List of Current Affairs

Source : Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice MM Nerlikar held that issues relating to forgery of documents cannot be examined at the stage of deciding the interim custody of a seized vehicle. The Court observed that for granting interim custody, the primary considerations are whether the applicant is the owner and whether the vehicle was seized from their possession. 

• The Bombay High Court held in M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 

What was the Background of M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• AU Small Finance Bank Limited advanced a loan to Sunil Shrikrishna Nandhe (respondent no.3) for purchasing a Bolero pick-up vehicle bearing registration number MH 30 BD 0266. A hypothecation agreement was executed between the Bank and the borrower, giving the Bank ownership rights until full loan repayment. 
• Without repaying the loan, respondent no.3 allegedly sold the vehicle to Ravi Pradiprao Dange (respondent no.2) using forged documents, including a fabricated No Objection Certificate (NOC) and Form No.35. The Bank alleged that these documents were forged to effect the transfer fraudulently. 
• The Bank filed a complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 468, and 469 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Rajapeth Police Station registered Crime No.1449/2021 against respondent no.3. During investigation, police seized the vehicle from respondent no.2. 
• Respondent no.2 had purchased the vehicle for Rs.5,53,000 by obtaining a loan from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Limited. The RTO Amravati registered the vehicle in respondent no.2's name after examining and verifying the documents. Respondent no.2 had already paid 20 instalments towards his loan and was dependent on the vehicle's income for his family's livelihood. 
• Both the Bank and respondent no.2 filed applications under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking interim custody of the seized vehicle. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.9, Amravati, rejected the Bank's application and granted interim custody to respondent no.2 through an order dated 30 August 2022. 
• The Bank challenged this order by filing Criminal Revision No.105/2022 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. The revision was dismissed on 6 March 2024, upholding the Magistrate's order. The Bank then approached the High Court through this Criminal Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging both concurrent orders. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that the allegations in the First Information Report pertained to forgery of documents by which the vehicle transfer was effected. However, at the stage of deciding interim custody, forgery of those documents cannot be discussed. 
• For deciding interim custody, it is necessary to examine firstly whether respondent no.2 is the owner and secondly whether the seizure of the vehicle was from the possession of respondent no.2. These are the two important conditions which need consideration. 
• The Court found that both factors were in favour of respondent no.2. It was undisputed that the vehicle was seized from respondent no.2's possession, the registration certificate was issued in his name, and he had availed a loan from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Limited for purchasing the vehicle, having paid 20 instalments. 
• Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vaibhav Jain v Hindustan Motors Pvt Ltd (2024), the Court noted that possession or control of a vehicle plays a vital role in determining ownership for interim custody purposes. 
• The Court observed that if interim custody is not handed over to respondent no.2, an irreparable loss would be caused to him, making it difficult for him to repay the loan to the finance company. It noted that the Magistrate had imposed adequate terms and conditions safeguarding the interests of both parties. 
• The Court held that both lower Courts rightly concluded that respondent no.2 would be entitled to interim custody. It found no reason to disturb the concurrent findings and dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the orders granting interim custody of the vehicle to respondent no.2. 

What is Section 335 of BNS ? 

• Section 335 – Making a False Document 
• Definition: A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record in the following circumstances: 
• Fraudulent Creation: A person who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals, executes a document, transmits an electronic record, or affixes an electronic signature with the intention of causing it to be believed that it was made by or by the authority of a person by whom he knows it was not made. 
• Unlawful Alteration: A person who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently alters a document or electronic record in any material part by cancellation or otherwise, after it has been made or executed, whether by himself or by any other person living or dead. 
• Exploitation of Incapacity: A person who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or affix electronic signature, knowing that such person cannot understand the contents or nature of alteration due to mental illness, intoxication, or deception practised upon him. 

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

The Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha in Muhammed Ashar.K v. Muhsina.P.K (2025) upheld the Family Court's declaration recognizing a Khula divorce initiated by a wife, clarifying the requirements for validating such extrajudicial Islamic divorces. 

What was the Background of Muhammed Ashar.K v. Muhsina.P.K (2025) Case? 

