List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma gave directions to the High Courts for speedy disposal of bail applications.

• The Supreme Court observed this in the case of Rajanti Devi @ Rajanti Kumari v. The Union of India.

What was the Background of Rajanti Devi @ Rajanti Kumari v. The Union of India?

• The Miscellaneous Application was filed before court for consideration on the compliance report submitted by the Registry alongwith its office report.
• In accordance with the report, an anticipatory bail matter underwent a prolonged process, with the judge concerned reserving judgment on 07th April 2022.
  • After almost a year, on 04^th April 2023, the judgment was released.
• The court acknowledged the volume of bail applications but expressed concern over persistent delays and issued guidelines to address this issue.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC said that it is directed that all the courts shall scrupulously follow the directions/ guidelines issued by this Court in the several decisions.
• The SC left it to the High Courts to evolve a system/mechanism to check and verify at the end of each month, the pendency of cases reserved for judgments and orders in each Court.

What was the Landmark Judgments cited by the Supreme Court?

• Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001):
  • The Chief Justices of the HCs may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after the cause-title, date of reserving the judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the Court Officer concerned.
  • That Chief Justices of the HCs, on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/Readers of the various Benches in the HCs to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month.
  • On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months, the Chief Justice concerned shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter.
    • The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information.
    • Such communication be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.
  • Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment.
    • Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.
  • If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, any of the parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the HC with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other bench for fresh arguments.
    • It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as he deems fit in the circumstances.
• Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., (2022):
  • The SC said that bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application.
  • Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application.

Source – Jharkhand High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand and Anr., has held that once the marital relationship is disproved, there cannot be any order of maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

What was the Background of Ashok Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand and Anr. Case?

• Before the Jharkhand High Court, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 16^th January 2020 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Jamshedpur whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant and further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as lumpsum as a litigation cost.
• The sole ground for challenge is that the applicant is not the legally married wife of the petitioner and they never lived together in that relationship.
• Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the aforesaid order.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed that once the marital relationship is disproved, there cannot be any order of maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC.
• The Court further held that the cloud is on the factum of marriage itself. There is a presumption of marriage where there is evidence that parties were living together. But the said presumption is rebuttable presumption.

What is Section 125 of CrPC?

About:

Section 125 of CrPC deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (2023), BNSS. 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 wifes 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.

Case Law:

• In K. Vimal v. K. Veeraswamy (1991), the Supreme Court where it was held that Section 125 of the CrPC had 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.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Gounder & Ors. V. M. Sengodan & Ors., has held that the children born out of void and voidable marriage shall be considered as legitimate and would be treated as successors in the property of common ancestors.

What was the Background of Raja Gounder & Ors. V. M. Sengodan & Ors. Case?

• In this case, Muthusamy Gounder is a common ancestor in interest who died in the year 1982.
• He had three marriages out of which two marriages were declared void.
• Out of these three marriages, Gounder had four sons and one daughter, and he divided and allotted the share in the property in accordance with law.
• Before the Trial Court, the legitimate son filed the suit for partition.
• The Trial Court decreed the suit for partition in favor of the legitimate child.
• Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the High Court of Judicature at Madras by the children of void marriage.
• The High Court, in all particulars, accepted the view of the Trial Court.
• Aggrieved by this, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court which was allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti observed that once the common ancestor has admittedly considered the children born of void and voidable marriage as his legitimate children, then such children would be entitled to the same share as the successors in the property of the common ancestor as that of children born out of a valid marriage.
• The Court noted that the children born out of void marriages would be treated as successors in the interest of Muthusamy Gounder, and accordingly the shared needs to be worked out.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Legitimacy of Children

About:

• Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) is a special provision which deals with the legitimacy of children both in void and voidable marriages. It states that -

(1) Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.

(2) Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage under section 12, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made, who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if at the date of the decree it had been dissolved instead of being annulled, shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity.

• (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under section 12, any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.

Case Laws:

• In Lakshmamma v. Thayamma (1974), the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that as per the provisions of Section 16 of HMA, the benefit of legitimacy has been conferred upon children of both void and voidable marriages.
• In Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi (2003), the Supreme Court held that the mandate of Section 16(3) of HMA clearly expresses that there is no room to confer upon such children any right except the property of their parents.