A Chinese man divorced his wife following a disagreement over whose surname their son should take. The couple, Shao and Ji, had a daughter in 2019, and she took Mr Shao’s surname. But when their son was born in 2021, Ms Ji insisted he bear her surname. 

Despite Mr Shao’s repeated demands for a name change, his wife refused, leading to their separation and eventual divorce, according to the South China Morning Post.

After they split, both children remained with Ms Ji. Mr Shao sought custody of his daughter but was willing to give up custody of his son. Ms Ji, however, insisted on keeping both children. The case went to court, where Ms Ji was granted full custody, as she had been the primary caregiver.

Chinese courts decide child custody based on the “best interests of the child,” often favouring mothers, though parents’ caregiving abilities are also considered.

Mr Shao appealed the ruling, but a higher court upheld the decision. He was ordered to pay child support until both children turned 18.

In a similar dispute, a married couple in China is on the brink of divorce after arguments over their son’s surname. The wife, Xiangjia, said both families agreed before marriage that their firstborn, regardless of gender, would take the mother’s surname.

But after their son’s birth, her husband repeatedly demanded a change, arguing that children traditionally inherit their father’s name, SCMP reported.

Tensions escalated when Ms Xiangjia underwent surgery and returned home to find that her mother-in-law had unilaterally changed the child’s name. Her husband also began calling their son by the new name. Frustrated, Ms Xiangjia suggested divorce, but her husband refused, claiming ownership of their house, car, and son.

Since 1980, China’s Marriage Law has allowed children to inherit either parent’s surname. Though traditionally rare, maternal surnames are becoming more common. A 2021 study found that only 1.4 per cent of those born between 1986 and 2005 took their mother’s surname. But the trend is rising. Shanghai saw 8.8 per cent of newborns with maternal surnames in 2018, and nationwide, the figure reached 7.7 per cent in 2020, per the Ministry of Public Security.

Bengaluru:

In a shocking incident, a husband set himself on fire in front of his wife’s residence in the Nagarbhavi locality of Bengaluru on Thursday after he was unable to convince her to withdraw the divorce petition.

Police said that the deceased husband is identified as 39-year-old Manjunath, a resident of Kunigal town. He owned a cab. According to police, Manjunath had got married in 2013 and lived in a flat after marriage in Bengaluru. The couple had a 9-year-old boy.

As differences cropped up between them, Manjunath had started living separately for two years and both had approached the court for divorce. However, Manjunath had come to the residence of his wife to convince her to withdraw the divorce petition from the court. Police stated that his wife had flatly refused the proposal and told him on his face that she had endured much turmoil with him.

When she did not agree, he came with a can of petrol in front of the corridor of her house, torched himself and died on the spot. The parents of Manjunath have alleged that his wife is responsible for the death of their son. Jnanabharthi police registered a case and investigating the matter.

Earlier, Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash, a Bengaluru techie had committed suicide over alleged torture and demand of Rs 3 crore by his wife Nikita Singhania for divorce settlement.

Atul Subhash committed suicide alleging his wife demanded Rs 3 crore for divorce settlement.

Amid public outrage and furore over the sensational suicide case of Atul Subhash, another case of suicide involving a police officer, allegedly due to similar reasons of torture by his wife and her family, was reported from Bengaluru on December 14, 2024.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

In a recent ruling in X v. State of Telangana & Another, the Supreme Court of India made some shocking remarks. Justices B. Nagarathna and Kotiswar Singh stated that there is a “growing tendency” for women to misuse Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)—a provision designed to protect women from cruelty in marriage—by using it as a tool for personal vendetta against their husbands and in-laws. While the judges clarified that women who have suffered cruelty should not remain silent, their observations risk perpetuating harmful stereotypes about women misusing the legal system.

In the said case, a woman filed an FIR in February 2022 alleging cruelty under Section 498A and dowry harassment under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused included not just her husband but also six members of his family. While the High Court rejected the husband’s plea to quash the FIR, it restricted arrests until the charge sheet was filed, as per established legal guidelines (Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar). However, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR against the husband and in-laws, citing she made vague and unsubstantiated allegations.

Police Efficiency vs Victim’s Intent

What is concerning is the broader narrative these remarks create. Based on decades of experience working with domestic violence survivors, we know that vague and omnibus allegations in FIRs are often a reflection of police inefficiency rather than the victim’s intent. Women frequently face insensitivity at police stations, where complaints are either dismissed outright or recorded haphazardly. Instead of holding the police accountable for poorly recorded statements, the Supreme Court appears to place the burden on the victim, suggesting that she should ensure her complaint is detailed and precise—a near-impossible expectation in a hostile system.

The Court also made troubling inferences about the absence of earlier complaints by the victim. The justices noted that she married in 2015 and had two children in 2016 and 2017, concluding that there was likely no harassment during this period. This assumption is not only baseless but ignores the reality that many women delay filing complaints due to societal pressure, lack of resources, or repeated attempts by authorities to counsel them into “settling” the matter. The absence of prior legal action cannot and should not be equated with an absence of violence.

The judges highlighted that the victim “abandoned” her two children, who remain in her husband’s custody. This assumption, too, is problematic. Women often face insurmountable barriers to seeking custody, including financial constraints, lack of legal support, and societal stigma. The Court could have considered the possibility that the victim was denied access to her children or made a painful choice to prioritise their stability.

Little Scrutiny Of Letter

Another aspect of the judgment raises serious concerns. The Court referred to a letter the victim allegedly wrote to the police in 2021, admitting she had left her matrimonial home after a quarrel about chatting with another man and promising not to “repeat such acts”. This letter, produced by her husband, was accepted at face value. Yet, anyone familiar with how women are pressured during “counselling” sessions at police stations knows the level of coercion they face. It is alarming that the Court did not scrutinise the circumstances under which this letter was written, especially in a case involving allegations of domestic violence.

Equally disquieting is the Court’s dismissal of the dowry allegations. Despite the victim’s claims of substantial dowry given at the time of marriage, the judges chose to focus on procedural issues and vague allegations rather than allowing the trial to proceed. By doing so, they missed an opportunity to reinforce the illegality of dowry—a deeply entrenched crime that claims the lives of 18 women every day in India, as per the National Crime Records Bureau (2022).

The judgment also framed the FIR as a retaliatory measure, filed after the husband sought a mutual consent divorce. This conclusion overlooks the reality that women often endure violence for years before taking legal action, with divorce threats serving as the final trigger. By framing her complaint as vengeful, the Court risks further discouraging women from seeking legal recourse.

Perhaps most glaringly, the victim was neither present nor represented during the proceedings. Given the systemic hurdles women face in accessing legal support, the Court could have ensured that she had the resources to present her case. Instead, it delivered a judgment that not only undermines her claims but also sets a dangerous precedent for future cases.

Justice Krishna Iyer once said, “A socially sensitised judge is a better statutory armour against gender outrage than long clauses of a complex statute.” Sadly, this case illustrates how far we still are from achieving such sensitivity in our judiciary.

How 498A Is Consistently Undermined

Section 498A, enacted nearly 40 years ago, remains an essential legal safeguard against domestic violence. Yet, its effectiveness is consistently undermined by narratives of misuse, despite overwhelming evidence of the prevalence of domestic violence in India. The National Family Health Survey (2019–20) found that 30% of women aged 18–49 had experienced physical violence since the age of 15—a staggering figure that translates to over 200 million women.

The growing trend of casual and contradictory statements made by Supreme Court judges regarding domestic violence must be addressed without delay. These remarks have a direct and significant impact on how both the police and judiciary respond to cases on the ground, potentially undermining efforts to protect victims and deliver justice. The judiciary must speak with greater compassion recognising the systemic barriers that prevent women from seeking justice.

(Audrey D’mello is the Director of Majlis, and Flavia Agnes is a legal scholar and women’s rights lawyer. Majlis offers legal counselling to women and children facing sexual and domestic violence. For help, call 07506732641.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the authors

New Delhi:

In December 2010 and the following months, demonstrations against corruption, poverty and political repression took Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria by storm. Around the same time in 2011, Vogue magazine published a profile on Asma al-Assad, the wife of then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It was titled “A Rose in the Desert,” and in the words of Joan Juliet Buck, the writer, Asma was “the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies”.

Cut to 2024, the Assad dynasty has fallen. Asma, once the “rose” of what was a brutal presidency overseeing the killings of 580,000 people — nearly half of them civilians — has filed for a divorce. Ms Buck, in her recent writing, described her as “first lady of hell”.

Reports from Turkish and Arab media suggest that she has been living in Moscow with her husband and their three children. Asma has sought special permission from Russian authorities to leave the country and return to the United Kingdom.

Asma, who holds British citizenship, has been declared by UK officials as “no longer welcome” in the country citing sanctions imposed in 2012 due to her ties to her husband’s regime. Her reputation deteriorated for standing by Bashar during Syria’s civil war, drawing accusations of war profiteering and benefiting from foreign aid through her charity.

Who is Asma al-Assad?

Asma Akhras (as she was known before marriage) was born on August 11, 1975, in London to Syrian parents from Homs. She holds dual British-Syrian citizenship.

She attended Twyford Church of England High School and Queen’s College in London. She graduated from King’s College London in 1996 with a degree in computer science and French literature.

She worked as an analyst at Deutsche Bank and later at J.P. Morgan.

As Syria’s First Lady, she was known for promoting women’s rights and social development initiatives, including the Syria Trust for Development. These efforts, however, ceased with the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011.

Asma faced EU sanctions prohibiting financial assistance and restricting travel due to her ties to the Assad regime. She was also the subject of a UK inquiry into war crimes, including allegations of supporting torture and chemical weapon use. She was facing potential terrorism charges.

The 48-year-old is a cancer survivor and was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukaemia in May. She previously battled breast cancer in 2018 and underwent chemotherapy in Syria.

How did Asma and Bashar al-Assad meet?

Asma and Bashar al-Assad met during her childhood holidays in Syria, as her family frequently visited from the UK. Their relationship deepened when Bashar moved to London in 1992 to train as an ophthalmologist at the Western Eye Hospital. The couple married in 2000, shortly after Bashar assumed the presidency following his father’s death. They have three children together: Hafez, Zein, and Karim.

How the Assad dynasty fell

Bashar al-Assad’s rule, which relied heavily on an inner circle of family members, saw its end after over five decades of Alawite domination in a predominantly Sunni nation. The family’s fortunes took a sharp turn after rebel forces breached Damascus, forcing Assad to flee and effectively ending the regime’s decades-long grip on power in Syria.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Thursday said the strict provisions of law were for the welfare of women and not a means to “chastise, threaten, domineer or extort” their husbands.

Justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal observed a Hindu marriage was considered to be a sacred institution, as a foundation for a family and not a “commercial venture”.

Notably, the bench observed the invocation of Indian Penal Code sections including rape, criminal intimidation and subjecting a married woman to cruelty — as a “combined package” in most of the complaints related to matrimonial disputes — was condemned by the top court on several occasions.

“The women need to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands,” it said.

The observations came when the bench dissolved the marriage between an estranged couple on the grounds of its irretrievable breakdown.

“The provisions in the criminal law are for the protection and empowerment of women but sometimes are used by certain women more for purposes that they are never meant for,” the bench said.

The husband in the case was ordered to pay Rs 12 crore as permanent alimony to the estranged wife as a full and final settlement for all her claims within a month.

