Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Family LawSupreme Court of India

Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato

Criminal Appeal · 2025 INSC 55Decided 10 Jan 2025
Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5896 of 2024)
Chief Justice · Justice Sanjay Kumar

Background

Reena and Dinesh married in 2014 and separated in 2015; Dinesh later obtained a decree for "restitution of conjugal rights" (a court order directing a spouse to resume living together) from a Family Court, which Reena did not comply with. Reena had separately obtained an order granting her Rs. 10,000/month maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, but the Jharkhand High Court set that aside, reasoning that her refusal to obey the restitution decree disqualified her from maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC. Reena appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a wife's non-compliance with a restitution-of-conjugal-rights decree does not automatically disqualify her from maintenance: the key question is whether she had a valid and sufficient reason to stay away, which must be independently assessed on the evidence, not simply assumed from the civil decree. Reviewing the record, the Court found Reena had suffered a miscarriage without support from her husband, was denied basic facilities like a functioning toilet and cooking gas in the matrimonial home, and that her witnesses on these points were never even cross-examined by Dinesh, all indicating genuine mistreatment amounting to cruelty. The Court also noted Dinesh never took any legal steps to enforce the restitution decree or seek divorce, suggesting he was using the decree merely as a shield against paying maintenance. It restored the Family Court's maintenance order.

Lesson Learnt

A husband cannot defeat his wife's right to maintenance merely by obtaining a court decree for restitution of conjugal rights on paper: the wife's right to maintenance survives unless it is shown, on real evidence, that she had no genuine justification for living apart.

Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware