List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh upheld the conviction in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, holding that proof of motive is not essential and that a complete, unbroken chain of proven circumstances excluding all reasonable doubt is sufficient for conviction. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Chetan v. The State of Karnataka (2025). 

What was the Background of Chetan v. the state of Karnataka (2025) Case? 

• The appellant and the deceased Vikram Sinde were friends who had a financial dispute over Rs. 4,000 that the appellant had borrowed from one Ravindra Chavan to lend to the deceased. 
• The deceased failed to return the borrowed amount of Rs. 4,000 to the appellant even after 7-8 months, despite repeated demands for repayment. 
• There was an argument between the appellant and the deceased regarding the money, during which the deceased allegedly insulted the appellant, creating a grudge between them. 
• On 10th July, 2006, at around 8:30 PM, the appellant took his grandfather's 12 Bore D.B.B.L gun with cartridges under the pretext of going hunting. 
• The appellant took the deceased along with him on his Hero Honda motorcycle to a sugarcane grove in Shahapur village belonging to complainant Arun Kumar Minache. 
• At approximately 10:00 PM on the same night, the appellant allegedly shot the deceased dead with the gun, committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (murder). 
• After committing the alleged murder, the appellant took the deceased's Nokia mobile phone and gold chain, thereby committing the offence of misappropriation under Section 404 of the IPC. 
• The appellant was also charged under the Arms Act for carrying and using the gun without a valid license (Sections 3 and 5 punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act). 
• When the deceased did not return home, his father searched for him and filed a missing person report after the appellant gave false information about the deceased's whereabouts. 
• The deceased's decomposed body was discovered in the sugarcane field on 13th July  2006, and was later identified by his father through photographs and personal belongings found with the body. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Standard of Proof in Circumstantial Evidence: The law does not require that a fact be proved on absolute terms bereft of all doubts. What law contemplates is that for a fact to be considered proven, it must eliminate any reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not mean any trivial, fanciful or imaginary doubt, but doubt based on reason and common sense growing out of the evidence in the case. 
• Chain of Circumstances: Each of the circumstances from which certain inferences are sought to be drawn is required to be proved in accordance with law, and there cannot be any element of surmise and conjecture. Each of these circumstances so proved must form a complete chain without any break to clearly point to the guilt of the accused person. 
• Motive in Circumstantial Evidence Cases: While proof of motive certainly strengthens the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, failure to prove the same cannot be fatal. The law is well-settled that proving one's motive is a difficult task, as it remains hidden in the deep recess of the mind of the person concerned. 
• Burden of Explanation: When prosecution has been able to prove on the basis of cogent evidence that the weapon of crime was traced to the accused, it becomes incumbent upon the appellant to explain the circumstances of the recovery of the weapon with which a linkage has been established with the injury suffered by the deceased through scientific evidence. 
• Silence of Accused: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, when incriminating circumstances are put to the accused and the accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. 
• Cumulative Effect of Circumstances: The court has to examine the cumulative effect of the existence of these circumstances, which would point to the guilt of the accused, though any single circumstance may not in itself be sufficient to prove the offence. These circumstances so proved must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. 
• Complete Chain Without Break: If the combined effect of all these circumstances, each of which has been independently proved, establishes the guilt of the accused, then the conviction based on such circumstances can be sustained. A clear pattern must emerge out of the circumstances so proved with inferential and logical links which unmistakably points to the guilt of the appellant for committing the offence. 

Cases Referred 

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)  

• Principle: This case succinctly explains the five golden principles of law governing trials based on circumstantial evidence 
• Significance: Fundamental decision establishing the framework for evaluating circumstantial evidence cases 

Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952)  

• Principle: Most fundamental and basic decision on circumstantial evidence 
• Key Observation: "In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused." 
• Significance: Has been uniformly followed and applied by the Supreme Court in numerous later decisions 

What is Section 6 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) ? 

• Section 6 of the BSA establishes the relevancy of facts showing motive, preparation, and conduct in legal proceedings.  

The provision encompasses two key aspects: 

• Sub-section (1) - Motive and Preparation 
  • Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. 
• Sub-section (2) - Previous or Subsequent Conduct 
  • The conduct of any party, agent, or person (in criminal proceedings) is relevant if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, whether such conduct was previous or subsequent to the fact in issue. 
• Key Principles 
  • Motive Evidence: Facts demonstrating why a person would commit an act are admissible to establish connection between the accused and the offence. 
  • Preparation Evidence: Acts showing systematic planning or readiness to commit the offence are relevant to prove intention and premeditation. 
  • Conduct Relevancy: Both pre-crime and post-crime behaviour is admissible if it has logical connection to the facts in issue, including:  
    • Absconding after commission of crime 
    • Destroying or concealing evidence 
    • Procuring false witnesses 
    • Flight upon discovery 
    • Possession of stolen property 
    • Temporal Scope: The section covers conduct occurring before, during, or after the alleged incident, provided it influences or is influenced by the fact in issue. 
    • Exclusion of Statements: Pure statements are excluded unless they accompany and explain acts, though they may be relevant under other provisions of the Act. 

