List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that a woman is entitled to maintenance from her second husband even if her marriage with the first husband is not dissolved.     

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Smt. N Usha Rani and Anr v. Moodudula Srinivas (2025). 

What was the Background of Smt. N Usha Rani and Anr v. Moodudula Srinivas Case?

• Appellant No. 1 (N. Usha Rani) first married Nomula Srinivas on 30th August 1999, in Hyderabad, and they had a son named Sai Ganesh on 15th August 2000. 
• After returning from the United States in February 2005, the couple began living separately, and on 25th November 2005, they executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to dissolve their marriage. 
• Appellant No. 1 then married the Respondent (her neighbor) on 27th November 2005, but this marriage was declared null and void by the Family Court, Hyderabad on 1st February 2006, following a petition filed by the Respondent. 
•  The Appellant No. 1 and the Respondent married again on 14th February 2006, and this marriage was registered with the Registrar of Marriage in Hyderabad on 11th September 2006. 
•  The couple had a daughter, Venkata Harshini (Appellant No. 2), on 28th January 2008, but differences arose between them later. 
•  Appellant No. 1 filed a complaint against the Respondent and his family members under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act. 
•  The Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,500 per month to Appellant No. 1 and Rs. 5,000 per month to Appellant No. 2 (the daughter) under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The High Court, in response to the Respondent's criminal revision petition, upheld the maintenance for the daughter but set aside the maintenance for Appellant No. 1, ruling that she could not be considered the Respondent's legal wife as her first marriage was not dissolved through a legal decree. 
• Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that in the present facts the respondent seeks to defeat the right to maintenance of the Appellant no 1 (wife) on the ground that her marriage with the Respondent was void ab initio owing to the first marriage of the Appellant no 1 that still subsists. 
• The Court observed two very important facts in this case: 
  • It is not the case where the truth was concealed from the respondent. 
  • The MOU of separation was placed before the Court, which is not a legal decree of divorce, but this document and other evidence point to the fact that the parties have dissolved their ties and are living separately.  
  • Therefore, the appellant is de facto separated from her first husband and does not derive any rights and entitlements from the first marriage.   
• It was observed by the Court in this case that the provisions that cater to social welfare must be given an expansive and beneficial construction. 
• Any alternative construction would defeat the purpose of the provision which is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. 
• The only conceivable mischief that could arise in this case is that the Appellant no 1 could claim dual maintenance, which is not the case in the present facts. 
• Further, it was held by the Court that the maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by the woman but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband.  
• Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and granted maintenance to the wife in the facts of the present case.

What is Maintenance under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)? 

• Grant of maintenance is provided under Section 125 of CrPC and Section 144 of BNSS.  
• The Supreme Court through Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and Others (1978) laid down the objective of Section 125 of CrPC now Section 144 of BNSS. 
• The Court held that this provision is a measure of social justice and enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39. 
• Section 144 (1) of BNSS provides for grant of maintenance: 
  • A First-Class Magistrate can order maintenance payments if a person with adequate means refuses to maintain certain family members. 
  • The people who can claim maintenance are:  
    • A wife who cannot support herself. 
    • Any legitimate or illegitimate child (married or unmarried) cannot support themselves. 
    • Any adult legitimate or illegitimate child who is unmarried and unable to support themselves due to physical or mental disability. 
    • Parents who cannot support themselves. 
  • The Magistrate can decide the monthly maintenance amount and direct who should receive the payments. 
  • Special provisions for female children:  
    • If a married daughter's husband cannot support her, the Magistrate can order her father to pay maintenance until she becomes an adult. 
  • Interim maintenance:  
    • During the ongoing maintenance case, the Magistrate can order temporary monthly payments. 
    • This includes both maintenance and legal expenses. 
    • The application for interim maintenance should be decided within 60 days of serving notice. 
  • Important note about "wife":  
    • The term "wife" includes divorced women who haven't remarried. 
    • This means divorced women can still claim maintenance from their ex-husbands if they haven't remarried. 
  • The Magistrate has the power to:  
    • Determine if the person has sufficient means. 
    • Set the monthly maintenance amount. 
    • Decide who should receive the payments. 
    • Order interim maintenance during proceedings.

What are the Landmark Cases on Grant of Maintenance during Subsistence of Another Marriage? 

• Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another (1999): 
  • The Court granted maintenance where the proof of marriage was inconclusive. 
  • The Court observed that the provision under Section 125 of CrPC is not be utilized for defeating the rights conferred by the legislature on the destitute women, children or parents. 
• Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another (1988): 
  • In this case the Court denied maintenance to second wife during subsistence of husband’s first marriage on a strict interpretation of the term ‘wife’ under Section 125 of CrPC. 
  • The Court gave supremacy to the intention of the legislature which included divorced wife within the purview of Section 125 of CrPC but did not mention de facto wives whose marriages are void ab initio. 
• Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another (2014): 
  • In this case the Court granted maintenance to the second wife who was kept in the dark about her husband’s first subsisting marriage. 
  • The Court in this case held that it was the bounden duty of the Court to advance the cause of justice. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that omission to name accused in FIR is relevant under Section 11 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.    

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghuvir Singh (2025). 

What was the Background of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghuvir Singh Case?

• The family of the deceased had a hostile relationship with the respondent (accused). 
• In 1991, the respondent was convicted for the murder of Sitaram, the brother of the complainant, and sentenced to life imprisonment. 
• The deceased was employed as a driver in a private transport company and usually returned home late in the evening. 
• On 28th August 2004, the deceased did not return home, prompting his family to search for him. 
• At around 10:30 PM, the father, brother, and son of the deceased witnessed the respondent and two juvenile co-accused assaulting the deceased with knives. 
• The attack was so severe that the deceased's head was completely severed. 
• Despite the incident occurring late at night, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged nearly 14 hours later, on the following afternoon at around 1:00 PM. 
• The police recovered the dead body from a field belonging to one Satpal (DW-1) and prepared an inquest Panchnama in the presence of two witnesses. 
• The body was sent for post-mortem, and weapons used in the crime were recovered based on the respondent's disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
• The deceased’s clothes and those of the accused were collected and sent for forensic analysis. 
• A charge sheet was filed against the respondent and the two juvenile co-accused for murder under Sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC. 
• The trial court separated the trial for the juvenile co-accused and proceeded against the respondent. 
• The prosecution examined nine witnesses, while the defense presented four witnesses. 
• The accused denied all charges during his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), claiming false implication. 
• The trial court found the respondent guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine. 
• The respondent appealed against the conviction before the High Court. 
• The High Court overturned the trial court's decision and acquitted the respondent. 
• The State has now filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the acquittal. 

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court observed that the present case relies on three eyewitnesses, the discovery of the weapon, the alleged motive, and the defense witnesses’ oral evidence. 
• Further, with regard to FIR the following points were held by the Court: 
  • The FIR was lodged after a 14-hour delay. 
  • The FIR mentioned only the respondent-accused, omitting the names of the two juvenile co-accused, which raised doubts about the credibility of the eyewitness testimony. 
• While a delay in lodging an FIR does not automatically discredit a case, it must be assessed in conjunction with other inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. 
• The Court held that the omission of the accused in the FIR is a relevant fact under Section 11 of the IEA. 
• It was observed that the trial judge must weigh the probabilities of the evidence and consider any reasonable doubt favoring the accused. 
• The Court observed that there was no error committed by the High Court in disbelieving the three eye witnesses. 
• With the eyewitness evidence discarded, the case relied on the discovery of the weapon. 
• The High Court also disbelieved the weapon discovery, as independent witnesses (Panchas) failed to verify the contents of the Panchnama. 
• Based on these factors, the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused was justified. 
• Thus, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in this case.

What is Section 11 of IEA? 

