List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court in Kartik & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2026), held that two consenting adults residing together in a live-in relationship are entitled to police protection against threats and interference from family members, including parents.  

• The Court reaffirmed that the right to freely choose one's partner is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India,1950 (COI).  

What was the Background of Kartik & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioners, born in 2006 and 2007 respectively, were consenting adults who had been in a relationship since 2024 and were residing together at the time of the petition. 
• The couple had executed a Live-in Relationship Agreement dated February 17, 2026. 
• The father of petitioner no. 2 (the woman) was allegedly unhappy with the relationship and had been issuing threats, placing the lives and liberty of both petitioners in jeopardy. 
• The couple filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking police protection. 
• Central Issue: 
• Whether two consenting adults in a live-in relationship are entitled to police protection against threats and interference from family members, and whether such a relationship is protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Live-In Relationship Akin to Marriage in Constitutional Terms: 

• Justice Banerjee observed that while a live-in relationship is not legally equivalent to marriage, it shares a foundational similarity — it is a union between two consenting individuals, irrespective of caste, creed, colour, religion, or faith.  
• The Court held that the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom under Article 19 and the right to life and liberty under Article 21, both of which protect such relationships. 

No Authority to Interfere: 

• The Court categorically held that no person — including parents, relatives, or friends — has any right or authority to cause hindrance, interference, or threats to a consenting couple in a live-in relationship.  
• The fact that the couple had voluntarily executed a Live-in Relationship Agreement was noted as a further affirmation of their intent and responsibility. 

Right to Choose a Partner: 

• Justice Banerjee reaffirmed that both petitioners, being major and consenting adults, have an unqualified right to choose their partners and reside together without interference from any quarter. 

Police Protection Granted: 

• The Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioners shall be free to approach the concerned SHO or Beat Constable, who shall provide necessary assistance in accordance with law.  
• It was further clarified that if the couple changes residence to another jurisdiction, they must inform the concerned SHO within three days, and protection shall continue to be extended. 

What is the Concept of Live-In Relationship in India? 

Definition & Background: 

• A live-in relationship is cohabitation without formal marriage registration. 
• India lacks longstanding legal provisions for such partnerships, unlike Western countries. 
• Indian judiciary has adapted the legal framework to accommodate shifting societal norms. 

Legal Recognition: 

• No explicit statutory definition or regulation exists in Indian law. 
• S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) — Supreme Court ruled live-in relationships are part of the right to life under Article 21 and cannot be considered illegal. 
• D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) — SC introduced the concept of "relationship akin to marriage," with four conditions: cohabitation for a significant period, monogamy, both partners of legal marriageable age, and consensual conduct resembling marriage. 

Maintenance Rights: 

• Women in live-in relationships can claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 125 CrPC (144 of BNSS).  
• Entitlement depends on whether the relationship satisfies marriage-like criteria. 

Property Rights: 

• No automatic inheritance rights for live-in partners. 
• A partner may acquire rights to property accumulated during the relationship if they demonstrably contributed to its acquisition.  

Rights of Children: 

• Children born of live-in relationships are entitled to legitimacy and inheritance rights. 
• Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008) — children cannot be deemed illegitimate if parents cohabited under the same roof for a considerable period. 

Protection Against Domestic Violence: 

• The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 extends protection to women in live-in relationships 
• Entitled rights include: right to reside in the shared household, right to seek protection orders, and right to claim compensation for damages suffered. 

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande of the Bombay High Court, in Supriya Gaurav Devare v. Gaurav Jitendra Patil (2026), held that a decree of divorce cannot be granted merely on the basis of WhatsApp chats and SMS exchanges without proving such electronic communication through proper evidence. 

• The Court set aside the ex parte judgment and decree of divorce passed by the Family Court under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) and remanded the matter for fresh determination after affording both parties a full opportunity to lead evidence. 

What was the Background of Supriya Gaurav Devare v. Gaurav Jitendra Patil (2026) Case? 

