List of Current Affairs

Source: Calcutta High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Sudarsan Mandal and Another v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., has held that in cases of In-Vitrio Fertilization (IVF), it is not mandatory that either the sperm or the oocyte must come from the couple seeking IVF themselves.

What was the background of Sudarsan Mandal and Another v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Case?

• In this case, a plea was filed before the Calcutta High Court by a husband who along with his wife sought to conceive through IVF, after losing their teenage daughter at a young age.
• The couple was facing difficulties due to the husband being 59 years old, and above the limit for IVF according to the Act, while the wife being 46-years old was eligible for the same.
• The Court held that the husband had exceeded the age to donate his gametes to the process, the wife was still eligible under the act, and there was no bar on her to seek IVF treatment.
• Thereafter, the High Court allowed the plea by the couple to receive IVF treatment.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya observed that under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 a commissioning couple, who could seek IVF facilities was defined as a married couple who were unable to conceive through natural means.
• It was further held that if the husband could not participate in the IVF process, the couple could still conceive since they were willing to accept donor gametes. Pregnancy can be obtained by handling sperm or oocyte outside the human body. There is no restriction to the effect that either of the two must come from the couple themselves.

What is the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) (Regulation) Act, 2021?

Legal Provisions:

• The ART (Regulation) Act 2021 provides a system for the implementation of the law on surrogacy by setting up of the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board.
• The Act aims at the regulation and supervision of ART clinics and assisted reproductive technology banks, prevention of misuse, and safe and ethical practice of ART services.

Definition of ART Services:

• The Act defines ART to include all techniques that seek to obtain a pregnancy by handling the sperm or the oocyte (immature egg cell) outside the human body and transferring the gamete or the embryo into the reproductive system of a woman.
• These include gamete donation (of sperm or egg), in vitro fertilization, and gestational surrogacy.

Rights of a child born through ART:

• A child born through ART will be deemed to be a biological child of the commissioning couple and will be entitled to the rights and privileges available to a natural child of the commissioning couple.
• A donor will not have any parental rights over the child.

Application of ART Services:

• As per Section 21(g) of this Act, the clinics shall apply the assisted reproductive technology services.

(i) To a woman above the age of twenty-one years and below the age of fifty years.

(ii) To a man above the age of twenty-one years and below the age of fifty-five years.

Source: Calcutta High Court

Why in News?

Recently, Calcutta High Court observed that the Commercial Court has the power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to punish for contempt and implement its order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), even after the Arbitral Tribunal's constitution.

• The HC gave this observation in the case of RKD Niraj JV & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.

What is the Background of RKD Niraj JV & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. Case?

• The petitioners (contractors/vendors) entered into a work agreement with respondent no. 2 (client/project owner) after succeeding in a tender process.
• As per the agreement, the petitioners executed three bank guarantees in favor of respondent no. 2.
• A dispute arose between the petitioners and respondent no. 2, leading to termination of the contract by respondent no. 2 on September 30, 2023.
• Respondent no. 2 invoked and encashed one bank guarantee worth Rs. 1,06,46,000/- on 25^th September 2023, through respondent no. 5 (Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank (PNB), Broad Street Branch).
• The petitioners approached the Commercial Court at Rajarhat under Section 9 of the A&C Act, seeking an injunction against invocation of the remaining two bank guarantees and an order to set apart the encashed amount of Rs. 1,06,46,000/-.
• The Commercial Court passed an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from invoking the remaining two bank guarantees but did not order to set apart the already encashed amount.
• Respondent no. 5 reversed the process and re-credited Rs. 5,64,00,000/- to the petitioners' account, while respondent no. 4 (Park Street Branch) proceeded with invoking the third bank guarantee for Rs. 5,56,52,128/-.
• The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking remittance of the amounts encashed by invoking the bank guarantees and reversal of the Non Performing Asset (NPA) classification of their account due to the invocation.
• The respondent contended before HC that petitioners' remedy lay under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC before the court that took up the Section 9 application, and they cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction for implementation of the Commercial Court's order.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Calcutta HC observed that Section 9(1) of the A&C Act empowers the court which passed an order under Section 9 to make any order for the purpose of or in relation to any proceedings before it, on a co-equal footing as a civil court, to protect and implement its own orders, including taking measures under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC for contempt of its orders.
• Penal measures can be taken by the Commercial Court for violation, if any, of its order under Section 9 of the 1996 Act even after constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.
• The petitioners cannot be granted the relief of directing respondents 2, 4 and 5 to deposit Rs. 1,06,46,000/- in their account, as the same relief was refused by the Commercial Court under Section 9 of A&C Act earlier.

What is Order XXXIX Rule 2A?

Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction

• Attachment of Property and Detention:
  • Attachment of Property:
    • The Court may order the property of the guilty party to be attached.
  • Detention in Civil Prison:
    • The Court may order detention for a term not exceeding three months.
    • Release may occur if the Court directs so in the meantime.
• Duration and Consequences of Attachment:
  • Attachment Duration:
    • No attachment remains valid for more than one year.
  • Potential Sale of Attached Property:
    • If disobedience or breach persists after one year, attached property may be sold.
  • Compensation and Distribution of Proceeds:
    • The Court may award compensation to the injured party from the proceeds of the sale.
    • Any remaining balance shall be given to the entitled party.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of SS v. SR has held that father questioning the paternity of children and making unsubstantiated allegations of extra-marital affair against wife is an act of mental cruelty against the wife.

What was the Background of SS v. SR Case?

• In this case, the respondent and the appellant got married in the year 2005.
• Thereafter, the respondent revealed that she was not pregnant and had merely made false claims about her pregnancy to coerce him into marriage.
• The appellant has further averred that after the birth of the son on 24^th January 2008, the parents of the appellant accepted the respondent and asked the appellant and the respondent, to join them in their home, but the respondent flatly refused.
• The appellant claimed that he had been treated with cruelty and sought divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
• The learned Judge, Family Court extensively considered the evidence of both the parties and concluded that the appellant had made serious allegations against the character of the respondent; so much so, he even declined the parentage of his children and admitted in his evidence that he did not want to reside with the children.
• The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition.
• Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court.
• The High Court dismissed the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna levelling of disgusting allegations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship, constitute grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as mental health of the spouse. Such scandalous, unsubstantiated aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the spouse and not even sparing the children, would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by disentitle the appellant from seeking divorce.

What is Section 13(1) (i-a) of HMA?

About:

• 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.

Types of Cruelty:

• 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.

Case Laws

• 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.