The bench however commented on cases where the wife and her family tended to use a criminal complaint with these serious offences as a platform for negotiation and as a tool to get the husband and his family to comply with their demands, which were mostly monetary in nature.

It said the police were sometimes quick to jump into action in selective cases and arrest the husband or even his relatives, including aged and bedridden parents and grandparents, with trial courts refraining from giving bail to the accused owing to the “gravity of the offences” in the FIR.

“The collective effect of this chain of events is often overlooked by the actual individual players involved therein, which is that even minor disputes between husband and wife tend to snowball into ugly prodigious battles of ego and reputation and washing dirty linen in public, eventually leading to the relationship turning sour to the extent that there remains no possibility of a reconciliation or cohabitation,” it said.

The Supreme Court noted a plea was filed before it by the wife seeking transfer of a divorce petition filed under section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending in a court in Bhopal to a court in Pune.

The husband had sought dissolution of marriage under Article 142(1) of the Constitution.

The court said the parties and their family members were involved in numerous litigations during the brief period of their marital relationship.

The bench said the marriage did not really take off at all, observing no continuous cohabitation of the estranged couple.

Considering the point of alimony, the court said the wife claimed the estranged husband had a net-worth of Rs 5,000 crore with multiple businesses and properties in the US and in India, and had paid the first wife at least Rs 500 crore upon separation, excluding a house in Virginia.

“Thus, she claims permanent alimony commensurate to the status of the respondent-husband and on the same principles as was paid to the first wife of the respondent,” the bench noted.

The court expressed serious reservations with the tendency of the parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of wealth with the other party.

The bench said it was often seen that parties in their application for maintenance or alimony highlighted the assets, status and income of their spouse, and then asked for an amount that could equal their wealth of the spouse.

“However, there is an inconsistency in this practice, because the demands of equalisation are made only in cases where the spouse is a person of means or is doing well for himself,” it said.

The bench wondered if the wife would be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth if due to some unfortunate event, post-separation, he was rendered a pauper.

Fixing alimony depends on various factors and there cannot be any straight-jacket formula, it said.

In the joint plea jointly seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of mutual divorce, the husband had agreed to pay a sum of Rs 8 crore towards full and final settlement of all claims.

“The family court at Pune has assessed Rs 10 crore as the quantum of permanent alimony that petitioner could be entitled to. We accept the said finding of the family court, Pune. An additional amount of Rs 2 crore is liable to be paid to the petitioner so as to enable her to acquire another flat…,” said the bench.

The court also quashed the criminal cases filed by the wife against the estranged husband. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

The Supreme Court has laid down an eight-point formula for deciding alimony amount amid the ongoing debate surrounding the suicide of Bengaluru-based techie Atul Subhash, who had alleged harassment by his wife and in-laws.

Before he took the extreme step, Atul Subhash, a native of Bihar, recorded an 80-minute video in which he accused his estranged wife Nikita Singhania and her family of slapping multiple cases on him and his family to extort money from them. He also criticised the justice system in his 24-page suicide note.

The Supreme Court bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PV Varale, while deciding a divorce case on Tuesday and deciding on alimony amount, advised all the courts across the country to base their orders on the factors mentioned in the judgment.

The eight points are:

* Social and economic status of husband and wife

* Basic needs of wife and children in the future

* Qualification and employment of both parties

* Means of income and property

* Wife’s standard of living while living in in-laws’ house

* Has she left her job to take care of the family?

* Reasonable amount for legal battle for a wife who is not working

* What will be the financial status of the husband, his earnings and other responsibilities along with alimony.

The factors, said the top court, do not form a simple formula but serve as guidelines while fixing permanent alimony

“It is also necessary to ensure that the amount of permanent alimony should not penalize the husband but should be made with the aim of ensuring a decent standard of living for the wife,” said the top court.

In another development earlier today, dismissing a dowry case against a man and his parents, a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh observed that the provision is sometimes exploited as a tool for personal vendetta against the husband and his family.

