Delhi High Court (2025), capturing landmark decisions that shaped the legal landscape on issues such as maintenance and matrimonial rights, child custody and welfare, landlord–tenant disputes, intellectual property protection, trademark infringement, criminal procedure under BNSS, personal liberty, free speech and dignity, and humane treatment of prisoners—offering readers a quick yet comprehensive snapshot of the Court’s most influential rulings of the year.

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

1) Legal Liability for Using Classical Music

In Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman & Ors. (2025), the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that while ragas and taals belong to the public domain, an original and identifiable classical composition is protected under Indian copyright law. Recognising both copyright and moral rights in a distinctive Dhrupad work, the Court held that unauthorised use of its unique melodic and structural elements constitutes infringement and awarded ₹2 crore in damages.

2) Divorced Wife’s Right to Maintenance in India

In Rajeev Bhardwaj v. Dipti Bhardwaj (2025), the Court reaffirmed that a divorced woman who has not remarried and is unable to sustain herself remains entitled to maintenance from her former husband under Section 125 CrPC, now embodied in Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Emphasising that the husband’s statutory duty of financial support does not cease with divorce, the Court granted monthly maintenance of ₹15,000 with scope for periodic revision, noting that the determination of quantum must consider the wife’s reasonable needs, the husband’s financial capacity, and whether any permanent alimony had already been paid.

3) Jurisdiction in IP Suits

In M/s Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (2025), the Delhi High Court clarified that territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes is determined by the place where the cause of action genuinely arises and not by the mere location of a company’s head office, holding that the existence of a principal office, without a real and substantial connection to the alleged infringement, is insufficient to confer jurisdiction.

4) Widow’s Right to Maintenance from Father-in-Law’s Estate

In Geeta Sharma v. Kanchana Rai & Ors. (2025), the Delhi High Court held that a widowed daughter-in-law who is unable to maintain herself can claim maintenance from the estate of her deceased father-in-law under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Court clarified that the duty of maintenance flows from coparcenary or ancestral property forming part of the father-in-law’s estate, even if he died before the husband, and recognised the widow as a “dependant” entitled to enforce this right against the estate in the absence of any other means of livelihood, reinforcing the Act’s social-welfare objective.

5) Tribal Marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act

In Ajmera Ramulu v. B. Chandrakala (2025), the Delhi High Court held that when a marriage between members of a Scheduled Tribe is solemnised according to Hindu rites and customs, it falls within the ambit of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 despite the general exclusion in Section 2(2) for tribal communities. The Court found that the parties had sufficiently embraced Hindu ceremonial practices, demonstrating “Hinduisation” such that their union bore the hallmarks of a Hindu marriage, and accordingly upheld the divorce petition under the HMA rather than relegating the dispute to uncodified tribal customary law.

6) Humane Treatment of Incapacitated Prisoners

In Kailash Wati v. State of Delhi (2025), the Delhi High Court directed the State to frame a specific policy for elderly and incapacitated prisoners, emphasising that imprisonment must not result in inhuman or degrading treatment. Acknowledging the importance of dignity and health, the Court allowed an 81-year-old convict to serve the remainder of his sentence at home under appropriate conditions, affirming that advanced age and physical incapacity warrant a humane and reformative approach consistent with constitutional values.

7) Child Welfare Overrides Parental Misconduct in Custody Decisions

In Karuna Nath v. Dipender Nath (2025), the Delhi High Court held that adultery by itself does not disentitle a mother from child custody, but when accompanied by proven parental neglect and failure to discharge maternal responsibilities, it can justify denial of custody. Reiterating that the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration, the Court ruled that conduct adversely affecting the child’s physical, emotional, and moral well-being may outweigh biological or gender-based presumptions in custody determinations.

8) Sanctity of Marriage Over Liberal Divorce Interpretations

In Vivek Nagrath v. Divya Goglani (2025), the Delhi High Court, speaking through a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, reaffirmed that marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not a matter of convenience but a solemn institution governed by statutory discipline.

Dismissing a joint appeal seeking a declaration that the marriage was void for alleged non-performance of essential Hindu ceremonies, the Court held that parties cannot lightly repudiate marital ties through liberal or technical interpretations, underscoring the enduring sanctity and legal seriousness attached to Hindu marriages.

9) Right to Residence After Relationship Breakdown

In Khushwant Kaur v. Gagandeep Sidhu (2025), the Delhi High Court held that a woman’s right to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 continues even after cohabitation ends. She cannot be evicted without due legal process, irrespective of whether the property belongs to her husband or his parents.

10) Tenant’s Opinion Cannot Override Landlord’s Need

In Ms. Farheen Israil & Anr. v. Ghulam Rasool Wani & Ors. (2025), Delhi High Court held that in eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the landlord’s bona fide requirement cannot be defeated by objections raised by persons other than the original tenant. Finding that the Rent Controller wrongly granted leave to defend on speculative disputes regarding ownership and alternative accommodation, the Court set aside the order, reaffirmed the summary nature of such proceedings, and upheld the landlord’s right to eviction while granting a reasonable time to vacate.

11) Free Speech Must Not Trample Individual Dignity

In Ajaz Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025), the Delhi High Court dealt with whether derogatory or humiliating social media posts can be limited in order to safeguard personal dignity. While deciding an anticipatory bail plea of a social media influencer accused of making sexually explicit and insulting online remarks about another’s family, the Court emphasised that freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution must be exercised within reasonable limits and cannot infringe on an individual’s dignity under Article 21.

12) ‘Croose’ Infringed the Trademark ‘Crocs’, Leading to Cancellation

In Crocs Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. (2025), the Delhi High Court held that the registered trademark “Croose” for footwear was deceptively similar to the well-established mark “Crocs”, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion for identical goods in Class 25. Applying Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court found visual and phonetic similarity sufficient to mislead an average consumer and directed cancellation and removal of the “Croose” mark from the trademark register to protect the goodwill and distinctiveness of the Crocs brand.

13) Denial of Intimacy and Child Alienation Amount to Matrimonial Cruelty

In Dhan Vati @ Dhanno v. Satish Kumar (2025), the Delhi High Court held that prolonged denial of marital intimacy and deliberate alienation of a child from the other parent constitute matrimonial cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court affirmed that such conduct, including refusal to cohabit without a valid reason and manipulating the child against the spouse, causes psychological harm that makes continued marital life unbearable and justifies dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

14) Prior Partition is not a Prerequisite for Sale under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act

In Raju Sardana v. Pawan Arya & Ors. (2025), the Delhi High Court held that prior partition is not a prerequisite for sale under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. A co-owner may validly sell their undivided share in joint property even if the property has not been partitioned. The purchaser acquires the seller’s rights to joint possession and to enforce partition, but not exclusive possession of a specific part without consent or partition.

15) Section 193(9) BNSS Does Not Dilute Default Bail or Personal Liberty

In Yash Mishra v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2025), Delhi High Court held that Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 does not dilute the statutory right to default bail or personal liberty under Article 21. The Court clarified that the provision permitting further investigation after filing of the police report operates independently of the default bail framework and is subject to judicial oversight, ensuring that personal liberty remains adequately protected.

Click here to browse Delhi High Court judgments of 2025 with quick legal insights on Legal Bites.

The impact of the Delhi High Court’s 2025 rulings will extend far beyond the present year. Keeping pace with them today ensures readiness for the legal challenges ahead.

Important Link