List of Current Affairs

Source: Calcutta High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Bibhas Ranjan De  held that Maintenance is to be granted not as mere subsistence but to ensure continuity and stability of the lifestyle post-separation. 

• The Calcutta High Court held this in the matter of Tumpa Basak vs. Tufan Basak (2025). 

What was the Background of Tumpa Basak v. Tufan Basak, Case? 

• Tumpa Basak (Wife/Petitioner) and Tufan Basak (Husband/Opposite Party) were lawfully married and a male child was born out of their wedlock. 
• The parties subsequently experienced distressing matrimonial discord leading to their separation and breakdown of the marital relationship. 
• Following the matrimonial breakdown, the wife initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking maintenance for herself. 
• The court granted maintenance in favour of the wife to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per month after due consideration of the circumstances. 
• The husband subsequently retired from his service as a High Level Banking Official, which constituted a material change in circumstances affecting his financial capacity. 
• Considering his retirement, the husband filed an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking reduction of the maintenance amount from Rs. 30,000/- to a lesser sum. 
• The Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas disposed of this application by reducing the maintenance from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month vide order dated 30.12.2023.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that income tax returns cannot be considered as conclusive proof of an individual's actual income, as such returns are primarily based on information provided by the taxpayer himself. 
• The figures reported in tax returns are subject to the taxpayer's understanding and interpretation, which may not always be accurate, comprehensive, or reflective of true financial capacity. 
• There exists a perpetual possibility of under-reporting in tax returns, making the actual income of an individual substantially different from the figures shown therein. 
• Courts must look beyond Income Tax returns while determining income in maintenance proceedings and should examine potential earnings, past earnings, and assets of the maintenance payer. 
• The Court observed a drastic change in society regarding marital obligations in present times, demanding a corresponding change in judicial approach towards maintenance grants. 
• Maintenance is no longer merely a hand-out to barely cover subsistence but has evolved into a tool to preserve lifestyle stability and represents continuity of living rather than compensation for separation. 
• Post-separation maintenance should mirror the lifestyle of the wife during the period of married life, and women who have devoted years to domestic responsibilities deserve to maintain comparable life after separation.

What is Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ? 

• Any person having sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain his wife unable to maintain herself, his legitimate or illegitimate children unable to maintain themselves, or his father or mother unable to maintain themselves can be compelled to provide maintenance. 
• A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order monthly allowance for maintenance at such rate as the Magistrate deems fit and direct payment to such person as appropriate. 
• Maintenance extends to legitimate or illegitimate children who have attained majority but are unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality or injury, excluding married daughters. 
• During pendency of proceedings, the Magistrate may order interim maintenance for wife, child, father or mother along with expenses of proceeding, with applications to be disposed of within sixty days. 
• For the purposes of this Chapter, "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained divorce from her husband and has not remarried. 
• Maintenance allowance shall be payable from the date of order or from the date of application if so ordered, and non-compliance may result in warrant for recovery and imprisonment up to one month. 
• No wife shall be entitled to maintenance if she is living in adultery, refuses to live with husband without sufficient reason, or they are living separately by mutual consent. 
• If husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it constitutes just ground for wife's refusal to live with him, and Magistrate may grant maintenance despite husband's offer for cohabitation.

Case Referred  

• Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, 2015 
  • Establish that maintenance should reflect the dignity and standard of living the wife was accustomed to during marriage. 
• Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 
  • Support the principle of equi status in maintenance determination. 
• Dr. Avnish Pawar v. Dr. Sunita Pawar, II (2000) 
  • To establish that maintenance should be reasonable and proportionate to the husband's actual income. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra clarified that "a remedy under Order XLI Rule 4 CPC does not apply when all defendants jointly appeal and one dies without substitution" while dismissing an appeal where appellants challenged the MP High Court's decision dismissing their Second Appeal as abated. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Suresh Chandra (Deceased) Thr. LRs. & Ors. v. Parasram & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Suresh Chandra v. Parasram (2025) Case? 