The case of Atul Subhash has reignited a broader debate over the misuse of dowry laws in India. The Supreme Court has previously raised concerns about the growing trend of misusing Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which addresses cruelty by husbands and their relatives against married women.

In his suicide note, the Bengaluru techie called for justice, stating, “Justice is Due” on every single page of the 24-page note.

Atul and Nikita met on a matchmaking website and married in 2019. The couple became parents to a boy the following year.

Atul Subhash has alleged that his wife’s family would repeatedly demand money running into several lakhs. When he refused to give more money, his wife left the Bengaluru home with their son in 2021.

He further said that his wife and her family first demanded Rs 1 crore to settle the case, but later hiked this to Rs 3 crore.
 

Oscar winning composer AR Rahman and his wife Saira, after nearly 30 years of marriage, today jointly announced through their lawyer that they have “made the difficult decision to separate” from each other.

“After many years of marriage, Mrs. Saira and her husband Mr. A R. Rahman have made the difficult decision to separate from each other,” read a statement from Vandana Shah and Associates, their lawyer.

The decision, said the lawyer, “comes after significant emotional strain in their relationship”.

“Despite their deep love for each other, the couple has found that the tensions and difficulties have created an insurmountable gap between them, one that neither party feels able to bridge at this time,” the statement said, underscoring that the “decision comes out of pain and agony”.

“Mrs. Saira and her husband Mr. A R. Rahman request privacy and understanding from the public during this challenging time, as they navigate this difficult chapter in their life,” the statement further added.

The music composer lamented that couple could not reach the “grand thirty” but hope hoped that there is meaning in “this  shattering”.  

“We had hoped to reach the grand thirty, but all things, it seems, carry an unseen end. Even the throne of God might tremble at the weight of broken hearts. Yet, in this shattering, we seek meaning, though the pieces may not find their place again. To our friends, thank you for your kindness and for respecting our privacy as we walk through this fragile chapter,” Rahman posted on X.

“We had hoped to reach the grand thirty, but all things, it seems, carry an unseen end. Even the throne of God might tremble at the weight of broken hearts. Yet, in this shattering, we seek meaning, though the pieces may not find their place again. To our friends, thank you for…

— A.R.Rahman (@arrahman) November 19, 2024

The couple married in 1995 and are parents to three children: Khatija, Raheema and Ameen.

In his Instagram Stories, their son Ameen wrote, “We kindly request everyone to respect our privacy during this time. Thank you for your understanding.”

AR Rahman, who won the Oscar for his work on Slumdog Millionaire, was once dubbed “the Mozart of Madras” by Time magazine.

The musician, who started playing music at the age of five, got his first break with the 1992 movie Roja. It was a hit, and Rahman’s soundtrack led to him winning the national award for best music composer.

“How come you opted for an arranged marriage?” Simi Garewal asked the ace composer in 2012 on her popular chat show ‘Rendezvous with Simi Garewal’.

“To be honest I didn’t have the time to go and search for a bride,” said a smiling Rahman, eliciting a chuckle from the host. 

“I was doing all those films – Rangeela , Bombay and all that stuff. Was so busy in that, but I knew that was the right time for me to get married. I was 29. And I told my mother. I said find me a bride,” said Rahman 

“Did you have any specifications?” asked Ms Garewal      

“I want a simple wife. The one who won’t give me much trouble. So I could carry on doing my music,” Rahman answered. 

Ms Garewal then reminded Rahman that he had asked his mother to find her a bride with “some education, some beauty and loads of humility”. 

Rahman smiled and nodded in the affirmative. 

Asked how they met, Rahman also revealed that his mother found Saira’s sister near a Sufi shrine and one thing led to another and soon they were married.

New Delhi:

Melinda French Gates recently opened up about her divorce from Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates.

Speaking to TIME magazine, Ms Gates revealed she initially separated from him before ultimately deciding to proceed with the divorce in 2021.