Source:  Kerala High Court    

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar held that the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act,1963 cannot be availed unless the earlier proceedings were pursued with due diligence and in good faith, and all statutory conditions are strictly satisfied. 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of M/S. National Collateral Management Service Ltd. and another v. Valiyaparambil Traders (2025). 

What was the Background of M/S. National Collateral Management Service Ltd. and another v. Valiyaparambil Traders (2025) Case? 

• Valiyaparambil Traders, a registered partnership firm engaged in spice trading, along with its partners Shajahan V.E. and Majida Shajahan, filed a suit against National Collateral Management Service Ltd. for recovery of money allegedly due from business transactions. 
• National Collateral Management Service Ltd. is a company engaged in bulk purchase of hill produce from traders, with its second defendant being the Kerala State Head of the company. 
• The parties had entered into various business transactions on a credit basis, with the plaintiffs alleging that the accounts were running irregularly and that substantial amounts remained due and payable. 
• The defendants, while admitting to business dealings with the plaintiffs, denied any liability and contended that no amounts were due to the plaintiffs from their transactions. 
• Previously, the plaintiffs had filed an earlier suit bearing O.S.No.314 of 2013 against the same defendants seeking identical relief, but at that time the plaintiff firm was unregistered. 
• The earlier suit was dismissed by the court as it was barred under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, which prohibits unregistered firms from instituting suits on contracts against third parties. 
• Following the dismissal of the first suit, the plaintiffs got their firm registered and subsequently filed the present suit in 2016 before the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur. 
• The defendants raised defences of res judicata based on the earlier judgment and limitation, arguing that the present suit was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. 
• The trial court rejected the defendants' contentions regarding res judicata and limitation, holding that the suit was maintainable and within the limitation period. 
• The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, leading to the present appeal by the defendants challenging the money decree dated 30th November 2016. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court identified the primary issue for determination as whether the trial court was correct in excluding the period during which the earlier suit O.S.No.314 of 2013 was pending while computing the limitation period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 
• The Court observed that Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act permits exclusion of time during which a plaintiff prosecutes another civil proceeding with due diligence and in good faith in a court unable to entertain it due to jurisdictional defect or other similar cause. 
• While acknowledging that dismissal under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act falls within "other cause of like nature" as established in Haldiram Bhujiawala case, the Court emphasized that bonafide prosecution and due diligence are essential prerequisites for claiming such exclusion. 
• The Court observed that despite the defendants specifically pleading the bar under Section 69(2) in their written statement and a specific issue being framed on maintainability, the plaintiffs chose to proceed with the trial knowing the legal impediment. 
• Applying the principle from Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan case, the Court noted that "good faith" under the Limitation Act requires due care and attention, and prosecution of a suit despite knowledge of its non-maintainability cannot be considered bonafide. 
• The Court concluded that the plaintiffs' conduct in pursuing the earlier suit despite clear notice of the legal bar demonstrated lack of bonafides and due diligence, thereby disentitling them from the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 
• Consequently, the Court held that without the exclusion of the limitation period, the present suit was time-barred and liable to be dismissed, resulting in the allowance of the appeal and setting aside of the trial court's decree. 

What is Section 14 of the Act ? 

• Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides statutory protection to litigants by excluding the time period during which they have been prosecuting civil proceedings in good faith and with due diligence in a court that lacks jurisdiction or is otherwise unable to entertain the matter due to technical defects. 
• The provision operates on four essential ingredients that must be cumulatively satisfied: both proceedings must be civil proceedings in a court, the earlier proceeding must have been prosecuted with due diligence, the matter in issue must be the same in both proceedings, and the earlier proceeding must have been prosecuted in good faith in a jurisdictionally incompetent court. 
• The legislative intent behind Section 14 is to safeguard genuine litigants who have made honest attempts to seek judicial remedy through appropriate legal channels but approached an inappropriate forum due to jurisdictional limitations or similar technical impediments, ensuring their limitation period is not prejudicially affected. 
• The standard of "good faith" under Section 14 is stringently defined by Section 2(7) of the Limitation Act, which mandates that proceedings must be conducted with due care and attention, thereby establishing a higher threshold than mere honest intention and requiring demonstrable diligence in the prosecution of the earlier suit. 
• Section 14(1) and 14(2) create parallel frameworks for suits and applications respectively, both requiring that the time spent prosecuting earlier proceedings against the same defendant or party for identical relief shall be excluded from limitation computation when such proceedings were conducted in jurisdictionally defective courts. 
• Section 14(3) extends the protective scope to fresh suits instituted upon court permission under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, specifically when such permission is granted on grounds that the original suit failed due to jurisdictional defects or analogous causes. 
• The Explanation to Section 14 provides crucial operational guidelines including the counting methodology for excluded time periods, the deemed status of appellants as prosecuting parties, and the statutory recognition that misjoinder of parties or causes of action constitutes defects of similar nature to jurisdictional incompetence. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that wife is entitled to maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonable secures her future. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (2025). 

