List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Augustine George Masih in the case of Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2025) set aside the High Court order that had permitted the prosecution to examine a minor child as a witness at an advanced stage of trial under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

What was the Background of Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2025) Case? 

• The Appellant and the deceased were married in 2010, and their daughter Aashvi was born in 2013. 
• On 1st December 2017, the deceased's father (complainant) lodged an FIR for offences under Sections 498A, 306, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 
• The FIR alleged that the deceased committed suicide on 5th November 2017 by hanging herself with a dupatta, nearly one month before the FIR was registered. 
• It was alleged that the accused had subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty in connection with demands for money for purchase of a car, house, and motorcycle. 
• The appellant was also alleged to have had an extra-marital relationship, verbally abused the deceased, and threatened her, thereby driving her to commit suicide. 
• A chargesheet was filed on 23rd February 2018, charges were framed, and the trial commenced. 
• After examination of 21 prosecution witnesses, the prosecution filed an application dated 6th September 2023 under Section 311 CrPC seeking permission to examine the minor daughter Aashvi as a witness. 
• The application claimed that the child was present in the house at the time of the incident when she was approximately 4 years and 9 months old. 
• The Trial Court rejected the application, noting that neither the FIR nor statements recorded during investigation mentioned that the minor child was present at the time of the incident. 
• The Trial Court observed that despite a delay of nearly one month in lodging the FIR, no such fact was disclosed, and considering the tender age of the child and unexplained delay, declined permission. 
• The prosecution approached the Gujarat High Court, which set aside the Trial Court's order and permitted examination of the minor witness. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of the Trial Court as the respondents failed to establish that examination of the minor witness at this belated stage was essential for the just decision of the case. 

Key Grounds for the Decision: 

No Material Evidence of Child's Presence: 

• There was no material on record to substantiate the claim that the minor child was present at the time of the incident. 
• The FIR, statements recorded during investigation, and the testimony of the complainant did not disclose such presence. 
• The assumption that she was an eyewitness was speculative, as at best it suggested the child was in the house and not in the room where the incident occurred. 

Tender Age and Memory Reliability: 

• The child was of very tender age at the time of the incident, and more than seven years had elapsed since then. 
• The Court noted that memory at such a young age is vulnerable to distortion and external influence. 
• The fact that the child had been residing with her maternal grandparents throughout this period raised a reasonable apprehension of tutoring. 
• This significantly affected the reliability and evidentiary value of her proposed testimony. 

Advanced Stage of Trial: 

• The application under Section 311 CrPC was filed after examination of 21 prosecution witnesses and at an advanced stage of trial. 
• Though the power under Section 311 is wide, it is to be exercised sparingly and only when the evidence sought is indispensable for arriving at the truth. 
• The present case did not satisfy this requirement, and allowing examination would only protract the trial and cause prejudice to the accused. 
• The Court restored the Trial Court's order dated 30th March 2024 and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

What is Section 311 of CrPC (Section 348 of BNSS)? 

Core Provision: 

• Empowers Court to summon material witnesses and examine them at any stage of inquiry, trial, or proceeding. 
• Court can summon any person as witness, examine persons present (even if not summoned), or recall and re-examine already examined persons. 

Two-Part Structure: 

• First Part ("may") - Discretionary power allowing Court to decide whether to call witnesses. 
• Second Part ("shall") - Mandatory obligation when evidence is essential for just decision of the case. 

Scope: 

• Words "any court" and "at any stage" extend wide discretion to the Court. 
• Supreme Court confirmed this discretion is vast and cannot be restricted (Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991). 
• Purpose is to determine truth for just decision (Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2019). 

Objectives: 

• Provides opportunity for accused and prosecution to present their case. 
• Prevents failure of justice. 
• Ensures fair trial. 

Importance: 

• Upholds "innocent until proven guilty" principle. 
• Follows "Audi alteram partem" (hear the other side) rule. 
• Ensures fair trial for all parties. 

Guiding Principles: 

• Evidence must be essential for just decision of the case. 
• Should be used to determine truth and obtain proper proof. 
• Court must be satisfied examination will ensure justice. 
• Liberal approach to rectify errors in evidence presentation. 
• Fair opportunity must be provided to accused. 
• Must be exercised judiciously, not arbitrarily. 
• Not to fill lacunae in prosecution case. 
• Should prevent serious prejudice to parties. 
• Application requires valid and strong reasons. 
• Opportunity for rebuttal must be provided to other side. 

Provision in BNSS: 

• Section 311 CrPC is now codified as BNSS Section 348 - Power to summon material witness or examine person present. 
• Any Court may, at any stage of inquiry, trial or proceeding, summon any person as witness, examine any person in attendance (though not summoned), or recall and re-examine any person already examined. 
• Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any person if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. 

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh in  X & Anr. v. Y (2025) dismissed an appeal by in-laws challenging a Family Court judgment that declared the respondent as the legally wedded widow of their deceased son, an Army soldier.  

• The High Court held that a Hindu marriage cannot be declared void by in-laws on the ground that the bride was underage at the time of marriage, especially when raised belatedly.

What was the Background of  X & Anr. v. Y (2025) Case? 

Facts of the Case: 

• The case arose from a continuous legal battle between a war widow and her in-laws regarding entitlement to benefits awarded to dependents of a deceased Army officer. 
• The deceased soldier died on 14th January 2008 from gunshot wounds in an encounter with terrorists while serving in the Army. 
• The alleged wife (respondent) claimed she married the deceased on 12th May 2007. 
• The in-laws (appellants) contended that only an engagement took place on that date, and the actual marriage was scheduled for 24th April 2008. 
• The alleged wife filed an application for declaration of marriage before a Family Court in Uttar Pradesh. 