• The appellant and respondent were married on December 15, 2019, and had a son born on April 23, 2021. 
• Matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, leading the respondent (wife) to issue a Khula Nama dated October 5, 2023, divorcing the appellant (husband). 
• Subsequently, the respondent filed O.P. No. 998/2023 before the Family Court, Thalassery, seeking declaration of her marital status as divorced from the appellant. 
• The Family Court allowed the petition after recording the respondent's statement as PW1 and evaluating the documents produced by her. 
• The appellant challenged the Family Court's order on two primary grounds: lack of proper conciliation between the parties before the Khula Nama was issued, and the respondent's failure to return the Mahar (dower) she received from him. 
• The appellant relied on the precedent of Asbi.K.N v. Hashim.M.U. (2021), arguing that the Family Court must ascertain whether there was valid pronouncement of Khula preceded by effective reconciliation attempts and whether there was an offer to return the dower. 
• The respondent's counsel contended that the Khula Nama mentioned reconciliation attempts through mediators K. Abdul Sathar and P.K. Mahmood, which the appellant rejected. 
• Regarding the Mahar, the respondent stated in her petition and testimony that the dower (10 sovereigns of gold) had been taken away by the appellant before she issued the Khula Nama. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court examined the Marriage Certificate (Ext.A1), the handwritten Khula Nama (Ext.A2), the legal notice issued prior to the Khula (Ext.A3), and acknowledgment documents (Exts.A4-A6). 
• While acknowledging that the Khula Nama itself did not mention the return of Mahar, the Court noted that the respondent clearly stated in her petition, proof affidavit, and testimony as PW1 that the Mahar had been taken away by the appellant before the Khula was issued. 
• The Court observed that despite being alerted by the respondent's pleadings and statement, the appellant neither filed a proof affidavit nor chose to offer his own statement before the Family Court. 
• Regarding reconciliation, the Court found that the appellant's argument that the mediators were relatives of the respondent actually fortified the Family Court's finding that reconciliation attempts were made, noting that the appellant failed to raise this bias allegation in his pleadings. 
• The Court relied on Asbi.K.N v. Hashim.M.U., which provides three methods for assessing the Mahar question: evaluating the Khula Nama itself, examining any communication issued, or recording statements of the parties. 
• The Court held that the appellant's failure to file a proof affidavit or offer statement before the Trial Court established the truth of the respondent's assertion that the Mahar had been taken away. 
• Citing Asbi.K.N (supra), the Court reiterated that Khula, like Talaq and Mubaraat, is a mode of extrajudicial divorce, and the Family Court's role is only to verify whether the pronouncement was done properly and preceded by effective conciliation attempts. 
• The Court concluded that both the reconciliation attempt and the absence of Mahar with the respondent were prima facie established, finding no error in the Family Court's decision. 
• However, the Court clarified that endorsement of the extrajudicial divorce does not preclude the appellant's right to challenge the divorce as per law, with liberties reserved as per the Asbi.K.N precedent. 
• The appeal was dismissed. 

What is Khula? 

About: 

• Khula is a form of divorce in Islamic law where the wife initiates the dissolution of marriage. 
• Unlike Talaq (husband-initiated divorce), Khula allows a woman to seek divorce even without her husband's consent, typically by returning the Mahar (dower) or other consideration. 
• Khula is considered an extrajudicial form of divorce, meaning it can be executed outside formal court proceedings. 
• The process usually involves the wife pronouncing or declaring her desire to dissolve the marriage through a Khula Nama (divorce deed). 
• Islamic jurisprudence encourages reconciliation attempts before finalizing any form of divorce, including Khula. 

Requirements for Valid Khula: 

Based on judicial precedents in India, particularly Asbi.K.N v. Hashim.M.U. (2021), courts must verify certain elements when recognizing Khula divorces: 

• Proper pronouncement or declaration of Khula must be made. 
• The divorce must be preceded by effective attempts at conciliation or reconciliation. 
• There must be evidence of an offer by the wife to return the Mahar (dower), which can be established through: the Khula Nama itself, communication issued regarding the divorce, or statements recorded by the parties before the court. 

Role of Family Courts: 

• Family Courts do not conduct detailed enquiries into extrajudicial divorces but verify whether the pronouncement was done in a proper manner and preceded by effective conciliation attempts. 
• Courts can assess compliance with Khula requirements through examination of documents and recording of party statements. 
• The burden of controverting claims made by the party seeking recognition of the divorce falls on the opposing party through affidavits or statements. 

Recognition of Extrajudicial Islamic Divorce: 

• Endorsement of extrajudicial divorce by courts provides legal recognition to the changed marital status. 
• However, such recognition does not preclude the other party's right to challenge the divorce through appropriate legal proceedings. 
• This approach balances the recognition of religious personal laws with the need for judicial oversight to ensure fairness and compliance with essential requirements.