Landmark Judgments on Women’s Rights in 2025

Legal Bites brings together a carefully curated set of landmark judgments from 2025 that reflect the Indian judiciary’s evolving and assertive commitment to women’s rights, dignity, and substantive equality. Spanning issues of property and succession, bodily autonomy, residence and maintenance, caste identity, marital cruelty, and economic disclosure, these decisions cut across constitutional law, family law, criminal law, and social justice. Collectively, the courts have reaffirmed that outdated social norms, unlawful private arrangements, marital status, or administrative apathy cannot dilute women’s legal entitlements.

Click on the links below to navigate through the significant judicial milestones of 2025.

Landmark Judgments on Women’s Rights in 2025

1) Equal Coparcenary Rights of Daughters in HUF Property

In N.P. Rajani & Ors. v. Radha Nambidi Parambath & Ors. (2025), the Kerala High Court held that daughters are entitled to equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property even in Kerala, notwithstanding the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975. The Court ruled that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which grants daughters coparcenary rights by birth, prevails over the State legislation due to repugnancy under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.

2) Illegal Surrogacy Cannot Create Valid Consent in Law

The Bombay High Court, in Amit Rama Zende v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025), held that a woman’s alleged consent arising from an illegal surrogacy arrangement cannot be treated as valid consent under criminal law. The Court declined to quash rape and assault charges, noting that the so-called written agreement, under which the prosecutrix was paid to cohabit and bear a child, was against public policy and amounted to prohibited commercial surrogacy.

3) A Woman's Right to Shared Household Continues Despite Separation

The Delhi High Court in Khushwant Kaur v. Gagandeep Sidhu (2025), held that a woman’s statutory right to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not end merely because she has separated from her husband or the property is owned exclusively by her in-laws. The Court clarified that once it is shown that the woman lived in the premises in a domestic relationship, ownership becomes irrelevant under Section 17 of the DV Act, and she cannot be forcibly evicted except through due process of law.

4) Husband’s Income Cannot Decide Woman’s Caste Certificate

The Karnataka High Court, in Muthulaxmi B.N. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2025), held that a woman cannot be denied a caste and income validity certificate on the basis of her husband’s income, reiterating that caste is determined by birth and not by marriage. The Court ruled that for determining creamy layer status, the income of the father or parental family alone is relevant, and reliance on the husband’s income reflects a clear misunderstanding of settled law. Strongly criticising the authorities for ignoring binding precedents and causing a year-long delay in the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Court directed issuance of the certificate and imposed exemplary personal costs of ₹2 lakh on the erring officials, underscoring administrative accountability and gender justice.

5) Mother can Claim Maintenance from Children Even If Husband is Alive

The Kerala High Court, in Farookh v. Kayyakkutty @ Kadeeja (2025), held that a mother’s statutory right to seek maintenance from her children under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 125 CrPC) is independent of her husband’s obligation to maintain her, even if the husband is alive and allegedly earning. Upholding the Family Court’s order granting ₹5,000 per month to a 60-year-old mother, the Court ruled that children with sufficient means cannot evade responsibility by pointing to the father’s existence, their own family obligations, or by expecting the aged mother to undertake physically demanding work for survival.

6) Endurance is Not Consent: Marriage Cannot Justify Indignity

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in Indira v. Dhanaseelan (2025), emphatically held that marriage does not give a husband absolute control over his wife, reaffirming that a woman’s dignity and autonomy remain protected even within matrimony. Restoring the husband’s conviction under Section 498-A IPC (now Section 85 BNS) and upholding maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Court ruled that sustained acts such as isolation, denial of food, humiliation, and economic neglect amount to mental cruelty even in the absence of dowry demands. Rejecting age as a shield against accountability, the Court observed that endurance cannot be mistaken for consent and that cruelty corrodes the sanctity of marriage.

7) Concealment of Income Bars Maintenance, Not Residence Rights Under DV Act

The Delhi High Court, in Sahiba Sodhi v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2025), clarified that while concealment or suppression of income by a wife can disentitle her from claiming maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it does not automatically defeat her statutory right to residence under Section 19 of the Act. The Court reaffirmed that maintenance is an equitable, need-based relief requiring full and honest financial disclosure, but residence rights are independent, protective in nature, and rooted in the woman’s right to shelter and dignity.

Important Link

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