• Section 11 of IEA provides for when facts not otherwise relevant become relevant. 
• It is a residuary provision that covers all the other facts that are otherwise irrelevant. 
• It provides the following facts are relevant: 
  • If they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact. 
  • If by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. 
• This provision is provided for under Section 9 of the Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).

What is FIR and its Evidentiary Value? 

• The information given under Section 154 of the CrPC is commonly known as the First Information Report (FIR), though this term is not used in the Code. 
• This is provided for under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• The new features introduced in BNSS with respect to FIR are as follows: 
  • Zero FIR: BNSS provides that the information relating to commission of cognizable offence is to be registered irrespective of the area where the offence is committed. 
  • FIR can be registered in electronic form: Section 173 (1) provides that the information can be given in electronic form as well. In this case the FIR shall be taken on record on being signed within three days by the person giving it. 
  • Provision for Preliminary Investigation: in case the cognizable offence is such which is made punishable for 3 years or more but less than 7 years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of offence: 
    • Proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or 
    • Proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.

Source: Allahabad High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh has denied bail to a man accused of raping an 11-year-old girl, stating that minor victims rarely make false allegations. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the matter of Suraj Kumar Alias Vishwapratap Singh v. State of U.P. And 3 Others (2025). 
• It ruled that even without penetration, the act falls under the definition of rape under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS). Citing Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), the court presumed guilt and upheld the victim’s statements as primary evidence. 

What was the Background of Suraj Kumar Alias Vishwapratap Singh v. State of U.P. And 3 Others Case? 

• A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 5th September 2024, at 23:20 hours regarding an incident that occurred at 05:30 hours on the same day. 
• The accused, Suraj Kumar alias Vishwapratap Singh, was charged under Sections 65(2), 351(2), 332(c) of BNS and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act. 
• The victim was an 11-year-old girl, aged 11 years, 7 months, and 27 days at the time of the incident. 
• The complainant (victim's father) alleged that when he woke up, he found his daughter missing from her bed and noticed another room was locked from inside. 
• Upon looking through the window, the complainant witnessed the accused allegedly committing the offence while pressing the victim's mouth. 
• When the complainant shouted and called his wife, the accused fled the scene after opening the door, pushing the complainant, and issuing threats. 
• The accused was arrested on 6th September 2024, though he claimed he was forcibly dragged into the house by the complainant's family on 5th September 2024. 
• The victim's statements were recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, where she described the incident and the accused's actions. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that the 17-hour delay in filing the FIR was naturally explained given the reluctance of sexual offence victims and their families to approach police due to reputation concerns. 
• Minor discrepancies in victim statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS were deemed inconsequential as they did not affect the core prosecution narrative. 
• The Court observed that different individuals have varying powers of observation, retention, and reproduction, leading to natural variations in honest testimonies. 
• Regarding the absence of explicit mention of penetration, the Court held that the accused's actions went beyond the attempt stage and fell within Section 63 BNS's definition of rape. 
• The Court noted that even without penetration, the accused would be liable under Section 65(2) BNS due to the victim being below 12 years of age. 
• The Court dismissed the defense's argument regarding the absence of force signs in the medical report, noting that the final opinion was pending FSL report. 
• The Court stated that sexual violence cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely, particularly when involving helpless innocent children. 
• The Court observed that in rural India, it would be unusual for a girl to fabricate sexual assault allegations, as victims typically prefer to suffer silently rather than falsely implicate someone. 
• The Court concluded that there was no material on record to presume false implication or disbelieve the minor victim's statements. 

What is Section 65 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS)? 

• For rape of victims under 16 years: 
  • Minimum punishment: 20 years rigorous imprisonment 
  • Maximum punishment: Life imprisonment (for natural life) 
  • Mandatory fine that must be paid to victim 
  • Fine amount must cover medical expenses and rehabilitation 
• For rape of victims under 12 years: 
  • Minimum punishment: 20 years rigorous imprisonment 
  • Maximum punishment: Either life imprisonment (for natural life) or death penalty 
  • Mandatory fine that must be paid to victim 
  • Fine amount must cover medical expenses and rehabilitation 
• The key differences between the two categories are: 
  • The death penalty is only available as punishment for rape of victims under 12 years. 
  • Both categories maintain the same minimum imprisonment term of 20 years. 
  • Both require fines to be paid directly to victims for their medical care and rehabilitation. 
  • Both define life imprisonment as imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life. 

