List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court has held that for the purposes of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 (IEA) it is not enough to merely examine a random witness who asserts that he saw the attesting witness affix his signature in the Will.

• The aforesaid observation was made in the case of Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad.

What is the Background of Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad Case?

• In this case, Nalini Kanth (appellant) claimed to have been adopted by Venkubayamma, a 70-year-old woman, when he was less than 1 year old.
• The appellant claimed that he was adopted by her, by a registered Adoption Deed dated 20^th April 1982.
  • The appellant further claims that under a registered will deed dated 3^rd May 1982, Venkubayamma had bequeathed all her property to him.
• It was also claimed by the appellant that Venkubayamma had canceled her earlier Will Deed dated 26^th May 1981 executed in favor of Kaliprasad, her grandson.
• The appellant filed a suit for declaratory and consequential reliefs in respect of Venkubayamma’s properties.
  • This suit was contested by Kaliprasad.
• The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, passed the judgment in favor of appellant.
  • However, in appeal, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed the judgment against the appellant and allowed the appeal filed by Kaliprasad.
• Thereafter another appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
  • While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh HC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed that for the purpose of proving the genuineness of a will under Section 69 of IEA, it is not enough to merely examine a random witness who asserts that he saw the attesting witness affix his signature in the Will.
• The very purpose and objective of insisting upon examination of at least one attesting witness to the Will would be entirely lost if such requirement is whittled down to just having a stray witness depose that he saw the attesting witness sign the Will.

What is Section 69 of the IEA?

About:

• This section deals with proving the authenticity of a document where no attesting witnesses are found.
• It states that if no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person.

Case Law:

• In the case of Ashutosh Samanta (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. v. SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi & Ors. (2023), the Supreme Court noted that where the attesting witnesses died or could not be found, the propounder of the Will is not helpless, as Section 69 of the Evidence Act would be applicable.

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court

Why in News?

Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari held that a widowed woman can claim maintenance from her father-in-law to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her earnings or other property or, where she has no property of her own, she is unable to obtain maintenance, from the estate of her husband or her father or mother.

• The Chhattisgarh High Court gave this judgment in the case of Dhanna Sahu v. Sitabai Sahu.

What is the Background of Dhanna Sahu v. Sitabai Sahu?

• Sitabai Sahu is the daughter-in-law of the appellant. She was married to Virendra Sahu, son of the appellant and 2 children were born. Said Virendra Sahu died in harness on 28^th August 2021.
  • A dispute arose between the parties and the children were kept in the custody of the father-in-law i.e. the appellant.
• The appellant has affluent means. He has 6 acres of land and was in the avocation of doctorship, whereas the daughter-in-law was unable to maintain herself. Stating various grounds, maintenance was claimed.
• The father-in-law opposed the application for maintenance and stated that his daughter-in-law has sufficient means to survive. No document has been placed before the Court to show that she is unable to maintain herself from the estate of her husband or father or mother.
• The learned family Court after evaluating the material placed before it has directed to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- as maintenance to the daughter-in-law.
• Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent daughter-in-law has filed the application prior to this litigation for custody of the children wherein she has deposed that she has enough earning and would be able to maintain her children, apart from the property.
  • Therefore, that statement cannot be ignored, which cut through the requirement of provision of Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
• The statement of the respondent was made before the family Court in a proceeding for custody of the children and the same was exhibited where she has stated that she wants to keep the children with her, as she has stated that she was working in a private company and was earning enough and her mother and father were also financially well.
• She has stated that she had given the statement in earlier proceedings that she is able to maintain herself from the estate of her husband or father or mother and nowhere is it stated that she is unable to maintain herself.
  • She admitted having given the statement that her mother and father have sufficient property. Therefore, the statement itself made by the respondent cut across the requirement which is mandatory under Section 19 of the Act of 1956.
• The impugned judgment dated 8^th February 2023 passed by the family Court cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Sitabai Sahu has stated that she had given the statement in earlier proceedings that she is able to maintain herself from the estate of her husband or father or mother and nowhere it is stated that she is unable to maintain herself.
• She admitted to have given statement that her mother and father have sufficient property. The statement itself made by the respondent cut across the requirement which is mandatory under Section 19 of the Act of 1956.
• Hence, the HC allowed the appeal and the court did not grant her maintenance.

What is Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956?

The laws relating to adoption and maintenance generally depend on the personal laws of different religions. In India, the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 governs such law for Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists. It basically contains provisions relating to the adoption of children; maintenance of wives, children or aged parents, etc.

• Section 19: Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law.

(1) A Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father in-law: Provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property or, where she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance― (a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother, or (b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate.

(2) Any obligation under sub-section (1) shall not be enforceable if the father-in-law has not the means to do so from any coparcenary property in his possession out of which the daughter-in- law has not obtained any share, and any such obligation shall cease on the remarriage of the daughter-in-law.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Chetram Mali v. Karishma Saini has held that provisions contained in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) is gender neutral.

What was the Background of Chetram Mali v. Karishma Saini Case?

• The appellant (husband) was married to respondent on 19^th November 2018 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.
• The respondent (wife) returned back to her parental home on 7^th July 2020 owing to differences between the parties.
• Appellant preferred the divorce petition against the respondent before the Family Court wherein the impugned order has been passed under Section 24 of HMA, directing the appellant (husband) to pay ₹30,000/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite to the respondent along with litigation expenses.
• Thereafter an appeal was moved by the appellant before the Delhi High Court challenging the decision of the family court.
  • Modifying the order, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that the provision for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to a spouse under the HMA is gender neutral.
• The Court further held that the equivalence does not have to be with mathematical precision but with the objective to provide relief to the spouse by way of maintenance pendente lite (providing maintenance during the pendency of suit) and litigation expenses, who is unable to maintain and support during the pendency of proceedings and to ensure that party should not suffer due to paucity of source of income.

What is Section 24 of HMA?

About:

• This Section deals with the maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. It states that -

Where in any proceeding under this Act, it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.

Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.

Case Laws:

• In Chitra Lekha v. Ranjit Rai (1977), the Delhi High Court held that the objective of Section 24 of HMA is to provide financial assistance to the indigent spouse to maintain herself or himself during the pendency of the proceedings.
• In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge (1997), the Supreme Court has held Section 24 of HMA cannot be given a restricted meaning. It was further held that the wife’s right to claim maintenance pendente lite would include her own maintenance and that of her unmarried daughter living with her.