List of Current Affairs

Source: Uttarakhand High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Alok Mahra of the Uttarakhand High Court, in Rapti v. State of Uttarakhand & Another (2026), held that a man who knowingly accepts his wife's child from a previous marriage as part of the matrimonial household cannot later disown the responsibility of maintaining that child merely because he is not the biological father. The Court also enhanced the maintenance awarded to the wife and the minor daughter. 

What was the Background of Rapti v. State of Uttarakhand & Another (2026) Case? 

• The marriage between the revisionist-wife and the respondent was solemnised in 2013. At the time of marriage, the respondent was fully aware that the wife had a son from her previous marriage, and the marriage was entered into on the understanding that the son would reside with the couple. 
• The wife, the son and the daughter born of the marriage sought maintenance before the Family Court, Haridwar. The Family Court granted ₹8,000 per month to the wife and ₹6,000 per month to the daughter, but denied maintenance to the son on the ground that the respondent was not his biological father. 
• Aggrieved, the wife and children filed a criminal revision before the Uttarakhand High Court, challenging both the denial of maintenance to the son and the adequacy of the amounts awarded. 
• The revisionists contended that the respondent had voluntarily undertaken responsibility towards the son by marrying the wife with full knowledge of the child's existence.  
• They also relied on the respondent's November 2025 salary slip, which showed a gross salary of ₹2,01,843 and a net salary of ₹1,06,654, and argued that his effective monthly income, after excluding impermissible deductions, exceeded ₹1.50 lakh. 

The respondent opposed the revision, submitting that: 

• The wife was employed and earned approximately ₹55,000 to ₹58,000 per month. 
• She was residing in a flat owned by him and had withdrawn from his company of her own volition. 
• The responsibility of maintaining the minor daughter rested on both parents. 
• The wife had received a ₹5 lakh settlement from her former husband towards her stridhan and the maintenance of the son. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the Respondent's Knowledge and Acceptance of the Son: 

• The Court held that the respondent's knowledge of the son's existence at the time of marriage was significant.  
• It noted that the marriage was solemnised with the understanding that the son would reside with the wife. 
• It held that once the respondent, with full knowledge, chose to marry the wife and accepted the child as part of the matrimonial household, "he cannot subsequently seek to evade the responsibility which he had voluntarily undertaken towards the child, particularly when the child was residing with the parties as a member of the family." 

On the Plea of Not Being the Biological Father: 

• The Court held that the plea that the son was not the respondent's biological child "by itself, cannot constitute a justification for completely disowning the responsibility towards his maintenance." 
• It concluded that the Family Court had erred in declining maintenance to the son solely on this ground. 

On the ₹5 Lakh Settlement with the Former Husband: 

• The Court rejected the argument that the settlement between the wife and her former husband discharged the respondent's liability.  
• It held that such a settlement cannot absolve the respondent of a responsibility he voluntarily assumed after marriage. 
• It further observed that "the rights and obligations arising from the subsequent matrimonial relationship cannot be defeated merely on the basis of an arrangement entered into between revisionist no.1 and her former husband." 

On Reliance on Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi: 

• Relying on this Supreme Court decision, the Court noted that a husband's obligation to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing obligation. 
• Deductions towards repayments or liabilities that create or enhance assets cannot be permitted to substantially diminish his assessable income where they would take precedence over the statutory obligation of maintenance. 

On Reliance on Rajnesh v. Neha: 

• The Court considered the affidavits of assets, income and liabilities filed by both parties pursuant to the directions in Rajnesh v. Neha.  
• It found that the respondent had no substantial independent liability materially affecting his capacity to pay, and that the maintenance awarded to the wife and daughter was on the lower side. 

Conclusion: 

The Court allowed the criminal revision and modified the Family Court's order as follows: 

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 Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, in John Mathew v. Santha Paul & Ors. (2026), held that an issue can be tried as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) only if it is a pure issue of law relating to jurisdiction or a statutory bar, and only before the court has embarked upon trial of the issues generally. 

• The Court set aside the orders of the trial court, the first appellate court and the Kerala High Court, and restored the suit for decision on merits. 