• The appellant was the wife, who challenged the ex parte divorce decree passed by the Family Court, Nashik. 
• The husband had filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty. 
• The Family Court passed an ex parte judgment on 27 May 2025, allowing the husband's petition. 
• The Family Court's sole basis for concluding cruelty was WhatsApp chats and SMS exchanges between the parties. 
• The Family Court observed that the chats indicated the wife's insistence that the husband shift to Pune instead of staying in Nashik with his parents, and that certain messages allegedly contained derogatory language directed at the husband's family members. 
• The wife was not afforded any opportunity to rebut the evidence relied upon by the Family Court. 
• The wife challenged the decree before the Bombay High Court by way of a Family Court Appeal. 
• Central Issue: 
• Whether a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can be granted solely on the basis of WhatsApp chats that have not been proved through legally admissible evidence, and without affording the opposing party an opportunity to rebut such material. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

WhatsApp Chats Not Proved Through Evidence: 

• The division bench held that the electronic communication relied upon by the Family Court had not been proved through proper evidence.  
• Mere production or reference to WhatsApp chats, without formally establishing them on record through admissible means, renders such material legally insufficient to sustain a finding of cruelty. 

Right to Rebut Evidence: 

• The Court noted that the wife was given no opportunity to rebut the WhatsApp messages and SMS exchanges relied upon by the Family Court.  
• The principles of natural justice require that a party must be given a fair chance to contest the evidence used against them, particularly in proceedings as consequential as a divorce petition. 

Legally Unsustainable Approach: 

• The Bench held that the Family Court's approach of treating the husband's testimony as corroborated solely by unproved electronic communication, and then granting a divorce decree on that basis, was legally unsustainable. 

Decree Set Aside and Matter Remanded: 

• The High Court set aside the judgment and decree of divorce and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh determination of the issues raised in the petition, with both parties to be given a full opportunity to lead evidence. 

What is Section 13(1) (i-a) of HMA? 

• This section deals with cruelty as a ground for divorce. 
• Prior to the 1976 amendment in the HMA, cruelty was not a ground for claiming divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.  
• It was only a ground for claiming judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act.  
• By the 1976 Amendment, the Cruelty was made ground for divorce. 
• The word cruelty has not been defined in this Act.   
• Generally, cruelty is any behavior which causes a physical or mental, intentional or unintentional.  
• According to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several judgments, there are two types of cruelty.  
• Physical Cruelty - violent conduct causing pain to the spouse. 
• Mental cruelty – spouse is inflicted with any kind of mental stress or has to constantly go through mental agony. 
• In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) the Supreme Court held that the word cruelty can have no fixed definition. 
• In Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad (2007), the Supreme Court held that any kind of mental cruelty faced by either of the spouses not just the woman, but men as well can apply for a divorce on grounds of cruelty. 

WhatsApp Chats as Evidence in Indian Courts 

General Legal Position: 

• WhatsApp conversations, as electronic records, are admissible as evidence under Indian law, but only if they meet stringent certification and authentication standards.  

Evolution of Electronic Evidence Law 

• The admissibility of digital evidence traces back to amendments in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, introduced via the Information Technology Act, 2000. Sections 65A and 65B of the IEA specifically addressed "electronic records," defining them as data generated, stored, or transmitted electronically, including WhatsApp messages, voice notes, and media files. 
• A watershed moment came in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014), where the Supreme Court mandated a mandatory certificate under Section 65B(4) for secondary electronic evidence, holding that uncorroborated printouts or CDs are inadmissible without this certificate.  
• The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), effective July 1, 2024, modernized this regime. Section 63 mirrors Section 65B but expands scope to "communication devices" like smartphones, explicitly covering WhatsApp. 

The Section 63 BSA Certificate — What It Requires: 

• At the heart of admissibility lies the Section 63(4) certificate, a twin-part document without which WhatsApp chats are mere hearsay.  
• Part A — from the device owner/user — must detail:  
• Identification of the electronic record, manner of production (e.g., WhatsApp export on a specific date), device particulars (model, OS version), and assurance of no alterations post-production.  
• Part B — ideally from an independent expert — verifies the hash value (digital fingerprint) matches the original, confirming integrity via forensic tools like Cellebrite or Autopsy.  

Key Landmark Cases: 

• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014): The Supreme Court mandated certification under Section 65B(4) as a mandatory requirement, emphasising the ease of tampering in digital formats.  
• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020): The Supreme Court upheld admissibility when originals are produced but reiterated certification for copies, rejecting a blanket waiver. This judgment harmonized Section 65B with general evidence principles, stressing relevance and probative value.  It also clarified that if the witness produces the original device, no certificate is needed. 
• Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Delhi HC, July 2024): WhatsApp screenshots in a consumer dispute writ were dismissed for lacking a Section 63 certificate. Justice Subramanium Prasad noted that "WhatsApp conversations cannot be read as evidence without... a proper certificate as mandated under the Evidence Act." Even blue ticks (delivery/read receipts) were insufficient absent certification.