List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court has issued a directive, emphasizing that judges should avoid handling cases that have not been explicitly assigned to them by the Chief Justice of the Court in the matter of Ambalal Parihar vs State of Rajasthan and ors.

What is the Background of Ambalal Parihar vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. Case?

• Around six First Information Reports (FIR) were registered against the second to fourth respondents.
  • Two other FIRs were registered against the same respondents by some other first informants.
• Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were filed by the second to fourth respondents for quashing the FIRs under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) filed at the instance of the other first informants.
  • The petition came before a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court (HC) in which no interim relief was granted.
• Thereafter, the second to fourth respondents took an extraordinary step to file a Writ Petition on the Civil Side in which a prayer was made for issuing the writ of mandamus for clubbing the eight FIRs and consolidating them into one and that no coercive action to be taken against them.
  • The Learned Single Judge of the High Court directed that no coercive action should be taken against the second to fourth respondents in connection with all eight FIRs.
• The present appellant while applying to the SC (at whose instance some FIRs were filed) made serious allegations against the respondents by relying upon the fact that then prevailing roster notified by the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court was evaded by first filing application for quashing of FIR and then for consolidation of FIRs.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal said that this type of tactics amounts to gross abuse of process of law by the second to fourth respondents.
• The SC further stressed that failing to adhere to the roster as determined by the Chief Justice would undermine its significance.
• The Apex Court also said the HC judge ought not to have entertained such a civil petition for clubbing FIRs, when the jurisdiction for such matters is on the criminal side.

What is a Roster?

• A court roster is basically a schedule that lists the cases and proceedings that are set to take place in a court on a particular day.
• It may include Case Number, Case Title, Courtroom No., Judge Name, Date etc.
• SC Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure mentions about roster under Chapter VI.

What are the Related Case Laws?

• In State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1997) case, the SC has held that in matters concerning the High Court, the Chief Justice holds the authority to determine the assignment of cases.
• In Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India Through Its Registrar and Another (2018) case, the SC has iterated that Chief Justice of India is the Master of Roster for the SC matters and he has power to allocate cases to different benches according to SC rules.

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sandeep Kumrawat v. Smt Antima Kumrawat, held that that a destitute wife claiming maintenance cannot be victimized solely based on faults in her pleadings.

What was the Background of Sandeep Kumrawat v. Smt Antima Kumrawat Case?

• The marriage between the petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife) was solemnized on 29^th May 2014 and a son was born out of their wed lock.
• The respondent left her matrimonial home and since then she started living separately.
• The Respondent moved an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) against the petitioner and learned Principal Judge allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.7000/- to respondent and Rs.3000/- to the son.
• Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 127 of CrPC which was rejected by the Family Court.
• Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
• The High Court dismissed the petition, and the order of the Family Court was affirmed.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh observed that the destitute wife who is unable to maintain herself cannot be victimized only on the basis of her fault. The hyper technical attitude cannot be adopted in such type of maintenance cases. As such the petitioner cannot escape the liability of maintenance of the child and wife on the excuse that she has done some fault in her pleadings and proceedings of the case.
• The Court relied upon the case of Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha (2015).
  • In this case, the Supreme Court held that the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC are summary in nature. In a proceeding under Section 125, CrPC, it is not necessary for the Court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 125 of CrPC

• This section deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. It states that -
  • (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain--
    • (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
    • (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
    • (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
    • (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
  • a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
  • Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means:
  • Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
  • Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.
  • Explanation. --For the purposes of this Chapter,

• • • (a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 is deemed not to have attained his majority;
    • (b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
  • (2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.
  • (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each months allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made.

• • Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due:

• • Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.

• • Explanation.--If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him.

• • (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
  • (5) On proof that any wife in whose favor an order has been made under this section in living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.
• In K. Vimal v. K. Veeraswamy (1991) case, the SC held that Section 125 of the CrPC has been introduced for achieving a social purpose. The aim of this section is the welfare of the wife by providing her with the required shelter and food after the separation from the husband.

Section 127 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the alteration in allowance. It states that-
  • (1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving, under section 125 a monthly allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance, or interim maintenance, to his wife, child, father or mother, as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration, as he thinks fit, in the allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance, as the case may be.
  • (2) Where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly.
  • (3) Where any order has been made under section 125 in favor of a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is satisfied that--
    (a) the woman has, after the date of such divorce, remarried, cancel such order as from the date of her remarriage;
    
    • (b) the woman has been divorced by her husband and that she has received, whether before or after the date of the said order, the whole of the sum which, under any customary or personal law applicable to the parties, was payable on such divorce, cancel such order,--
    • (i) in the case where such sum was paid before such order, from the date on which such order was made;
    • (ii) in any other case, from the date of expiry of the period, if any, for which maintenance has been actually paid by the husband to the woman;
    • (c) the woman has obtained a divorce from her husband and that she had voluntarily surrendered her rights to maintenance or interim maintenance, as the case may be, after her divorce, cancel the order from the date thereof.
  • (4) At the time of making any decree for the recovery of any maintenance or dowry by any person, to whom a monthly allowance for the maintenance and interim maintenance or any of them has been ordered to be paid under section 125, the Civil Court shall take into account the sum which has been paid to, or recovered by, such person as monthly allowance for the maintenance and interim maintenance or any of them, as the case may be, in pursuance of the said order.

Family Courts Act, 1984

• This Act was enacted for the purpose of establishing Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation, and to secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs.
• Section 19(4) of this Act states that the High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and as to the regularity of such proceeding.

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court

Why in the News?

The Chhattisgarh High Court (HC) has held that a wife should not be regarded as property or forced to live under conditions dictated by her husband in the matter of Kalyani Bai v. Tejnath.

What is the Background of Kalyani Bai v. Tejnath Case?

• The parties got married in 2008 and the couple had a baby girl in 2009.
• The couple lived at the matrimonial house situated at village Barduli for about 6 months after performing ‘gouna’.
• It was alleged by the husband that initially, that the wife did not like the marriage as it was performed in the rural area, she went to Raipur thereafter to complete a B.Ed. Course.
• After the completion of the course when he went there to take her back, she refused to accompany him and stated that she would reside at her maternal house.
• The husband then sought a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) and the same was allowed by the Family Court.
• In appeal the wife contended that she was always willing to reside with the husband, but he never wanted to keep her with him and wanted her to reside separately at Village Barduli.
  • She also stated that she used to resist husband’s demand to live in his village from the very beginning.
  • The husband submitted that his wife was habitual of making false allegations and she had also made a police complaint against him for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Deepak Kumar Tiwari held that it was the husband who had been insisting that his wife should stay in the husband's village and did not give due importance to her demand of living together.
• Highlighting the importance of wife’s autonomy and dignity within the matrimonial home, the HC rejected the contention of desertion and cruelty made by the husband against his wife.

What is Desertion?

Desertion refers to the act of withdrawing from the company of a spouse or withdrawal from marital obligations without any reasonable cause. The following are the prerequisites:

• Factum of separation of one spouse from other.
• Animus deserendi, i.e., intention to desert permanently.
• The deserted spouse must not have agreed to the desertion.
• The desertion must be without reasonable cause.
• For at least two years, this situation must have continued.
• The provision of desertion is provided under Section 13 (1) (ib) of HMA.
• Section 13 - Divorce — (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party
  • (ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
• In Bipin Chandra v. Prabhawati (1957), the Supreme Court ruled that where wife leaves the marital home without a reason, she would not be considered to have deserted if she later indicated a desire to return but was forcibly stopped from doing so by the husband.