List of Current Affairs

Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Chinnan Krishore Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others ( 2026), delivered significant observations on the nature of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (Section 144 of BNSS).  

• Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao held that maintenance is an ambulatory, recurring entitlement that crystallises afresh upon each breach of obligation and is not extinguished by the pendency of collateral matrimonial proceedings. The Court upheld the Family Court's order granting monthly maintenance of ₹7,500 to the wife and ₹5,000 to their minor child. 

What was the Background of Chinnan Krishore Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2026) Case? 

• A criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner/husband challenging a 2018 order of the Family Court, which had accepted an application filed by his wife (Respondent 2) under Section 125 CrPC. 
• The Family Court had awarded maintenance of ₹7,500 per month to the wife and ₹5,000 per month to their minor son (Respondent 3). 
• The petitioner contended that the Family Court erred in granting maintenance, as his wife had allegedly failed to produce documentary proof of her allegations. 
• He submitted that his wife had filed multiple cases to harass him and that the Family Court failed to consider the pendency of those proceedings. 
• He further argued that the quantum of maintenance awarded was excessive and arbitrary. 
• In contrast, the wife argued that the petitioner had neglected and refused to maintain her and their minor child, and that Section 125 is a social welfare provision imposing a legal obligation on the husband to maintain his dependents. 
• She contended that the petitioner's reliance on the pendency of other proceedings was wholly misconceived, as the right to claim maintenance is independent and recurring in nature. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that the cornerstone of the case rested on Section 125 CrPC, describing it as a benevolent provision designed to ameliorate the plight of wives, children, and indigent parents forsaken by those legally bound to sustain them. 
• On the nature of maintenance, the Court observed that it is a socio-legal obligation flowing inexorably from the status of marriage and the familial bond — not a mere contractual arrangement but a personal liability imposed by virtue of the jural relationship itself. 
• The Court affirmed that maintenance is not a "one-time bounty" but an ambulatory, recurring entitlement, crystallising afresh upon each breach of obligation and untrammelled by the pendency of collateral matrimonial proceedings. 
• Judicial interpretation has also expanded the definition of "wife" under Section 125 CrPC to include divorced women who have not remarried, and in certain contexts, women in long-term live-in relationships, to ensure the protective purpose of the provision is not defeated by rigid textualism. 
• On the quantum of maintenance, the Court upheld the amounts awarded by the Family Court as just, adequate, and commensurate with the husband's pecuniary resources, the dependents' reasonable needs, and prevailing living standards. 
• Finding no apparent error in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the criminal revision petition. 

What is Section 144 of BNSS? 

About:  

• Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.  
• This provision was earlier covered under Section 125 of CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). 

Who can claim maintenance: 

• Wife unable to maintain herself. 
• Legitimate/illegitimate child (married or not) unable to maintain itself. 
• Major child with physical/mental abnormality unable to maintain itself. 
• Father or mother unable to maintain themselves. 

Key provisions: 

• A First-Class Magistrate can order monthly maintenance upon proof of neglect/refusal. 
• Interim maintenance can also be ordered during pending proceedings. 
• Interim maintenance application must be disposed of within 60 days of notice. 
• Maintenance is payable from the date of order, or from the date of application if so directed. 

Non-compliance: 

• Warrant can be issued to levy the amount (like a fine). 
• Imprisonment up to one month for each month's unpaid allowance. 
• Warrant application must be made within one year of the due date. 

Wife's entitlement is cancelled if: 

• She is living in adultery. 
• She refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason. 
• They are living separately by mutual consent. 

Note: "Wife" includes a divorced woman who has not remarried. A husband keeping a mistress or remarrying is considered just ground for wife's refusal to live with him. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra in Vandana Jain & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2026) set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a criminal case, wherein the allegation of forgery was founded solely on the non-traceability of a document in the records of a public office. 

• The Supreme Court held that non-traceability of a document cannot, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that the document is forged, and that the ingredients of Section 464 IPC (Section 335 of BNS) must be independently established. 

What is the Background of Vandana Jain & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The matter arose from a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated August 16, 2010, entered into between the appellants and Motor General Sales Ltd. for development of a property in Kanpur. 
• The JVA ultimately proved unsuccessful. 
• Nearly 11 years later, in March 2021, the complainant lodged an FIR under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. 
• The complainant alleged, among other things, that the appellants had submitted a forged letter purportedly issued by the Executive Magistrate to establish their title over the property. 
• The basis of the forgery allegation was that the said letter was not traceable in the office of the Executive Magistrate from which it was purported to have been issued. 
• The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appellants' quashing petition. 
• Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court of India. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The judgment, authored by Justice Manoj Misra, held that unless the ingredients of Section 464 IPC are fulfilled, no offence of making a false document can be made out. 
• The Court categorically rejected the complainant's contention, stating that non-traceability of a document in official records cannot, by itself, lead to the inference of forgery. 
• The Court observed: "It is a matter of common knowledge that certificate/letters, such as the one in question, are not maintained in perpetuity. Therefore, if, after 10 or 11 years, merely because the office reports that such letter/certificate is not traceable in the records of the office, it cannot be said that it is forged." 
• The Court emphasised that a document is forged only when allegations establish it to be a false document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC — requiring proof of dishonest or fraudulent intent at the time of creation, signing, or alteration. 
• In light of the above, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the pending criminal case against the appellants. 

What is Section 335 of BNS?  

About:  

• Section 335 of BNS deals with the Making of False document.  
• Earlier this Section was covered under Section 464 of IPC.  

Who Commits the Offence? 

A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record if they act dishonestly or fraudulently in any of the following ways: 

• Makes, signs, seals, or executes a document or part thereof falsely attributing it to another person. 
• Makes or transmits an electronic record falsely attributing it to another person. 
• Affixes an electronic signature on an electronic record without authority. 
• Makes any mark denoting execution or authenticity of a document/electronic signature, knowing it was not actually made by the person it purports to come from. 
• Alters a document or electronic record in any material part without lawful authority, whether the original maker is living or dead. 
• Causes another person to sign, seal, execute, or alter a document by exploiting their mental illness, intoxication, or deception, such that they do not know the contents or nature of the alteration. 

Key Explanations: 

• A person signing their own name may still commit forgery if the intent is to impersonate another person of the same name. 
• A false document made in the name of a fictitious or deceased person, intending it to be believed as genuine or made during their lifetime, amounts to forgery. 
• "Affixing electronic signature" carries the meaning assigned under the Information Technology Act, 2000.