List of Current Affairs

Source – Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently the Kerala High Court in the matter of Renjith Raj v. State has held that in cases of death involving use of motor vehicles, the Courts should decide whether an alternative charge for an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is also to be added in addition to the charge under Section 304 of IPC.

What was the Background of Renjith Raj v. State Case?

• In this case, the appellant was tried for an offence under Section 304 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam.
• He was convicted of the offence under Section 304A of IPC.
• Thereafter, the appellant filed the appeal before the High Court of Kerala, challenging his conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 304A of IPC.
• The High Court dismissed the appeal considering the gravity of the offence.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed that every Court while framing a charge in cases of death involving use of motor vehicles and a final report is filed alleging offence under Section 304 of the IPC, the trial court is obliged to apply mind and decide whether an alternative charge for an offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC.
• The Court further held that a conviction under section 304A IPC would not be rendered unsustainable or illegal on an omission to mention terms like Section 304A of the IPC and the words rashly or negligently in the charges framed against the accused.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 304, IPC

• Section 304 of IPC deals with the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 103 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
• It states that whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Section 304A of IPC

• About:
  • Section 304A of IPC deals with the causing death by negligence whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 104 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
  • It states that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
• Essential Elements of Section 304A:
  • To bring a case of homicide under section 304A, IPC the following conditions must exist:
    • There must be death of the person in question.
    • The accused must have caused such death.
    • That such act of the accused was rash and negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide.
• Case Law:
  • In the case of Benny v. State of Kerala (1991), the Kerala High Court held that Section 304A of IPC is not a minor offence of Section 304 of the IPC.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta, and Aravind Kumar examined various aspects of civil law in the case of Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. This included the perspective that, prior to granting interim relief in a civil suit, it is crucial to ensure prima facie satisfaction of maintainability and legality.

What was the Background of Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Case?

• The suit was related to a property gifted to the appellants by their great-grandmother.
• In response to their suit, two of the three defendants did not file a written statement resulting to which the trial court pronounced judgment against them.
• Supreme Court was dealing with the scenario where defendant fails to submit written statement.

What were the Court’s Observations?

The SC gave the following directions regarding not granting interim relief without deciding the question upon maintainability of the suit:

• Recording of Prima Facie Satisfaction:
  • Where interim relief is claimed in a suit before a civil court and the party to be affected by grant of such relief, or any other party to the suit, raises a point of maintainability thereof or that it is barred by law and also contends on that basis that interim relief should not to be granted, grant of relief in whatever form, if at all, ought to be preceded by formation and recording of at least a prima facie satisfaction that the suit is maintainable or that it is not barred by law.
• Grant of Interim Relief on Assumption:
  • It would be inappropriate for a court to abstain from recording its prima facie satisfaction on the question of maintainability, yet, proceed to grant protection pro tem on the assumption that the question of maintainability has to be decided as a preliminary issue under Rule 2 of Order XIV, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
    • That could amount to an improper exercise of power.
• Appropriate Order in Extraordinary Situations:
  • The SC said that if an extraordinary situation arises where it could take time to decide the point of maintainability of the suit and non-grant of protection pro tem pending such decision could lead to irreversible consequences, the court may proceed to make an appropriate order in the manner indicated above justifying the course of action it adopts.
  • In other words, such an order may be passed, if at all required, to avoid irreparable harm or injury or undue hardship to the party claiming the relief and/or to ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous by reason of non-interference by the court.

What are the Factors Affecting Maintainability of Suit?

• Jurisdiction:
  • The court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute and the parties involved.
    • If the court lacks jurisdiction, the suit may not be maintainable.
• Limitation Period:
  • The CPC often specifies a limitation period within which a lawsuit must be filed.
  • If a suit is filed after the expiration of the limitation period, it may not be maintainable.
• Cause of Action:
  • The plaintiff must have a valid cause of action recognized by law.
  • The facts alleged in the plaint must disclose a legal right and a violation of that right.
• Necessary Parties:
  • The parties involved in the suit must have the legal capacity to sue or be sued.
  • Incorrectly named or improperly joined parties may affect maintainability.
  • Order I, Rule 9 of CPC states that "No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the court in every suit may deal with the matter in controversy so far as the rights and interests of the parties actually before it:
    • Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.
• Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
  • The CPC usually sets out specific procedural requirements, such as the manner of filing the plaint, service of summons, and other formalities.
  • Failure to comply with these procedural rules may impact the maintainability of the suit.
• Res Judicata:
  • If the matter in dispute has already been adjudicated between the same parties, the principle of res judicata shall apply, preventing the filing of a fresh suit on the same issues under Section 11 of CPC.

Source – Madras High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madras High Court has held that a husband who is not interested in living with the wife and children by not giving them any financial assistance and not including their names in the service register in the railways would amount to cruelty.

What was the Background of this Case?

• In this case, the appellant is the wife, and the respondent is the husband who has been living separately for about 12 years.
• The husband filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
• The Family Court has come to the conclusion that the parties have been living separately for more than 12 years, and the respondent has made false allegation that the husband is having an illicit relationship with one of his co-employee.
• The family Court observed that levelling allegations of illicit relationship against the husband or spouse, as the case may be, amounts to mental cruelty and granted the relief on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
• The respondent stated that her husband is not coming home to live with them, and he never helped her and even the children for their education which resulted in filing of the maintenance case.
• The maintenance was awarded, which was not paid by the husband.
• Thereafter an appeal was preferred by a wife before the Madras High Court challenging a Family Court order.
• The High Court set aside the order of the Family Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising of Justices RMT Teekaa Raman and PB Balaji observed that none of the allegation that was averred by the husband as cruelty were not proved in the manner known to law.
• The Court stated that the respondent has demonstrated the cruelty at the hands of the husband to the effect that he is not interested to live with the wife and children by not giving any financial assistance and has not included the wife and children in the service register in the railways so as to enjoy the facilities as a family member. These admitted facts would go to show that it is the husband who has committed cruelty and therefore, the wife was forced to live in the house of her father.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

• 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 a physical or mental, intentional or unintentional.
  • 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 SC 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.
• Principle of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage:
  • This concept was originated in New Zealand in 1921 through the historical decision in Lodder v. Lodde.
  • The irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a situation in which the husband and wife have been living separately for a considerable period and there is absolutely no chance of them living together again.
  • This Principle has attained informal validity as it has been evoked in several judicial decisions granting divorce.
  • In India, incorporation of such ground for divorce in HMA has not yet been made but it has been strongly suggested by various Law Commission Reports and a Bill was presented in this regard in the Parliament titled The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010.