Melinda Gates talked about being able to navigate this process privately, especially while balancing responsibilities like caring for their children. In her words, “To be able to do that in private while I’m still trying to take care of the kids, while still making certain decisions about how you’re going to disentangle your life – thank God.”

Melinda French Gates described her divorce as an “awful” and “horrible thing”. However, “it has been wonderful” since then, she said. “I live in a neighbourhood. Now, I can walk to little stores. I can walk to the drugstore, I can walk to a restaurant,” adding that she “absolutely loves it”.

The divorce, finalised in August 2021 after 27 years of marriage, led her to step away from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, an organisation synonymous with global impact and philanthropy.

“I thought a lot about my three children. But I certainly thought about the effect on the foundation. Those are the three biggest buckets: me, the kids, and the foundation. And I wanted to make sure that when we came through it to the other side – all of those pieces were intact,” Melinda French Gates shared during the interview.

Following her exit from the foundation, Ms Gates redirected her efforts towards new initiatives aimed at empowering women on a global scale. She recently announced a billion-dollar funding initiative designed to promote women’s rights and economic empowerment.

Regarding Bill Gates’ association with Jeffrey Epstein, Ms Gates said she did not like that he would meet the sex offender. “I made that clear to him. I also met Jeffrey Epstein exactly one time. I wanted to see who this man was and I regretted it from the second I stepped in the door,” she said.

New Delhi:

Trivial irritations and loss of trust between married couples cannot be confused with mental cruelty, the Delhi High Court said on Monday as it refused to uphold a lower court order granting divorce on a husband’s plea against his wife.

The husband sought divorce on account of mental cruelty by the wife, alleging that she was not interested in living with him in the matrimonial home and wanted him to live with her at her parental home as “ghar jamai”.

Their marriage was solemnised in 1996 according to Hindu rites and customs and they were blessed with a baby girl in 1998.

The man had claimed that his wife used to desert him on one pretext or the other, was only interested in running her coaching centre and even denied him sex.

Dealing with the wife’s appeal, a bench headed by Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said although denial of sex can be considered a form of mental cruelty when it is persistent, intentional and for a considerable period of time, the court needs to “over-circumspect” while dealing with such a sensitive and delicate issue.

Such allegations, the court said, could not be proved merely on the basis of vague and unspecific averments, particularly when the marriage was also duly consummated.

It held that the husband had failed to prove any mental cruelty on him and the present instance was “simply a case of normal wear and tear of the matrimonial bond” and the evidence indicated that the “discord was between the wife and her mother-in-law”.

“There was nothing to affirmatively suggest that the conduct of the wife was of such a nature that it was no longer possible for her husband to stay with her. The trivial irritations and loss of trust cannot be confused with mental cruelty,” said the bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Jain.

The court also said the mere fact that the woman had approached police with a criminal complaint, resulting in an FIR against her husband who was eventually granted the benefit of the doubt in the matter, would not amount to cruelty.

“Thus, the picture which emerges out is very clear. There was loss of trust, faith and affection between the parties but despite that, they both were trying hard to save the family,” the court observed.

“Merely because the wife had knocked the doors of the court for redressal of her grievance, just like her husband also did, cannot tantamount to infliction of cruelty. The evidence led by the husband, when tested on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities, does not seem compelling enough to prove cruelty on the part of his wife,” it added.

The court further rejected the husband’s plea to grant him divorce on account of an “irretrievable breakdown” of their marriage and said such power vests only with the Supreme Court and cannot be sought by any of the parties as a matter of right.

“The power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to both the parties. Such a power is not vested in the high courts, leave alone the family courts,” it said.

“As an upshot of our foregoing discussion, we hold that the impugned judgment dated September 7, 2019 is not sustainable. The appeal is, resultantly, allowed and as a necessary corollary, the divorce petition filed by the husband stands dismissed,” the court ordered. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)