• The Appellants/defendants challenged the MP High Court's decision dismissing their Second Appeal as abated as per Order XXII Rule 3 CPC. 
• The appellants had failed to timely substitute the legal representatives of one of the defendants who died during the pendency of the Second Appeal. 
• The case involved a 'joint and indivisible' decree passed against the defendants by the First Appellate Court, which was being challenged in the Second Appeal. 
• The appellants argued that non-substitution of the deceased defendant's legal representatives would not be fatal to their case. 
• They claimed protection under Order XLI Rule 4 CPC, arguing it grants them the right to appeal without substitution on behalf of other defendants if the decree was based on common grounds. 
• The MP High Court had dismissed the Second Appeal holding that it abated due to non-substitution of the deceased party's legal heirs. 
• The appellants contended that since the decree was based on common grounds, the surviving appellant could continue the appeal under Order XLI Rule 4 CPC. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra observed that "As the second appeal was jointly filed by the two defendants, the benefit of the provisions of Order XLI Rule 4 CPC was not available to the surviving defendant appellant." 
• The Supreme Court clarified that the remedy under Order XLI Rule 4 CPC would have been available only when one defendant filed the appeal making other defendants proforma Respondents. 
• The Court distinguished the present case from scenarios where "one of the defendants files an appeal making other defendants as Respondents" amongst multiple defendants. 
• The Supreme Court noted that since the second appeal was jointly filed by both defendants, the benefit of Order XLI Rule 4 CPC was not available to continue the appeal after one party's death. 
• The Court referred to Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. Shambehari Lal Jagannath & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 1901 and distinguished it from Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram & Ors., (1971) 1 SCC 265. 
• The Supreme Court held that Rameshwar Prasad was relevant where all plaintiffs whose suit had been dismissed had jointly appealed, and the appeal abated due to failure to substitute legal heirs. 
• The Court emphasized that "Order XXII applies without exception to all proceedings" and operates during the pendency of proceedings including appeals. 

Supreme Court's Legal Principles on Abatement: 

• The Court summarized the law on the interplay between Order XLI Rule 4 and Order XXII: 
• Rule 4 of Order XLI applies at the stage when an appeal is filed and empowers one party to file appeal against entire decree in certain circumstances. 
• Once an appeal is filed by all parties aggrieved by the decree, the provisions of Order XLI Rule 4 become unavailable. 
• Order XXII applies without exception to all proceedings and operates during pendency, not at institution. 
• Where an appeal is filed by one or some parties making others proforma respondents, Order XLI Rule 4 benefit is available even if proforma respondent dies. 
• There is no inconsistency between Order XXII and Order XLI Rule 4 as they operate at different stages and for different contingencies. 

What is Order XLI Rule 4 of CPC? 

About: 

• Order XLI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with "Who may appeal" and allows one of the parties to appeal on behalf of others in certain circumstances. 
• The rule states that where there are more persons than one having the same interest, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, appeal for the benefit of all. 
• The provision enables one of the parties to obtain relief in appeal when the decree appealed from proceeds on a ground common to him and others. 
• The court in such an appeal may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all parties having the same interest as the appellant, even though they have not appealed. 

Key Provisions of Order XLI Rule 4: 

• The rule requires permission of the court for one party to appeal on behalf of others. 
• All parties must have the same interest in the subject matter of the appeal. 
• The decree must proceed on grounds common to all parties having the same interest. 
• Non-appealing parties with same interest can benefit from the appeal's outcome. 
• The court has discretionary power to allow such appeals based on circumstances. 

Order XXII - Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties: 

• Order XXII deals with death, marriage and insolvency of parties during the pendency of proceedings. 
• Rule 3 provides for abatement of suit on death of sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff. 
• Rule 4 deals with the procedure on death of one of several defendant or of sole defendant where right to sue survives. 
• Rule 9 provides for abatement by reason of death where right to sue does not survive to legal representatives. 
• The order requires substitution of legal representatives within the prescribed limitation period to avoid abatement. 

Distinction Between Joint Appeals and Individual Appeals 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar has held that a reformative approach must be adopted for women who commit crimes under societal pressure, especially in cases like forced marriage, where deep-rooted gender inequalities restrict their freedom and autonomy. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr , Case ? 

