List of Current Affairs

Source: Calcutta High Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justice Shampa Dutt held that “The printing of leaflets containing the prima facie defamatory material also makes out a prima facie case under Section 501 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)”.

• The Calcutta High Court gave this observation in the case of Anindya Das v. State of West Bengal.

What was the Background of Anindya Das v. State of West Bengal Case?

• The petitioner, Anindya Das, is a businessman and a member of an organization called "Bharat Jagaran Andolan" or "Awaken India Movement" (AIM).
• On 11^th January 2022, a covid-19 vaccination program was being conducted for school students aged 15-18 years near a Girls' High School.
• The petitioner and two others were announcing and distributing leaflets discouraging students from taking the covid-19 vaccine, claiming it is detrimental to human health.
  • The leaflets also mentioned the alleged deaths of two girls, Karunya (from South India) and Rithayika (from North-East India), after taking the vaccine.
• The police filed a case against the petitioner and two others under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Disaster Management Act, 2005

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court found that the petitioner's conduct of distributing leaflets and discouraging vaccination prima facie constituted offences under several sections including Section 501 of IPC.
• The court observed that the petitioner's actions were likely to cause panic among the public, discourage them from taking the vaccine and wearing masks, and were against the government's efforts for public welfare.
• The court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue for the mentioned offences.

What is Section 501 of IPC?

Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory.—

• Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
• It is a Compoundable, Non-Cognizable and Bailable offence.
• It is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class and Court of Sessions.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court held that adultery is in any case a ground for divorce, however the same can’t be a ground for not granting custody.

What was the Background of this Case?

• In this case, the Petitioner (husband) and the respondent (wife) got married on 18^th February 2010.
• The husband is an IT professional, and the wife is a doctor by profession.
• On 4^th January 2015 daughter was born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and respondent.
• On 7^th December 2019 as per the case of the wife, she was driven out of the matrimonial house and the custody of the daughter was not given to her. According to the husband, the wife on her own had left the matrimonial house.
• Subsequently, on 27^th January 2020 the husband filed divorce petition under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(HMA) before the Family Court at Mumbai, against the wife.
• The Family Court dismissed the husband’s application in divorce petition seeking temporary custody of minor daughter aged 9 years now.
• Thereafter, the writ petition was filed by the Husband before the Bombay High Court.
• Dismissing the petition, the High Court directed the petitioner to hand over the custody of the minor daughter to the respondent.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Rajesh Patil observed that adultery is in any case a ground for divorce, however the same can’t be a ground for not granting custody. Even if a woman is not a good wife, it does not necessarily mean that she is not a good mother.
• It was further held that an adulterous spouse does not mean an incompetent parent and that allegations of adultery against such a parent cannot be the sole determining factor to deny the custody of the child to him/ her.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Adultery

About:

• Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) criminalized adultery.
• It imposed culpability on a man who engages in sexual intercourse with another man’s wife.
• Adultery was punishable with a maximum imprisonment of five years.
• Women though were exempted from prosecution.
• This section was inapplicable when a married man engaged in sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman.
• The object of this section was to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Legal Provision:

• This Section can be read as follows:
  • Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such a case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.

Decriminalization of Adultery:

• A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and comprising of current (CJI) D.Y Chandrachud and Justices A.M Khanwilkar, R.F Nariman and Indu Malhotra in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) held that adultery is not a crime and struck it off the IPC.
• It however clarified that adultery would continue to remain a civil wrong and a valid ground for divorce.

Ground for Divorce:

• As per Section 13(1)(i) of HMA any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, 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, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse.

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 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.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court held that the wedding reception can’t be considered as a part of marriage rituals.

What was the Background of this Case?

• The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) got married according to Hindu Vedic rites and rituals on 7^th June, 2015 at Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
• After their marriage at Jodhpur, there was a wedding reception in a hotel, at Grant Road, Mumbai on 11^th June, 2015.
• On 15^th October 2019 due to matrimonial issues arising out of the wedlock, the wife and the husband separated when they were residing in U.S.A.
• On 6 August 2020, the husband filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty in Family Court at Bandra.
• The wife subsequently filed application challenging the maintainability of the divorce petition filed by the husband before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai as none of the grounds as mentioned under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) were attracted.
• The Family Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner, holding that the Family Court, Mumbai has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Divorce Petition filed by Husband.
• Challenging this judgment a writ petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court by the petitioner.
• Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the judgment passed by the Family Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Rajesh Patil observed that a wedding reception cannot be considered a part of marriage rituals and hence, the jurisdiction to file a divorce petition lies before the family court where the marriage ceremony took place and not where the wedding reception happened.

What is Section 19 of HMA?

• Section 19 defines where the petition could be filed. It states that -

Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction. —

(i) The marriage was solemnized, or

(ii) The respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or

(iii) The parties to the marriage last resided together, or

(iiia) In case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition; or

(iv) The petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive.