List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Garima Prashad of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Vikas Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another (2026), held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC (Section 144 of BNSS) merely on the ground that her parents are supporting her financially during times of distress.  

• The Court set aside a Family Court order that had denied maintenance to the wife, while awarding an inadequate amount to the minor children, and enhanced the maintenance amounts for all three claimants.

What was the Background of Vikas Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another (2026) Case? 

• The revisionist-wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Bulandshahr, seeking maintenance from her husband, a retired Army personnel. 
• She alleged that after marriage, she was subjected to harassment, taunts, and cruelty by the husband and his family members, that the husband stopped maintaining marital relations with her, and that he subsequently contracted a second marriage. 
• In January 2020, she alleged that she was assaulted and expelled from the matrimonial home along with her two minor children, after which she began residing at her parental home with no independent source of income. 
• The husband denied these allegations, contending that the wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and that she was allegedly maintaining illicit relations with certain persons. 
• He further stated that during his Army service, Rs. 11,303 per month was deducted from his salary and paid to his wife and children until his retirement in November 2020, after which he received a monthly pension of approximately Rs. 21,025. 
• The Family Court, by its order of December 2023, rejected the wife's claim for maintenance entirely on the ground that she had failed to prove specific incidents of dowry demand, assault, or second marriage, and concluded that she was residing separately without sufficient cause. It, however, awarded Rs. 3,000 per month as maintenance to each minor child. 
• Aggrieved, the wife and her children filed a criminal revision petition before the Allahabad High Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the scope of Section 125 CrPC proceedings: 
  The Court held that the Family Court had adopted an approach contrary to the very object of Section 125 CrPC by deciding the proceedings as though they were a full-fledged matrimonial trial. It clarified that the scope of inquiry under Section 125 CrPC is limited — the Court is required only to see whether the wife has a reasonable ground to live separately and whether the husband, despite having means, has neglected or refused to maintain her. The standard is neither proof beyond reasonable doubt nor a trial of each allegation and counter-allegation relating to matrimonial misconduct. 
• On sufficient cause to reside separately: 
  The Court held that the admitted facts — serious matrimonial discord between the parties, the wife and children residing separately, and the husband's admission in cross-examination that he had not paid any maintenance after November 2020 — were sufficient to establish that the wife was not residing separately without cause and was being neglected. It further held that where the husband has initiated divorce proceedings, parties are admittedly living separately due to serious matrimonial discord, and the wife has custody of two minor children, it cannot be lightly concluded that she is living separately without sufficient cause. 
• On allegations of adultery: 
  The Court held that the bar under Section 125(4) CrPC is attracted only when the wife is proved to be living in adultery. It stressed that mere allegations, suspicion, or character assassination — unsupported by any independent witness, document, or reliable material — cannot deprive a wife of her right to maintenance.
• On parental support as a substitute for maintenance: 
  The Court held that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and children by pointing to support being provided to the wife by her parents. It clarified that the income of the wife's parents cannot be treated as the income of the wife, and that once it was accepted that the wife had no sufficient independent income, there was no justification to deny her maintenance. 
• On adequacy of maintenance for children: 
  The Court found the Family Court's award of Rs. 3,000 per child per month to be wholly inadequate and unrealistic, holding it insufficient to cover even the minimum reasonable expenditure of school-going children, including food, clothing, education, books, transport, and medical needs.
• On adverse inference against the husband: 
  Since the husband failed to fully disclose his financial assets and withheld revenue records concerning family agricultural holdings and dairy activities, the Court drew an adverse inference against him for withholding material particulars of which he was in exclusive possession.

What is Section 144 of BNSS? 

About: 

• 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: Kerala High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Harisankar V. Menon of the Kerala High Court, in the case of United India Insurance Company Co. Ltd. v. Salpriya (2026), dismissed a writ petition filed by the insurer seeking to repudiate an accident insurance claim on the basis of a positive toxicology report, holding that the mere presence of alcohol in a deceased person's system does not amount to being "under the influence of alcohol," which is the requisite threshold for invoking a policy exclusion clause. 

What was the Background of United India Insurance Company Co. Ltd. v. Salpriya (2026) Case? 

• One Babu was found unconscious on a roadside on November 30, 2020, and was immediately taken to Neyyar Medicity for treatment; he passed away the following day. 
• His legal heirs filed an insurance claim under his motorcycle insurance policy, contending that his death was the result of a road traffic accident. 
• United India Insurance Company contested the claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Thiruvananthapuram, arguing that the post-mortem report attributed the death to "occlusive coronary artery disease" and not to the accident. 
• The insurer further relied upon a toxicology report from the Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, which returned a positive test for alcohol, to invoke the policy exclusion clause concerning intoxication. 
• The Permanent Lok Adalat rejected the insurer's contentions and granted the legal heirs compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs. 
• Aggrieved by this award, United India Insurance Company approached the Kerala High Court by way of a writ petition.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the distinction between consumption and influence: The Court held that there is a clear and legally significant distinction between the mere act of consuming alcohol and the state of being "under the influence" of alcohol. The Court held that an insurer must demonstrate a causal link between the consumption of alcohol and the accident, or establish that the deceased's faculties were significantly impaired at the time of the incident. 
• On the burden of proof on the insurer: The Court held that a positive toxicology report, by itself, is insufficient to deny an insurance claim. It is incumbent upon the insurer to bring on record affirmative evidence that the insured was under the influence of alcohol at the relevant time, and that such intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident or death. 
• On proximate cause and the underlying medical condition: While the post-mortem report noted the presence of occlusive coronary artery disease, it also specifically recorded that injuries sustained in the accident "could have accelerated or precipitated death." Applying the principle from the Supreme Court's ruling in Alka Shukla v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Court held that where an accidental injury directly contributes to the fatality, the existence of a pre-existing medical condition does not relieve the insurer of its contractual liability. 
• On the FIR not attributing death to accident: The Court held that the mere fact that the FIR did not attribute the death to a road accident is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to deny the insurance claim. Each piece of evidence must be considered in its totality in light of post-mortem findings and medical records. 
• On the final verdict: Finding no material evidence that the deceased was incapacitated by alcohol, and no causal nexus established between alcohol consumption and the accident, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the compensation awarded to the legal heirs. 

What is Alcohol Testing for Driving in India? 

• Governing Provision: Section 185, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019) 

Permissible Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Limit: 

• The legal BAC limit for private vehicle drivers in India is 0.03%, which equates to 30 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.  
• For commercial vehicle drivers, the permissible limit is zero tolerance — no detectable alcohol in the system. 

Testing Methods: 

• Traffic police conduct checks using a breath analyser that measures Blood Alcohol Concentration by analysing a breath sample from the driver. If the level exceeds the permissible limit, further steps are taken. Other signs such as unsteady movements and slurred speech are also assessed. When the offender is uncooperative or denies being drunk, a blood test may also be conducted. 

Penalties (post-2019 Amendment): 

• First-time offence: a fine of ₹10,000 or imprisonment for up to 6 months, or both.  
• Subsequent offences (within 3 years): a fine of ₹15,000 and imprisonment for up to 2 years, or both. Authorities also have the right to suspend or revoke the driver's licence, and vehicles may be impounded.