What is Section 180 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)? 

• Section 180 empowers any investigating police officer, or any police officer of prescribed rank authorized by the State Government, to orally examine persons believed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of a case. 
• The person being examined is legally bound to truthfully answer all questions related to the case, except those that might expose them to criminal charges, penalties, or forfeiture. 
• The police officer has the discretion to document any statements made during the examination in writing, and if doing so, must maintain separate and accurate records for each person's statement. 
• The section provides for statements to be recorded through audio-video electronic means as an alternative to written documentation. 
• For cases involving offences against women under sections 64-71, 74-79, or 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, statements must be recorded by either a woman police officer or any woman officer. 
• The section falls under the investigation chapter and serves as a crucial tool for gathering testimony during criminal investigations. 
• This section essentially codifies the procedure for recording witness statements during police investigations while ensuring proper documentation and gender-sensitive handling of cases involving women victims. 

What is Section 183 of BNSS? 

• Section 183 authorizes any District Magistrate to record confessions or statements during investigations, regardless of jurisdictional authority, but such recording must occur before the commencement of inquiry or trial. 
• Police officers with magisterial powers are explicitly prohibited from recording confessions, and confessions/statements can be recorded through audio-video electronic means in the presence of the accused's advocate. 
• The Magistrate must inform the person that they are not bound to make a confession, and that any confession may be used as evidence against them, ensuring the confession is made voluntarily. 
• If a person expresses unwillingness to make a confession before recording, the Magistrate cannot authorize their detention in police custody. 
• For cases involving specific offences (sections 64-71, 74-79, or 124), statements of victims must preferably be recorded by a woman Magistrate, or if unavailable, by a male Magistrate in the presence of a woman. 
• Special provisions exist for recording statements of mentally or physically disabled persons, requiring assistance from interpreters or special educators, and such statements can be recorded through audio-video electronic means. 
• The recorded statement of a disabled person is considered equivalent to examination-in-chief under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, allowing for cross-examination without requiring re-recording during trial. 
• All recorded confessions and statements must be forwarded to the Magistrate who will conduct the inquiry or trial of the case. 

What are the Legal Provisions and Punishments for Penetrative Sexual Assault Under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012? 

• Section 3 - Penetrative Sexual Assault Definition: 
  • Defines penetrative sexual assault as penetration of penis into child's vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus. 
  • Includes insertion of any object or body part (except penis) into child's vagina, urethra, or anus. 
  • Covers manipulation of child's body causing penetration into any body part. 
  • Includes application of mouth to child's private parts or forcing child to do the same. 
• Section 4 - Punishment for Penetrative Sexual Assault: 
  • Mandates minimum imprisonment of seven years. 
  • Maximum punishment can extend to life imprisonment. 
  • Additionally includes liability for fine. 
• Section 5 - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault: 
  • Applies to specific categories of offenders including police officers, armed forces, public servants. 
  • Covers offences by staff of jails, hospitals, educational or religious institutions. 
  • Includes gang penetrative sexual assault. 
  • Addresses cases involving weapons, grievous hurt, or causing pregnancy. 
  • Includes assaults on mentally/physically disabled children. 
  • Covers repeated offences and assaults on children under twelve years. 
  • Includes assaults by relatives, guardians, or those in positions of trust. 
• Section 6 - Punishment for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault: 
  • Prescribes minimum rigorous imprisonment of ten years. 
  • Can extend to life imprisonment. 
  • Includes mandatory fine. 
  • Provides more severe punishment than basic penetrative sexual assault reflecting greater gravity of offence.