List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma have observed that while granting anticipatory bail to the accused husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a condition that the husband shall take his wife to his house and maintain and honor her, cannot be imposed.

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Kunal Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand.

What is the Background of Kunal Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand Case?

• The accused husband (appellant) had applied for anticipatory bail before the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Bench. The court had granted bail to the husband and imposed a peculiar condition that the husband was required to take his wife to his home and maintain her with dignity and honor.
• The appellant again approached the High Court, praying for modification of the order.
• In a petition filed for modification of order, the husband contended that he had hired a house and was ready to maintain his wife.
• The High Court dismissed his plea while observing that the appellant is resolute in not resuming his life with his wife at his own house.
• While setting aside the impugned order, the court granted bail to the accused.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Neither condition like the husband shall take his wife to his house and maintain and honor her, should have been imposed by the High Court while granting an anticipatory bail, nor such could be a ground for rejection of the petition filed by the appellant.

What is the Meaning of ‘Conjugal Rights’?

• The term ‘Conjugal Rights’ could be placed against any of the spouses guilty of staying away from the other party without a proper reason. If the suit succeeds, then the couple would be needed to stay together.
• The decree of restitution of conjugal rights cannot be actioned by forcefully making the party who has gone away from society from the other party to live with the one who sets petition for restitution.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Justice Saurabh Banerjee has observed that filing of chargesheet in a criminal case is not the sole criteria to be taken into consideration while considering the grant of bail to an accused as it has to be coupled with facts and circumstance involved.

• The Delhi High Court gave this judgment in the case of Keshav Prakash Gupta v. State NCT of Delhi.

What is the Background of Keshav Prakash Gupta v. State NCT of Delhi Case?

• While denying bail to a 19-year-old boy in a gang rape case, considering the facts of the case, coupled with the grievousness of the offences and severity of the punishment, First Information Report (FIR) was registered for the offences under Sections 323, 328, 343, 376D, 376(2)(n), 506, 509/l and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The complainant alleged that she was forcefully intoxicated, and her hands were tied-up when the applicant, along with two other co-accused persons, invited others in lieu of money to commit sexual relations with her.
• The counsel submitted and his client was a young boy of around 19 years, had clean antecedents and that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of around 31 months in registration of the FIR.
• The prosecution opposed the bail plea.
• Dismissing the bail plea, the court observed that though chargesheet was filed in the case, the complainant in both her statements before the police and the magistrate had specifically deposed not only naming the applicant but also attributing a specific role to him.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Though filing of the chargesheet is a material consideration while granting bail, however, the same is not the sole criterion to be taken into consideration as it has to be coupled with the facts and circumstances involved.

What is a Chargesheet?

• About:
  • A chargesheet, as defined under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), is the final report prepared by a police officer or investigative agency after completing their investigation of a case.
    • In the K Veeraswami v. Union of India & Others (1991), the Supreme Court ruled that the chargesheet is a final report of the police officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.
  • A chargesheet must be filed against the accused within a prescribed period of 60-90 days, otherwise, the arrest is illegal, and the accused is entitled to bail.
• Chargesheet Should Contain:
  • Details of names, the nature of the information, and offences. Whether the accused is under arrest, in custody, or has been released, whether any action was taken against him, these are all important questions answered in the chargesheet.
• Procedure after Filing the Chargesheet:
  • After preparing the chargesheet, the officer-in-charge of the police station forwards it to a Magistrate, who is empowered to take notice of the offences mentioned in it so that the charges can be framed.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Manu Gupta V. Sujata Sharma & Ors., has held that the Hindu Law doesn't limit the right of a woman to be a Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).

What was the Background of Manu Gupta V. Sujata Sharma & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the appellant and the respondents, being Hindus and governed by the Mitakshara Law, are the descendants of Late Shri D.R. Gupta, who constituted HUF.
• The present appeal before the Delhi High Court has been preferred by the appellant/Manu Gupta against the Single judge order whereby the Suit for Declaration for declaring the respondent/Sujata Sharma as the Karta of Late Shri D.R. Gupta and Sons, HUF, has been allowed as she was the eldest female co-parcener.
• Dismissing the appeal, the High Court held that there is no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcener of an HUF from being its Karta.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna observed that neither the legislature nor the traditional Hindu Law, in any way, limits the right of a woman to be a Karta of a HUF.
• The bench ruled that the explicit language of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) makes it abundantly clear that though the reference in the Preamble may be to inheritance but conferring same rights would include all other rights that a coparcener has, which includes a woman's right to be a Karta.
• The court observed that the rights of the members in a coparcenary remain unaffected even when a female coparcener acts as its Karta. It added that the Coparceners continue to enjoy the same entitlements and interests which they otherwise have and that their rights as coparcener do not get impinged in any manner.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Karta

• A Karta is the overall head of the family who is deputized with several systems to manage the family and its corresponding wealth.
• He is equivalent to that of a manager who is in charge of handling the property related affairs of the family.
• The concept of Karta was always seen as a male dominated concept since the ancient society was male dominated. This led to only males succeeding as Karta in HUF families and this trend continued in the post-independence era as well.
• However, with the amendment to section 6 of the HSA coming in the year 2005, women have been allowed as coparcener which also qualifies them to become Karta of the family, provided they are the senior most members.

Section 6 of HSA

• This section deals with the devolution of interest in coparcenary property. It states that –

(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall, ―

(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right the same manner as the son.

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenery property as she would have had if she had been a son.

(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenery property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener.

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20^th day of December 2004.

(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.

(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenery property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,―

(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son.

(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter.

(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

Explanation.―For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.

(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognize any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt.

Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect―

(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or

(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted.

Explanation.―For the purposes of clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been affected before the 20^th day of December 2004.

Explanation.―For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.