List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale issued a notice on a man's plea challenging the maintainability of a Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code,1973 CrPC maintenance claim filed by his live-in partner, raising questions about the entitlement of live-in partners to maintenance. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of KP Raveendran Nair v. Vasantha KV (2025). 

What was the Background of KP Raveendran Nair v. Vasantha KV (2025) Case? 

• That the Petitioner KP Raveendran Nair and Respondent Vasantha KV were in a live-in relationship. 
• That the Respondent initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) seeking maintenance against the Petitioner before the Family Court at Vadakara as M.C. No. 107 of 2021. 
• That the Respondent categorically stated in her maintenance petition that she was in a live-in relationship with the Petitioner. 
• That the Petitioner challenged the maintainability of the Section 125 CrPC maintenance application before the Kerala High Court. 
• That the Kerala High Court dismissed the Petitioner's challenge vide order dated 11-03-2025 in OPCRL No. 572/2023. 
• That aggrieved by the Kerala High Court's decision, the Petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) bearing Diary No. 39456/2025 before the Supreme Court. 
• That the Petitioner contends that live-in partners are not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and the proceedings are not maintainable. 
• That the case involves the unresolved legal question of maintenance rights for live-in partners under Section 125 CrPC following unanswered references in Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2015). 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

Kerala High Court Observations 

• That the High Court dismissed the challenge to maintenance proceedings, observing that the Respondent's case was that parties lived as husband and wife since 2005. 
• That the High Court held Section 125 CrPC being beneficial legislation does not require strict proof of marriage to maintain a claim. 
• That the High Court ruled where parties cohabited for long period, presumption is in favour of marriage and maintenance cannot be denied. 
• That the High Court's decision was based on the principle that if parties lived together as husband and wife for long period, they are entitled to maintenance under the beneficial provisions of Section 125 CrPC. 

Supreme Court 

• That the Court noted the Petitioner's argument that in a live-in relationship, the partner is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. 
• That the Court observed that the Petitioner's contention was that the entire proceedings are completely misleading and not maintainable. 
• That after hearing the Petitioner's counsel, the Court was inclined to issue notice to the Respondent. 
• That the Court directed that the notice be returnable within six weeks. 

Can Live-in Partner Seek Maintenance? 

• That Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has replaced Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for maintenance claims. 
• That Section 144 of BNSS 2023 specifically governs maintenance claims and provides a consolidated legal framework for financially dependent individuals. 
• That the maintenance provisions under BNSS 2023 aim to protect the financial interests of dependent spouses, children, and parents in certain situations. 
• That Section 144 of specific categories of individuals who can file for maintenance, including dependent spouses who are financially dependent and unable to maintain themselves. 
• That the provision under Section 144 acknowledges financial disparity that may arise after separation or divorce and allows dependent spouses to seek maintenance from their partner. 
• That Section 144 of BNSS 2023 does not explicitly mention live-in partners as eligible claimants for maintenance, unlike the specific reference to "dependent spouses." 
• That the legal framework under BNSS 2023 requires the claimant to establish their status as a "dependent spouse" to seek maintenance under Section 144. 
• That live-in partners may face challenges in establishing their legal status as "spouse" under the strict interpretation of Section 144 of BNSS 2023, as the provision specifically refers to depende 

Legal Uncertainty 

• That the transition from Section 125 CrPC to Section 144 BNSS has not provided explicit clarity on the maintainability of claims by live-in partners. 
• That the interpretation of "dependent spouse" under Section 144 BNSS 2023 may determine whether live-in partners can successfully claim maintenance. 
• That live-in partners may need to establish presumption of marriage or spousal relationship to qualify under the "dependent spouse" category in Section 144 of BNSS 2023. 
• That the final determination of maintenance rights for live-in partners under Section 144 BNSS 2023 awaits definitive judicial pronouncement from the Supreme Court. 

What are the Judicial Precedent Observations? 

• Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2015), the Supreme Court had referred the question of maintenance rights of live-in partners to a larger bench but the same remained unanswered. 
  • That the 2018 Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi refused to answer the reference, noting that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides more efficacious remedies to live-in partners. 
  • That the Court in the 2018 case observed that under the DVC Act, 2005, the victim (estranged wife or live-in partner) would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated under Section 125 CrPC, including rights to a shared household. 
• Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, the Supreme Court clarified that strict proof of marriage is unnecessary in Section 125 CrPC proceedings, particularly where parties have held themselves out to society as husband and wife. 
  • That the present case thus brings to fore the unresolved legal question regarding the scope and application of maintenance provisions under Section 125 CrPC to live-in relationships in the absence of a definitive judicial pronouncement on the matter. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sameer Jain directed the State to explain the allotment of liquor shops in densely populated areas and near public institutions, stating it prima facie violates Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution, and sought the State’s Temperance Policy. 

• The Rajasthan High Court held this in the matter of Sadhana Shivhare v State of Rajasthan (2025). 

What was the Background of Sadhana Shivhare v State of Rajasthan, 2025 Case? 

• The petitioner, Sadhana Shivhare, wife of Shri Parshuram Shivhare, was allotted a composite liquor shop bearing No. 98, situated at Kishanpole Bazar, Ward No. 71(H) in Jaipur, since the financial year 2021-22 in accordance with the Excise Policy. 
• For the financial year 2024-25, the said shop remained unauctioned, and consequently, after negotiations, the composite shop was sanctioned and allotted to the present petitioner. 
• On 02nd June 2024, after due application of mind, the location and map of the said shop was approved in terms of the provisions of the governing statute, law and precedents passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 
• The sanction order remained valid and continued till 2025-26 with an enhancement of 5 per cent of the licence fee. 
• The petitioner submits that the terms and conditions imposed by the State/respondents were never violated by her. 
• On 13th August 2025, the petitioner received an impugned notice directing her to shift/change the location of the shop to an unobjectionable area due to alleged public resentment. 
• The copy of the said notice was not supplied to the petitioner. 
• Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the direction to relocate her licensed premises. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Hon'ble Court observed that as per Article 47 of the Constitution of India, the State shall make an attempt to prohibit the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health except for medicinal purposes. 
• The Court noted that liquor and goods/articles covered under Article 47 are governed by the doctrine of res extra commercium. 
• The Court observed that the petitioner has no vested right qua the sale of liquor. 
• The Court remarked that despite the Temperance Policy, the State has approved a location in a public market over the years. 
• The Court observed that the allotments of liquor shops in densely populated markets prima facie appears to be against the provisions of Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India. 
• The Court directed that the Commissioner of Excise Department as well as the Principal Secretary shall appear via video conference on the next date of hearing. 
• The Court directed the State authorities to furnish the Temperance Policy vis-à-vis Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India. 
•  The Court directed the State to tender reasonable justification qua allotments of liquor shops in public areas wherein temples, schools and sacred establishments are located. 
• The Court directed the State to provide an explanation qua allotments of shops in densely populated markets which prima facie appears to be against the provisions of Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India. 
• Notice was issued to the respondents, and the matter was listed for hearing on 28.08.2025 (subsequently to be heard on 09.09.2025). 

What is Article 21 and 47 of Constitution? 

Article 21 - Protection of Life and Personal Liberty 

• Article 21 states: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." 
• This fundamental right protects the basic human rights of life and personal liberty, ensuring that the state cannot arbitrarily deprive individuals of these rights without following due legal process. 

Article 47 - Duty of the State to Raise Nutrition and Health Standards 

• Article 47 states: "The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health." 
• This directive principle places a constitutional duty on the state to improve public health and specifically mandates efforts toward prohibition of harmful intoxicating substances, except for medical use. 

Is Allotment of Liquor Shops in Densely Populated Areas Contrary to Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution ? 

• Article 47 creates a constitutional mandate for the state to work toward prohibition of intoxicating drinks 
• Liquor falls under "res extra commercium" (things outside commerce) due to Article 47 
• No vested right exists for individuals to sell liquor 
• Allotment of liquor shops in densely populated markets with temples, schools, and sacred places appears "prima facie" inconsistent with both Articles 21 and 47