List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Rana Pratap Singh v. Neetu Singh & Ors., has held that while determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), a husband cannot seek deductions for payments towards LIC premiums, home loans, land purchase loan instalments, or insurance policy premiums from his salary.

What was the Background of Rana Pratap Singh v. Neetu Singh & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the revisionist has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 01^st March 2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court under Section 125 of CrPC.
• By the impugned judgment and order, the Family Court order directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 15K to his wife (opposite party no.1) as well as Rs. 5K each to his two children (till they attain the age of majority) under Section 125 CrPC.
• Before the High Court, the counsel of the revisionist stated that the family court failed to note the fact that his wife was residing away from him without sufficient cause, she failed to perform her matrimonial duties even though a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed by the concerned Family Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) against her.
• It was also contended that while determining the amount of maintenance allowance, the trial Court has not taken into consideration the monthly income of the revisionist which is Rs.40,000/- per month and after deduction of instalment towards the loan taken for purchasing land and paying the premium of LIC, he is receiving only Rs. 28,446/- per month.
• Finding no merit in the criminal revision, it was dismissed by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Surendra Singh-I observed that while determining the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the wife under section 125 CrPC, a husband cannot seek deductions for payments towards LIC premiums, home loans, land purchase loan instalments, or insurance policy premiums from his salary.
• It was further stated that only compulsory statutory deductions such as income tax can be reduced from the gross salary of the husband while determining maintenance amount.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 125 of CrPC

About:

• This section deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. 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.

Section 9 of HMA

• Section 9 of the HMA deals with the restitution of conjugal rights. It states that -
  • When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.
  • Explanation —Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from society.

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Sheela v. Abdul Gafoor has held that a lease deed for less than 12 months cannot be rejected for want of registration under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).

What was the Background of Sheela v. Abdul Gafoor Case?

• In this case, the respondent (landlord) had sought an eviction against the petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent.
• The petitioner (tenant) had submitted a preliminary objection denying the title of the respondent over the property in dispute which was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
• The rental arrangement between the petitioner and the respondent is said to have been renewed on 05^th January 2022 for a period of 11 months on the basis of a lease deed executed on that day.
• The petitioner submitted that the document was not executed with an intention to create a lease.
• Aggrieved by the refusal of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, to accept the challenge of denial of title raised by the petitioner filed a petition before the High Court of Kerala which was later rejected by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and G. Girish observed that a lease deed for less than 12 months cannot be rejected for want of registration under Section 107 of TPA.
• It was further held that a mere reading of Section 107 of TPA, will make it clear that the requirement of compulsory registration of lease deed is applicable only in respect of a lease from year to year or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent.

What is Section 107 of TPA?

• This Section deals with the making of a lease.
• It states that a lease of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument.
• All other leases of immoveable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession.
• Where a lease of immoveable property is made by a registered instrument, such instrument or, where there are more instruments than one, each such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and the lessee.
• Provided that the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that leases of immoveable property, other than leases from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, or any class of such leases, may be made by unregistered instrument or by oral agreement without delivery of possession.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that “When such is the nature of one spouse towards the other, it brings disgrace to the very essence of marriage and there exist no possible reason as to why he should be compelled to live while enduring the agony of living together”.

• The Supreme Court heard this in the case X v. Y.

What is the Background of X v. Y?

• The present appeal was initiated under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, following the dismissal of the appellant's petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the learned Family Court on 1st October 2018.
• Allegations surfaced regarding the respondent's disrespectful behavior towards the appellant's family, her demands for a luxurious lifestyle, and her neglect of household responsibilities. Incidents of public humiliation and verbal abuse were cited, prompting the appellant to seek legal recourse.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court said that This court is of the opinion that though there is no standard set for what amounts to a reasonable reaction to provocations in marital life, such acts of causing physical harm to a person is a reflection of one’s inability to be in control of their temperaments and amounts to cruelty.
• It was observed that despite requests by the appellant (husband) to not continue the fight in front of their son, the respondent (wife) remained unbothered by it and acted in the heat of the moment.
  • This kind of conduct would no doubt subject a spouse to grave cruelty.

What is Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984?

Appeal. -

• Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) 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.
• 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):
  • 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991 (59 of 1991).
• Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court.
• 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) 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.
• Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court.
• An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges.