List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale in the case of Lal Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025) held that a complaint for offences under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 can be initiated by any person, as the Act imposes no restrictions on who may set the criminal law in motion. 

What was the Background of Lal Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• A Gram Pradhan (village head) had filed a complaint against the accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code read with the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 
• The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and summoned the accused to face trial. 
• The accused challenged the Magistrate's order before the Allahabad High Court. 
• The Allahabad High Court set aside the Magistrate's order, quashing the summoning of the accused. 
• The High Court held that only a Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, could initiate action against damage made to public property. 
• Since the Gram Pradhan was not deemed a competent authority under the U.P. Revenue Code, the High Court held the complaint to be not maintainable. 
• The matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court emphasized the well-recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that "anyone can set out or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary." 
• The Court noted that there is no specific provision in the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 which limits the eligibility of the person making the complaint. 
• The Court distinguished between civil and criminal proceedings, holding that the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, being civil in nature, operate in a completely different context relating to the assessment of damages or the ejectment of trespassers. 
• The Court held that the High Court manifestly erred in law by holding that since the Gram Pradhan was not the competent authority to lodge an FIR, the action of the Special Judge in taking cognizance and summoning the accused was bad in law. 
• The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's approach of applying civil law provisions to restrict the initiation of criminal proceedings. 
• The Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order and restored the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and summoning the accused. 
• The appeal was allowed, affirming that criminal proceedings under the 1984 Act can be initiated by any person. 

What is the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984? 

Key Details: 

• Full Title: The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 
• Act Number: Act No. 3 of 1984 
• Date of Enactment: March 16, 1984 
• Deemed Commencement: January 28, 1984 
• Territorial Extent: Extends to the whole of India 

Definitions: 

• Mischief: Has the same meaning as defined in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• Public Property: Includes immovable or movable property (including machinery) owned by, possessed by, or under the control of: 

Central Government 

State Governments 

Local authorities 

Corporations established under Central, Provincial or State Acts 

Companies as defined in the Companies Act, 1956 

Institutions, concerns or undertakings specified by Central Government that are wholly or substantially financed by government funds. 

Offences and Punishments: 

Section 3(1) - General Mischief to Public Property: 

• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 5 years and fine. 
• Applies to damage to public property not covered under Section 3(2). 

Section 3(2) - Mischief to Critical Public Property: 

• Covers damage to essential infrastructure including water/light/power production facilities, oil installations, sewage works, mines, factories, public transportation, and telecommunications. 
• Punishment: Rigorous imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years and fine. 
• Court may award less than 6 months with recorded reasons. 

Section 4 - Damage by Fire or Explosive Substance: 

• Applies when offences under Section 3 are committed using fire or explosives. 
• Punishment: Rigorous imprisonment from 1 year to 10 years and fine. 
• Court may award less than 1 year for special recorded reasons. 

Special Provisions 

Bail Restrictions (Section 5): 

• Accused or convicted persons in custody cannot be released on bail or personal bond unless prosecution has been given opportunity to oppose the application. 

Saving Clause (Section 6): 

• Provisions are in addition to, not in derogation of, other existing laws. 
• Does not exempt persons from other proceedings that could be instituted apart from this Act. 

Repeal Provision 

• The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Ordinance, 1984 was repealed. 
• All actions taken under the Ordinance are deemed to have been taken under the Act. 

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath in the case of Rajeevan M. v. Jeesha P. and Others (2025) held that even if a wife is earning or has the capability to earn, she is not disentitled from claiming maintenance from her husband if she asserts that the income is insufficient for her maintenance. 

What was the Background of Rajeevan M. v. Jeesha P. and Others (2025) Case? 

• The case involved a legally wedded couple - Jeesha P. (wife) and Rajeevan M. (husband) - with two minor children. 
• The wife and children filed a maintenance case before the Family Court, Thalassery, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- for the wife and Rs. 10,000/- each for the two children. 
• The Family Court rejected the wife's claim for maintenance but granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- each to the children. 
• The wife filed RP(FC) No. 409/2017 challenging the rejection of her maintenance claim and the quantum awarded to the children. 
• The husband filed RP(FC) No. 476/2017 challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded to the children. 
• The Family Court had denied maintenance to the wife on two grounds: (i) the wife is a tailor by profession and has sufficient means to maintain herself, and (ii) the wife left the company of the husband without any valid reason. 
• According to the wife's evidence, the husband exercised cruelty on her, took her to her parental house on 19.09.2014, and never came to take her back. 
• The husband contended that he was employed as a tailor earning only Rs. 750/- per day, while the wife claimed he ran his own tailoring shop with substantial income. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court emphasized that Section 125 of CrPC (Section 144 of BNSS) is a measure of social justice enacted to protect women and children, falling within the constitutional scheme of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39, and must be construed liberally. 
• The Court held that "unable to maintain herself" does not mean the wife must be in a state of penury, and even if a wife is earning or capable of earning, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance. 
• The Court cited key Supreme Court precedents including Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014), and Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018) establishing this principle. 
• The Court found that merely showing "tailor" as occupation in the marriage certificate and membership in the Tailors' Association, without evidence of actual employment and income, would not bar maintenance claims. 
• The Court held that temporary or occasional work providing some income would not disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance if she asserts that the income is insufficient for her needs. 
• The Court assessed the wife's evidence of cruelty, including physical and mental torture, being forced to sleep on the floor, and cessation of marital relations, finding these instances sufficient to justify her living separately from the husband. 
• The Court noted that the husband, as an able-bodied 46-year-old person, cannot claim inability to maintain his wife and children merely by producing an unverified salary certificate. 
• The Court dismissed the husband's revision petition, allowed the wife's petition in part, upheld the children's maintenance at Rs. 6,000/- per month each, and awarded Rs. 8,000/- per month to the wife from the date of petition. 

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 include: 
  • 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.