List of Current Affairs

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Farjand Ali, in Devaram v. Khetaram & Ors. (2026), held that a son cannot claim an independent coparcenary share in property inherited by his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in the absence of pleadings showing that the property continued to retain the character of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or coparcenary property. 

What was the Background of Devaram v. Khetaram & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• Agricultural land was originally allotted to the appellant's grandfather, which devolved upon the grandfather's three sons (respondents), including the appellant's father (respondent no. 1). 
• The appellant alleged that the respondents alienated the land through sale deeds without his consent. 
• The appellant claimed that, being a legitimate son of respondent no. 1, he had acquired a coparcenary interest in the property by birth, and accordingly challenged the alienation. 
• A suit seeking declaration of rights, permanent injunction, and cancellation of the sale deeds was filed before the trial court. 
• The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant's khatedari rights had not been declared by the competent revenue court. 
• The appellant filed the present first appeal against the trial court's judgment. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Nature of Property Devolved Under Section 8: The Court held that once succession takes place under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the heirs succeed in their individual capacities, and the property so devolved cannot be treated as joint family property merely on the basis of the earlier relationship between the parties. 
• On Section 4 of the Act: The Court observed that Section 4 could not be relied upon in isolation to create a coparcenary right in favour of a person or to characterise property as ancestral. The character of the property has to be determined independently, based on the source of acquisition, the nature of rights acquired by the predecessors, and the rights devolved upon the successors. 
• On Absence of Pleadings Regarding HUF: The Court found no pleadings in the plaint to show that the property continued to retain the character of HUF or coparcenary property in the hands of the respondents. In the absence of such pleadings, the appellant's claim of a coparcenary right, based solely on his relationship with respondent no. 1, was held unsustainable. 
• On Presumption of HUF Status: The Court held that property cannot be presumed to be HUF or coparcenary property merely because the appellant is a descendant of the original allottee. 
• On the Appellant's Right to Seek Partition: The Court held that in the absence of any specific pleading or material establishing that the property formed part of a pre-existing HUF or a subsisting coparcenary estate, the appellant could not claim an independent 1/9th coparcenary share by birth, and therefore had no legally enforceable right to seek partition during his father's lifetime. 
• On Civil Court's Jurisdiction: The Court held that a civil court cannot assume jurisdiction merely because the suit is couched as one for declaration, cancellation, and injunction. Since the appellant had not obtained a declaration of his khatedari rights from the competent revenue court, the civil court could not assume the existence of such rights to examine the validity of the alienation by the recorded khatedars. 
• The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld, the Court holding that the appellant's case failed on both substantive and jurisdictional grounds. 

What is the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 

Background & Purpose: 

• Enacted to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus. 
• Applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, governing succession to property in the absence of a will. 

Key Provisions Relevant to the Case: 

• Section 4 (Overriding Effect): Gives the Act overriding effect over any prior Hindu law, text, rule, or custom in matters for which the Act makes provision, but does not by itself convert self-acquired property into ancestral/coparcenary property. 
• Section 8 (General Rules of Succession in Case of Males): Provides that the property of a Hindu male dying intestate devolves firstly upon heirs in Class I of the Schedule; such heirs take the property in their individual capacity, not as joint family property. 
• Coparcenary Property: Property inherited up to four generations of male lineage in an unbroken chain, in which coparceners acquire an interest by birth; distinct from property devolving as an heir's individual, self-acquired share under Section 8. 
• Hindu Undivided Family (HUF): A legal entity comprising all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, including wives and unmarried daughters; existence of HUF status must be specifically pleaded and proved, and is not presumed from mere descent. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan, in Reji Baby v. Subi Mary (2026), quashed DV Act proceedings initiated by a wife and daughter against the husband, holding that a wife who has voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, through a Settlement Agreement and a subsequent affidavit before the Family Court, cannot revive such claims through DV Act proceedings. 

What was the Background of Reji Baby v. Subi Mary (2026), Case? 

