List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Justice AS Chandurkar and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla has observed that a person cannot be deprived of his/her fundamental right to travel abroad on the ground that there is a dispute in respect of the property which is mentioned in the address given by the applicant for the purposes of including it in the passport.

• The Bombay High Court gave this judgment in the case of Rajinder Kaur Jaspal Singh Layal and others v. The Union of India and others.

What is the Background of Rajinder Kaur Jaspal Singh Layal and others v. The Union of India and others?

• The Passport Authority had refused to renew the passports of Rajinder Kaur and her two sons on the ground that there was an objection raised by the woman's brother-in-law Gurvinder Chanan Singh Layal over the address mentioned by them in their passport applications.
• Layal had contended that the address belonged to a room standing in his name and there was an ongoing property dispute regarding the same.
• The court clarified that the right to the property can be protected by making it clear that mention of the address in the passports will not confer any title rights to the appellants.
• The court directed respondent no.2 to issue passports to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Passports Act and the Passports Rules, without going into the merits of the objection as raised by respondent no.3 and held that the ground cited by the ‘Passport Authority’ for refusal is ‘arbitrary and without jurisdiction.’
• The court also observed that the ‘Passports Act’ does not contain any provision that enables refusal on the ground mentioned.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Since the petitioners have filed the present petition to enforce the fundamental right to travel abroad, which is guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and have challenged the said orders refusing renewal of passport to them as being without jurisdiction, the present petition clearly falls within the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy.
• Needless to state that indication of the petitioners' address in the passport would not, by itself, confer on them any right in respect of the said property mentioned therein, and such inclusion would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of respondent no.3 in other pending proceeding.

What is Article 21 of Indian Constitution?

• Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty:
  • No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
  • This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
  • Article 21 provides two rights:
    • Right to life
    • Right to personal liberty
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the ‘heart of fundamental rights’. This implies that this right has been provided against the State only.
  • State here includes not just the government, but also, government departments, local bodies, the legislatures, etc.
  • The right to life is not just about the right to survive. It also entails being able to live a complete life of dignity and meaning.
• Case Laws:
  • AK Gopalan Case (1950): Until the 1950s, Article 21 had a bit of a narrow scope. In this case, the SC held that the expression ‘procedure established by law’, the Constitution has embodied the British concept of personal liberty rather than the American ‘due process’.
  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case overturned the Gopalan case judgement. The idea of personal liberty in Article 21 has a wide scope including many rights, some of which are embodied under Article 19, thus giving them ‘additional protection’. The court also held that a law that comes under Article 21 must satisfy the requirements under Article 19 as well.
  • That means any procedure under law for the deprivation of life or liberty of a person must not be unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary.
• List of rights that Article 21:
  • Right to privacy
  • Right to go abroad
  • Right to shelter
  • Right against solitary confinement
  • Right to social justice and economic empowerment
  • Right against handcuffing
  • Right against custodial death
  • Right against delayed execution
  • Doctors’ assistance
  • Right against public hanging
  • Protection of cultural heritage
  • Right to pollution-free water and air
  • Right of every child to a full development
  • Right to health and medical aid
  • Right to education
  • Protection of under-trials

Source: Patna High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Patna High Court in the matter of Alok Bharti v. Jyoti Raj, has held that the leveling of false allegations by one spouse to the other having alleged illicit relations with different persons outside the wedlock amounted to mental cruelty.

What was the Background of Alok Bharti v. Jyoti Raj Case?

• The appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) married in terms of Hindu rites and customs in the year 2012.
• There were certain domestic issues as the respondent was not willing to live in husband’s matrimonial home.
• In 2016, the woman initiated legal proceedings by filing a police case, accusing her husband, in-laws, and six others of matrimonial torture and cruelty.
• In this backdrop, the appellant-husband filed a case before the Family Court under Sections 13 (1) (i-a) and 13(1) (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
• The Family Court declined the appellant’s petition.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Patna High Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The division bench of Justices P B Bajathri and Ramesh Chand Malviya observed that the leveling of false allegation by one spouse to the other having alleged illicit relations with different persons outside the wedlock amounted to mental cruelty.
• The Court also held that the social torture by anyone of the spouses to the other, found to be as the mental torture and cruelty. Respondent harassing appellant in filing false cases of domestic violence and she has admitted certain allegations are false and such behaviors amounts to cruelty. It is also sufficient that if the cruelty is of such type, it becomes impossible for spouses to live together.
• The Court further added that each individual's dignity is to be valued. Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes the right to be left alone.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions?

Section 13(1) (i-a) of HMA

• This section deals with cruelty as a ground for divorce.
• Prior to the 1976 amendment in the HMA, cruelty was not a ground for claiming divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
• It was only a ground for claiming judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act.
• By the 1976 Amendment, the Cruelty was made ground for divorce.
• The word cruelty has not been defined in this Act.
• Generally, cruelty is any behavior which causes physical or mental, intentional or unintentional pain and agony.
• According to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several judgments, there are two types of cruelty.
  • Physical cruelty - violent conduct causing pain to the spouse.
  • Mental cruelty – spouse is inflicted with any kind of mental stress or has to constantly go through mental agony.
• In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) the Supreme Court held that the word cruelty can have no fixed definition.
• In Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad (2007), the Supreme Court held that any kind of mental cruelty faced by either of the spouses not just the woman, but men as well, can apply for a divorce on grounds of cruelty.

Section 13(1) (i-b) of HMA

• This section deals with desertion as a ground for divorce.
• By the amendment of 1976, desertion was included as a ground for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-b) of HMA. Before 1976, desertion was a ground for judicial separation but now it is a ground for both divorce and judicial separation.
• Section 13 (1) (i-b) of HMA deals with desertion as a ground for divorce and states that a marriage 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 has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
• The expression desertion means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent of or against the wish of such party and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.
• For establishing desertion as a ground for divorce, the following essential requirements must be met:
  • The desertion must be voluntary.
  • Desertion must be without reasonable cause.
  • The desertion must be continuous and unjustified
  • The desertion must be deliberate and willful.
• Desertion can be terminated in two ways - by mutual consent or by resumption of cohabitation.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Shiv Shanker Prasad has observed that once cruelty is found committed, the cause of action to seek divorce does arise and in cases of cruelty, the court should look into other attending circumstances before passing an order to restore the marital relationship.

• The Allahabad High Court gave this judgment in the case of Hemsingh @ Tinchu v. Smt. Bhawna.

What is the Background of Hemsingh @ Tinchu v. Smt. Bhawna?

• Appellant-husband approached the High Court against the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah dissolving his marriage at the instance of respondent-wife.
• The court observed that the respondent-wife had sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty.
• The close relatives of the appellant-husband had corroborated the allegations made by the respondent-wife. Statements were made to the effect that the father of the appellant had ousted him from his will due to his poor conduct.
• The court had not erred in rejecting the submission of the appellant-husband that the marriage be restored subject to him not raising the demand of dowry, etc.
• It held that the act of cruelty was found established and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-husband.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Once cruelty is found committed, the cause of action to seek divorce does arise. How the parties may conduct themselves, thereafter, may remain a relevant factor.
• Yet, no rule of law may arise as may dictate to the court to pass an order to restore the matrimonial relationship between the parties, without looking into the other attending circumstances.

What is Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984?

• Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 deals with ‘Appeal’.
  • (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.
  • (2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties [or from an order passed under Chapter IX of CrPC: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the CrPC, 1973 before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991].
  • (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court.
  • (4) 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 CrPC, 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.]
  • (5) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court.
  • (6) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a bench consisting of two or more Judges.