List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Madan Pal Singh of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ankit Saha v. State of U.P. and Another (2025) set aside the family court's order directing the husband to pay Rs. 5,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, holding that she was able to maintain herself and had not approached the court with clean hands.

What was the Background of Ankit Saha v. State of U.P. and Another (2024) Case? 

• The wife (Neha Sahu) filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Gautam Budha Nagar, seeking maintenance from her husband. 
• In her application and affidavit, the wife claimed she was illiterate, unemployed, and had no source of income or means to maintain herself. 
• The wife stated in her affidavit that her liabilities were "nil" and presented herself as being in financial distress. 
• During proceedings, the husband produced documents showing that the wife was actually a Post-Graduate, qualified as a Web Designer, and was working as a Senior Sales Coordinator in Keiath Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 
• When confronted with these documents during cross-examination, the wife admitted she was earning Rs. 36,000 per month (initially claimed Rs. 34,000 in her affidavit). 
• The Family Court, despite acknowledging the wife's employment and income, awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month "to balance the income between the parties" and make them of equal status. 
• The husband filed a criminal revision before the Allahabad High Court challenging this order, arguing the wife had sufficient means to maintain herself and had suppressed material facts. 
• The husband also submitted he had the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents, whereas the wife had no such liabilities.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that the wife was a well-educated, earning professional with a monthly salary of Rs. 36,000, which cannot be considered meagre for someone with no other liabilities. 
• The Court observed that the trial court failed to consider the husband's liability of maintaining his aged parents and other social obligations while awarding maintenance. 
• Justice Singh emphasized that as per Section 125(1)(a) CrPC, maintenance can only be awarded to a wife who is "unable to maintain herself," which was not the case here. 
• The Court found that the wife did not approach the trial court with clean hands, as she deliberately concealed her educational qualifications, employment status, and income in her application and affidavit. 
• The Court held that the wife's claim of being illiterate and unemployed in her application, when she was actually a Post-Graduate earning Rs. 36,000 monthly, amounted to suppression of material facts. 
• Citing the principle that "when a person approaches a Court, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective," the Court held such conduct cannot be rewarded. 
• The Court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. (2025), which held that a litigant who suppresses material facts or makes false statements cannot seek justice from the court. 
• The Court ruled that the wife's suppression of material facts was sufficient ground to deny her any sympathy or entitlement to maintenance. 
• The Court set aside the Family Court's order and allowed the criminal revision, thereby denying maintenance to the wife. 

What is Section 125 CrPC (Now Section 144 BNSS)? 

About: 

• Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was a provision for maintenance of wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. 
• With the implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, Section 125 CrPC has been replaced by Section 144 BNSS. The provision has been adopted essentially as-is, maintaining the same core content and purpose. 
• It is a measure of social justice designed to prevent vagrancy and destitution by ensuring that those unable to maintain themselves receive financial support from their relatives. 
• The provision applies regardless of the personal law governing the parties and is a secular law applicable to all citizens. 

Section 144 BNSS:

• Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is a social justice provision aimed at preventing destitution and financial hardship of a neglected spouse and children. It empowers a Magistrate of the First Class to grant monthly maintenance, interim maintenance, and proceeding expenses to the wife, legitimate or illegitimate child, who is unable to maintain themselves, from a person who has sufficient means but refuses or neglects to do so. 

Key statutory Features: 

• Section 144(1): Empowers the Magistrate to order monthly maintenance to wife and children. 
• Second Proviso to Section 144(1): Allows the Magistrate to grant interim maintenance and expenses during the pendency of proceedings. 
• Third Proviso to Section 144(1): Directs that interim maintenance applications should ideally be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of notice. 
• Section 144(2): Maintenance may be payable either from the date of application or order, as the Magistrate deems fit. 
• Section 144(3): Non-payment of maintenance can attract warrant proceedings and imprisonment up to one month. 
• Section 144(4): Disqualifies the wife from receiving maintenance in cases of adultery, refusal to live with husband without sufficient cause, or mutual consent to live separately. 
• Further procedural clarity is offered under Section 145(2), which mandates that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the respondent or their advocate, with a provision for ex parte proceedings and setting aside such orders upon showing sufficient cause within three months. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Vita (2025) held that once premises fall within the definition of "public premises" and a tenancy is legally terminated, unauthorized occupants cannot claim the protection of State Rent Control Acts and must face eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

What was the Background of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Vita (2025) Case? 