• Shubha Shankar (A-4) was a 20-year-old law student at BMS Law College, Bangalore. 
• Arun Verma (A-1) was her close friend and fellow law student at the same college. 
• Dinesh @ Dinakaran (A-3) was a 28-year-old married man and cousin of Arun Verma. 
• Venkatesh (A-2) was a 19-year-old teenager and friend of Dinesh. 
• B.V. Girish (deceased) was a 26-year-old software engineer at Intel, engaged to Shubha. 
• Both families were residents of the same locality in Bangalore and had cordial relations. 
• Shubha's parents proposed marriage to Girish's parents in October 2003, which was accepted. 
• The engagement ceremony took place on 30th November, 2003, with marriage fixed for 11th April, 2004. 
• Shubha was unwilling to marry the deceased and confided her reluctance to friends and her beautician. 
• Shubha expressed her opposition to the marriage to her close friend Arun Verma. 
• On 3rd December, 2003, Shubha asked the deceased to take her for dinner at T.G.I. Friday's Hotel. 
• After dinner, they stopped at "Air View Point" at Airport Ring Road to watch aeroplanes landing. 
• At this location, the deceased received fatal head injuries from an unknown assailant using a steel rod. 
• Shubha helped shift the injured deceased to Manipal Hospital with assistance from passers-by. 
• The deceased was declared dead on 4th December, 2003, at 8:05 AM. 
• An FIR was registered against unknown persons for offence under Section 302 IPC. 
• All four accused were arrested on 25th January, 2004. 
• Charges were framed under Section 120-B and Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC. 
• Shubha was additionally charged under Section 201 IPC for destruction of evidence. 
• The prosecution alleged that all accused conspired to murder the deceased to prevent Shubha's forced marriage. 
• The prosecution claimed Arun and Venkatesh followed the couple, with Dinesh coordinating the plan through calls. 
• According to prosecution, Venkatesh struck the deceased with a steel rod while Arun waited on a scooter. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence where each link is connected and proved beyond reasonable doubt, with motive, means, and opportunity clearly established. 
• The Court established that deliberate destruction of evidence, particularly communication records on mobile phones, warrants drawing adverse inference against the accused, especially when no sufficient explanation is provided for such conduct. 
• The Court recognized that raising a false plea of alibi demonstrates consciousness of guilt and strengthens the prosecution's case, particularly when hospital records fail to substantiate the claimed presence at the alleged location. 
• The Court applied the principle that in criminal conspiracy, each conspirator is liable for acts committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the common criminal design, regardless of their direct physical participation in the actual offense. 
• The Court distinguished that constitutional powers under Article 161 are fundamentally different from statutory powers - constitutional powers originate from the Constitution itself and embody broader ethical vision prioritizing humanity and equity, while statutory powers are derived from legislature-enacted laws. 
• The Court established that mere punishment cannot constitute a complete remedy for crime, especially when the offender is not entirely responsible for causes leading to the criminal act, emphasizing a reformative approach through compassionate correction. 
• The Court recognized that women face heightened prejudices and gendered victimization, with social norms and constraints significantly influencing their actions and expressions, particularly regarding forced marriages that curtail professional and educational aspirations. 
• The Court held that society, through systemic failures, inequalities, or neglect, often plays a role in shaping criminal behavior, making the offender also a victim requiring treatment through structural support and genuine transformation opportunities. 
• The Court established that Article 161 has in-built laudable objective of facilitating offender reintegration into society after realizing mistakes, with sovereign power exercised on Council of Ministers' advice, subject to limited judicial review. 
• The Court emphasized that constitutional pardoning power under Article 161 is broader than statutory provisions and must be applied discretely on case-by-case basis, unlike statutory provisions that govern classes of convicts collectively. 
• The Court granted eight weeks' time from the date of the judgment for the appellants to file appropriate petitions seeking to invoke the power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution. Until the appellants' pardon petitions are considered, their sentences have been suspended by the court. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred? 

Constitution of India,1950 

Article 72 - President's Pardoning Power 

• President can grant pardons, reprieves, respites, remissions, suspend, remit or commute sentences 
• Exclusive powers: Court martial cases, Union law offenses, all death sentences 
• Does not affect Governor's power in death sentence cases under state laws 

Article 161 - Governor's Pardoning Power 

• Governor can grant pardons, reprieves, respites, remissions, suspend, remit or commute sentences 
• Limited to: Offenses under state executive power 
• Cannot handle: Death sentences (President's exclusive domain) 

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 

Section 473 - Power to Suspend/Remit Sentences 

• Appropriate Government can suspend or remit sentences with/without conditions 
• Can seek trial judge's opinion before deciding 
• Conditions: If not fulfilled, suspension/remission can be cancelled 
• Petition rules: For adults, petitioner must be in jail; petition through jail officer or with jail declaration 

Section 474 - Power to Commute Sentences 

• Appropriate Government can commute without consent:  
  • Death → Life imprisonment 
  • Life → Minimum 7 years 
  • 7+ years → Minimum 3 years 
  • Less than 7 years → Fine 
  • Rigorous → Simple imprisonment 

Key Distinctions: 

• President: All death sentences, court martial, Union matters 
• Governor: State matters only (excluding death sentences) 
• Appropriate Government: Suspension/remission and commutation powers based on jurisdiction (Central vs State) 

How do Societal Constraints and Gendered Pressures Lead Women Toward Crime? 

• Crime is defined as a mental rebellion against social norms, often triggered by a mix of internal and external causes. 
• Key causes include alienation, environmental conditions like family and education, material deprivation, and the breakdown of moral structures. 
• When these factors apply to women, they result in gender-specific victimization and heightened social prejudice. 
• Forced marriage is cited as a prime example, where a woman’s autonomy is stripped, separating her from her education and career ambitions. 
• Under such pressures, women may feel driven to flee, engage in violence, or suffer emotional and psychological collapse. 
• Additional constraints—such as stigma, lack of support, and restrictive value systems—distort their perception of freedom and resistance. 
• These conditions can lead women to believe compliance is their only option or push them toward desperate, defiant actions against the law.