• The husband (appellant) and wife (respondent no. 1) entered into a Settlement Agreement in 2016, under which the wife specifically agreed not to make any monetary or maintenance claims against the husband. 
• Pursuant to the settlement, a joint application for divorce was filed under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869, and a divorce decree was passed in 2017. 
• Subsequently, the wife and daughter (respondent no. 2) filed a complaint under the DV Act. 
• The husband sought quashing of the complaint before the Kerala High Court, which dismissed his petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 
• The husband contended that the DV Act proceedings had been initiated after all disputes stood settled, that the wife had specifically waived monetary claims, and that the daughter had already received consideration in the form of two properties which she had sold. 
• The respondents contended that the Settlement Agreement was executed under duress since the wife wanted a speedy divorce to migrate to the United States, that the absence of a maintenance provision itself indicated coercion, and that a waiver of statutory and fundamental rights was void as against public policy. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Settlement Agreement and Affidavit: The Court noted that the wife had not merely executed the Settlement Agreement but had also filed an affidavit before the Family Court reiterating the waiver of her claim for maintenance and affirming that the divorce petition was filed out of free will, without coercion or undue influence. 
• On Absence of Fresh Cause of Action: The Court observed that the DV Act complaint pertained to alleged acts predating the Settlement Agreement, and no fresh cause of action arising after the divorce had been pleaded. 
• On the Plea of Duress: The Court noted that although the respondents sought to challenge the Settlement Agreement and divorce decree on the ground of duress, the wife had not instituted any proceedings to set aside the decree or to seek a declaration invalidating the Settlement Agreement. 
• On Conscious and Voluntary Execution: The Court held that mere averments of coercion, absent any legal challenge, cannot suffice, and that parties who are well educated and cognizant of their rights must be deemed to have consciously and voluntarily executed the Settlement Agreement and joint divorce petition. 
• On Precedent Against Reviving Settled Claims: The Court relied on Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, where it had deprecated the practice of initiating DV Act proceedings despite a valid compromise between the parties. 
• On the Daughter's Independent Right: The Court held that since the Settlement Agreement was executed solely between the husband and wife, and the daughter (who had attained majority prior to its execution) was not a party to it, it could not be said that the daughter had waived her right to monetary claims. 
• The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's judgment and quashed the proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalamassery, while clarifying that the daughter would remain at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings seeking monetary reliefs, to be decided on their own merits.

What is the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005? 

Background & Purpose: 

• It is a social beneficial legislation enacted to protect women from domestic violence of all kinds. 
• It was brought into force on 26th October 2006. 
• It provides for effective protection of the rights of women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. 
• The preamble of the Act makes clear that its reach extends to violence — whether physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, or economic — all of which are to be redressed by the statute. 

Objectives: 

• The main object of the Act is to provide more effective protection to the constitutional rights of women and to protect them against violence of any kind occurring within the family. 
• It provides a remedy for enforcement of a woman's rights, including the right to residence, maintenance, custody, protection, and compensation. 

Domestic Violence (Section 3): 

• The term "domestic violence" has been widely defined under Section 3 of the Act. 
• Any act, omission, or conduct which harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb, or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person constitutes domestic violence. 
• Even harassment, threat, or coercion to meet any unlawful demand for dowry or other property or valuable security is covered under it. 
• Thus, domestic violence includes everything which harms or tends to cause any mental, physical, emotional, sexual, or economic harm/injury to the aggrieved woman. 

Key Concepts Relevant to the Case: 

• Economic Abuse: Includes deprivation of financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled, including maintenance. 
• Monetary Relief: A remedy under the Act distinct from maintenance under other personal laws, but similarly subject to principles of waiver where a valid, voluntary settlement exists. 
• Interplay with Settlement Agreements: Courts have consistently held that DV Act proceedings cannot be used to reagitate claims that were the subject of a valid, voluntary compromise, absent a fresh cause of action or successful legal challenge to that compromise.