What was the Background of Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (2025) Case?   

• The appellant-wife, Rakhi Sadhukhan, and the respondent-husband, Raja Sadhukhan, were married on 18th  June 1997. 
• A son was born to them on 5th  August 1998. 
• In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty by the appellant-wife. 
• The appellant-wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), claiming interim maintenance and litigation expenses. 
• On 14th  January 2010, the Trial Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month to the appellant-wife and ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses. 
• The appellant-wife also filed Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), resulting in an order dated 28th  March 2014 awarding her ₹8,000 per month and the son ₹6,000 per month, with ₹5,000 as litigation costs. 
• On 10th  January 2016, the Trial Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition, finding no proof of cruelty. 
• The respondent-husband challenged the dismissal by filing FAT No. 122 of 2015 in the Calcutta High Court. 
• During the appeal, the appellant-wife filed an application seeking enhanced interim maintenance and litigation costs. 
• The High Court, noting the husband’s income, successively increased interim maintenance to ₹15,000 per month (May 2015) and later to ₹20,000 per month (July 2016). 
• On 25th  June 2019, the High Court allowed the husband's appeal, granted a divorce decree on the grounds of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown, and awarded permanent alimony of ₹20,000/month to the appellant-wife, with a 5% increase every 3 years. 
• The High Court also directed the respondent to redeem the mortgage and transfer the flat’s title to the appellant, continue their residence, and pay for their son's educational and tuition expenses. 
• Dissatisfied with the quantum of alimony, the appellant-wife approached the Supreme Court seeking enhancement. 
• On 7th  November 2023, the Supreme Court passed an interim order enhancing monthly maintenance to ₹75,000, noting non-appearance of the respondent despite service. 
• The respondent-husband later appeared, disclosed his income (₹1,64,039 net monthly), and cited expenses, remarriage, and family responsibilities, arguing against further enhancement. 
• The appellant-wife claimed that the husband earns about ₹4,00,000/month and that ₹20,000/month was inadequate considering their previous lifestyle and inflation.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's award of ₹20,000/month as permanent alimony was originally an interim measure and did not reflect the current financial realities. 
• The Court observed that the respondent-husband’s income and financial disclosures showed his ability to pay a higher amount. 
• It acknowledged that the appellant-wife remained unmarried, was solely dependent on maintenance, and had a right to maintain the standard of living she had during marriage. 
• The Court emphasized that rising cost of living and inflation required a reassessment of maintenance. 
• The Supreme Court held that ₹50,000/month was just, fair, and reasonable permanent alimony for the appellant-wife, with a 5% increase every two years. 
• The Court found no justification to continue financial support for the son, who was 26 years old, but clarified that his right to inheritance remains intact. 
• Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was modified to revise the quantum of permanent alimony. 
• The connected contempt petition and all pending applications were disposed of. 

Under which Provisions Maintenance can be Granted to Wife? 

• Section 125 of CrPC, now Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), provides that if a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife unable to maintain herself a Magistrate of First Class may order such person to grant monthly allowance. 
  • The proceedings under Section 144 BNSS are of summary nature.  
• Section 25 of HMA provides that the applicant being either the husband or wife is entitled to receive his or her maintenance from the spouse in the form of a gross sum or monthly sum for a term not exceeding the lifetime of the applicant or until the applicant remarries.   
• Difference between the remedies under Section 25 of HMA and Section 144 of BNSS was laid down in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (2025): 

What are the Landmark Cases on Granting Maintenance to Wife? 

• Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (2020) 
  • The Court laid down several factors for calculating the maintenance amount. The Court held that these factors include but are not limited to: 
    • Status of parties,social and financial.  
    • Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children. 
    • Qualifications and employment status of the parties. 
    • Independent income or assets owned by the parties. 
    • Maintain standard of living as in the matrimonial home. 
    • Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities. 
    • Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife. 
    • Financial capacity of husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities. 
• Kiran Jyoti Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (2024) 
  • The Court in the addition to the above laid down the following: 
    • The court considers the status of the parties, including their social standing, lifestyle, and financial background, while determining maintenance. 
    • The reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children are assessed, covering food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical expenses. 
    • The educational and professional qualifications and employment history of the applicant are important in evaluating their capacity for self-sufficiency. 
    • If the applicant has an independent source of income or owns property, it is examined to see if it is sufficient to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. 
    • The court also considers whether the applicant sacrificed career opportunities due to family responsibilities, which may have affected their financial independence. 
    • A wife who is earning is still eligible for maintenance if her income is insufficient to maintain the lifestyle she had in the matrimonial home. 
    • The needs of minor children, including educational and extracurricular expenses, are significant factors in the maintenance determination.