Family Court Proceedings: 

• The Family Court conducted an exhaustive trial with pleadings, evidence, witness examinations, and documentary exhibits. 
• The Family Court granted the declaration, holding that the respondent was the legally wedded wife of the deceased. 

Challenge Before High Court: 

• Against the Family Court's judgment dated 28th April 2025, the in-laws approached the Allahabad High Court. 
• They claimed that the wife was a minor at the time of marriage and accordingly, the marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 
• An identity card was produced showing the wife was two months short of 18 years of age when the marriage was solemnized on 12th May 2007 (her date of birth being 20th July 1989).

What were the Court's Observations? 

Legislative Intent on Age Requirement: 

• The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh held: "The Legislature consciously omitted to include clause (iii) under section 5 in the provision of section 11. Furthermore, cause of action in section 11 is only available to a spouse in a marriage. Appellants are parents of the deceased husband. Section 12, providing for voidable marriages, does not mention clause (iii) in section 5, for contravention of which a ground can be urged saying the marriage is voidable and be anulled by a decree of nullity." 
• The Court emphasized that the Legislature deliberately excluded the age requirement from grounds for declaring a marriage void or voidable. This conscious omission reflects legislative policy that marriages of underage parties should not be vulnerable to being declared void. 

Standing to Challenge Marriage: 

• The Court held that only parties to the marriage can seek declaration that the marriage is void under Section 11. The appellants, being parents of the deceased husband, had no standing to challenge the marriage on this ground. 
• Section 11 specifically provides that a petition can be presented "by either party thereto against the other party"—meaning only the spouses themselves. 

Family Court Had Proper Jurisdiction: 

The appellants had also challenged the Family Court's jurisdiction, but the High Court upheld it, holding: 

• Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 specifically grants jurisdiction for "declaration of the legality of a marriage or marital status of a person." 
• The case involved a dispute about marital status—a clear family dispute within Family Court jurisdiction. 
• The case was distinguishable from situations involving pure property disputes between non-family members. 

Strong Evidence of Valid Marriage: 

The Court found substantial evidence supporting the validity of marriage: 

• The appellant mother herself had admitted in her first application before the Gujarat High Court in 2009 that her son married the respondent on 12th May 2007. 
• Marriage invitation card bearing handwriting of the appellant father. 
• Positive witness testimony about the marriage ceremony. 
• Documentary evidence including leave taken by the appellant father from his Railway employment to attend the ceremony. 
• The deceased had applied for leave to get married and produced required photographs.

What are the Legal Provisions on Void Marriages under HMA? 

About: 

• Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 deals with the provision of Void Marriages. 
• Section 11 does not define void marriages but gives the grounds on which a marriage can be called void. 
  • Section 11: Void marriages - Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5. 

Grounds: 

• Under HMA any marriage is void if it does not fulfill the conditions mentioned under section 5 clause (i), (iv) and (v). 
  • Under Clause (i) of Section 5 neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage. 
  • Under Clause (iv) of Section 5 the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two. 
  • Under Clause (v) of Section 5 the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits a marriage between the two. 

Conditions that Make a Marriage Void: 

• Spouse living at the time of marriage    
  • The term bigamy means the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another.  
    • Section 5(i) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 says that at the time of the marriage parties to the marriage should not have a spouse living 
  • In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000), Supreme Court (SC) held that when a Hindu spouse converts his religion to remarry with no intention to practice such religion, but to only achieve an ulterior motive, then the second marriage will be declared void. It is violative of Article 21 of the Indian constitution as well. 
  • In the case of Smt. Yamunabai v. Anant Rao (1988), SC held that wife of second marriage cannot be considered a wife because such marriage is void ab initio (void from the beginning), and she cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) 
• Degree of prohibited relationship: 
  • According to Section 3(g) of the HMA, two persons are said to be within the degrees of prohibited relationship 
    • If one is a lineal ascendant of the other; or 
    • If one was the wife or husband of a lineal ascendant or descendant of the other; or 
    • If one was the wife of the brother or of the father's or mother's brother or of the grandfather's or grandmother's brother of the other; or 
    • If the two are brother and sister, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, or children of brother and sister or of two brothers or of two sisters. 
  • By virtue, Section 5(iv) of HMA the marriage within the degree of prohibited relationship is void. 
    • Section 5(iv) also mentions that if the custom or usage of each party to the marriage allows such marriage, then such marriage will be considered as valid marriage. 
  • Section 18(b) of the HMA punishes the parties to such marriage with simple imprisonment which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to 1000 rupees or both. 
• Sapinda: 
  • According to Hindu law, when two persons offer pinda to the same ancestor it is known as sapinda relation. Sapinda relations are that relation that is connected with the same blood. 
  • In sapinda relation if any person marries their marriage is considered to be void.  
  • According to Section 3(f) of HMA, sapinda means the following: 
    • Sapinda relationship with reference to any person extends as far as the third generation (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the mother, and the fifth (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the father, the line being traced upwards in each case from the person concerned, who is to be counted as the first generation. 
    • Two persons are said to be sapindas of each other if one is a lineal ascendant of the other within the limits of sapinda relationship, or if they have a common lineal ascendant who is within the limits of sapinda relationship with reference to each of them; 
    • By virtue of Section 5(v) of the HMA, the marriage within the sapinda is void. 
• Section 18(b) of HMA punish the parties for such marriage with simple imprisonment which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to 1000 rupees or both. 

Effect of void marriage: 

• The parties don’t have the position of husband and wife in a void marriage. 
• Children born from the void marriage are legitimate according to Section16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 
• There are no mutual rights and obligations present in a void marriage.