• The case involved LIC seeking to evict Vita Private Limited from a flat in Mumbai. 
• Vita had become a tenant in April 1957, long before the PP Act came into force retrospectively from September 16, 1958, and before LIC's establishment. 
• When LIC initiated eviction under the PP Act after terminating the tenancy, Vita resisted, claiming protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. 
• In 2014, a two-judge bench in Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. created a distinction based on the date of tenancy, protecting tenants who entered before the premises became "public premises." 
• The Suhas Pophale judgment held that the PP Act could not be applied to tenants who were in occupation of premises before it became "public premises" (i.e., before it was acquired by a government entity like LIC or a nationalized bank). 
• For such occupants, the protective umbrella of the State Rent Control Act was held to continue to apply. 
• The Bombay High Court, relying on the Suhas Pophale (2014) ruling, sided with the tenant and quashed the eviction order, prompting LIC to appeal to the Supreme Court. 
• In view of the divergence of opinion with the earlier Constitution Bench judgment in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (1990), a two-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The judgment authored by Justice Anjaria criticized the High Court for failing to adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis while ignoring the binding precedent of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1990), delivered much before the decision of Suhas Pophale (2014). 
• The Court held that the PP Act is a later and special law designed specifically to deal with unauthorized occupation of public premises and that it necessarily prevails over conflicting provisions of State Rent Control statutes. 
• The Court further held that the date on which a tenant entered the premises is irrelevant for determining the applicability of the PP Act. 
• The Court overruled the judgment of Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014), calling it an incorrect interpretation that contradicted the binding Constitution Bench precedent of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1990). 
• The Court reiterated key propositions of law from Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (1990) as follows: 
  • Both the PP Act 1971 and State Rent Control Acts are special laws. In case of conflict, reference must be made to the purpose and policy underlying the two enactments. The PP Act 1971 shall override the provisions in the Rent Control Legislations. 
  • The rule generalia specialibus non derogant will not apply between these two special enactments. Having regard to the purpose, policy and legislative intent, the PP Act 1971 would prevail over State Rent Control Acts in respect of eviction of 'unauthorised occupants' of 'public premises'. 
  • The provisions of PP Act 1971, to the extent they cover premises falling within the ambit of Rent Control Act, override the provisions of the Rent Control Act. 
  • A person in unauthorised occupation of 'Public Premises' under Section 2(e) of the Act cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act. 
  • In cases where tenanted premises are claimed to be governed by the State Rent Control Act and have also become 'Public Premises', the PP Act 1971 will have application for their unauthorised occupation. 
  • The statutory machinery envisaged under the PP Act 1971 could be activated for recovery of possession of public premises by any Government or public entity mentioned in the definition. 
  • The PP Act 1971 applies to tenancies created and in existence either before coming into force of the Act or which may have been created subsequent to coming into force of the Act. 
  • Two conditions must be satisfied for applicability: First, the tenanted premises must fall within the purview of definition under Section 2(e) of the PP Act 1971. Second, the premises should have been in unauthorised occupation. 
  • Termination of tenancy of 'Public Premises' by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is one of the modes which would render the occupation of the tenant unauthorised. This would hold true for tenancies created before or after coming into force of the PP Act 1971. 
  • Invocation and applicability of the provisions of the PP Act 1971 is not dependent upon the aspect of possession. What is material is the occupation of the premises which has become unauthorised occupation. The occupation is a continuous concept.

What is the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971? 

About: 

• The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) is a special legislation enacted to provide for speedy eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. 
• The Act came into force retrospectively from September 16, 1958. 
• "Public premises" under Section 2(e) refers to premises owned or controlled by government entities, public sector undertakings, nationalized banks, insurance companies like LIC, and other specified public authorities. 
• The Act provides a summary procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants without the lengthy procedures required under ordinary rent control laws.

Purpose and Objective: 

• The primary purpose of the PP Act is to enable quick recovery of public premises from unauthorized occupants to ensure efficient utilization of public property. 
• The Act aims to protect public interest by preventing unauthorized occupation of premises meant for public purposes. 
• It was designed to override the lengthy eviction procedures under State Rent Control Acts which often delayed recovery of public premises for years.

When Occupation Becomes Unauthorised: 

• Occupation becomes unauthorized when a tenancy is legally terminated through proper notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or through other lawful modes of termination. 
• Once the tenancy is terminated, continued occupation of public premises becomes unauthorized, triggering the application of the PP Act. 
• The Act applies regardless of when the original tenancy was created – whether before or after the premises became "public premises" or before or after the PP Act came into force. 

Relationship with State Rent Control Acts: 

• Both the PP Act and State Rent Control Acts are special legislations, but the PP Act prevails in case of conflict due to its specific purpose and policy. 
• Once premises qualify as "public premises" and occupation becomes unauthorized, tenants cannot seek protection under State Rent Control Acts. 
• The PP Act's summary eviction procedure overrides the protective provisions of State Rent Control Acts for unauthorized occupants of public premises.