What was the Background of John Mathew v. Santha Paul & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• In 2005, the plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of Defendant No. 1 (D1) to manage the suit land. The GPA did not authorise D1 to settle the terms of sale or to create a charge on the property. 
• In 2009, the plaintiff revoked the GPA. D1 replied that the land had already been sold to Defendant No. 2 (D2), the petitioner before the Supreme Court. 
• In 2013, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed was void, a declaration of title, and recovery of possession with mesne profits. 
• Both defendants denied any fraud and pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. In 2015, the trial court framed the issues, with limitation framed as Issue No. 5, and the suit proceeded to trial. 
• By 2018, the plaintiff had concluded his evidence and the defendants had begun theirs. At this stage, D2 applied to have limitation tried as a preliminary issue. The trial court allowed the application and dismissed the suit, applying the three-year period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, counted from 2009. 
• The first appellate court affirmed the order but modified it into a rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. 
• In second appeal, the Kerala High Court held that limitation was a mixed question of fact and law which could not be decided as a preliminary issue. It further held that since the plaintiff claimed the sale deed was void, Article 65 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a twelve-year period for recovery of possession, applied and the suit was within time. It remitted the matter to the trial court. 
• Aggrieved, D2 filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the Legislative History of Order XIV Rule 2: 

• The Court noted that before the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, where the court was of the opinion that a case could be disposed of on issues of law only, it "shall try those issues first". If the decision on the preliminary issue was reversed on appeal, the case had to go back to the trial court for a decision on merits. 
• Following the Law Commission's 54th Report, Parliament replaced the earlier preference for deciding legal issues first with a general requirement that all issues be adjudicated. An exception was deliberately retained for two classes of legal issues: those concerning the jurisdiction of the court and those concerning a bar to the suit created by law. 
• The mandatory "shall try those issues first" was replaced with the discretionary "may try that issue first". The object was to avoid unnecessary piecemeal trials and remands by narrowing, not abolishing, the power of prior determination. 

On the Three Cumulative Requirements under Sub-rule (2): 

The Court held that sub-rule (1) requires the court to pronounce judgment on all issues, subject to sub-rule (2). Sub-rule (2) imposes three cumulative requirements: 

• The proposed issue must be an issue of law only. 
• It must relate either to jurisdiction or to a statutory bar. 
• The court must form the opinion that the case, or a part thereof, may be disposed of upon that issue. 

Even where these conditions are satisfied, the exercise of the power remains discretionary. 

On Mixed Questions of Law and Fact: 

• The Court observed that the label attached to a subject such as limitation or jurisdiction does not decide the question. It held that "what matters is whether adjudication of disputed facts is necessary before the legal issue can be answered." 
• The Court noted that limitation can be framed as a preliminary issue where the foundational facts fixing the starting point of limitation are clearly stated in the plaint. 

On Framing, Trying and Postponing Issues: 

• The Court held that the power to "try that issue first" is distinct from the further discretion to postpone settlement of the remaining issues. The latter is optional, and an expressly optional consequence cannot be converted into a condition precedent for the existence of the power. 

On the Four Procedural Settings: 

The Court held that the scheme operates in at least four procedural settings: 

• First, the court frames only the qualifying issue of law, postpones settlement of the remaining issues, and tries that issue first. 
• Second, the court frames all issues but contemporaneously directs that a qualifying preliminary issue be tried first. 
• Third, the court frames all issues and lists the suit for evidence, but before trial of the issues has generally begun, a party invokes Rule 2(2). If no such request was earlier made or decided, mere fixation of a date for evidence does not amount to an irrevocable election against exercising the power. 
• Fourth, the court has already embarked upon trial of the issues generally. At this stage, the power under Rule 2(2) can no longer be exercised. 

On Prithvi Raj Jhingta v. Gopal Singh (2006): 

• The Court approved the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision insofar as it held that once issues have been taken up for trial together, the court cannot sever one for prior adjudication. 
• However, it declined to approve the broader view that Rule 2(2) is available only where the qualifying issue alone was framed at the outset and the others were postponed, holding that this "reverses this statutory syntax by converting an expressly optional procedural course into a condition precedent for exercise of the power." 

On Sathyanath v. Sarojamani (2022): 

• The Court clarified that in Sathyanath, res judicata was a mixed question and did not qualify under Rule 2(2), so the ordinary rule applied. It held that "Sathyanath, therefore, reaffirms the general rule where the exception is unavailable. It does not extinguish the exception." 

On the Effect of a Valid Preliminary Determination: 

• Where a qualifying issue is validly tried first and disposes of the suit, the remaining issues need not be tried merely because they had already been framed. 

On Application to the Present Case: 

• All issues, including limitation, were framed in 2015. By 2018, the plaintiff had concluded his evidence and the defendants had entered on theirs.  
• The Court held that Issue No. 5 was already one among the issues undergoing trial, and the case therefore fell squarely within the fourth setting. The statutory occasion to direct that it be "tried first" had passed. 

On Section 151 CPC: 

• The Court rejected reliance on inherent powers, holding that Section 151 "cannot be invoked to circumvent the conditions, sequence, or temporal limits which attend the exercise of a power expressly conferred by the Code." 

On Errors at Each Level: 

• The Court found that the trial court did not advert to the question at all and went directly to Article 59.  
• The first appellate court did not examine whether the power of prior trial remained available.  
• The High Court framed a substantial question on this point but did not address the operation of the provisions. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court set aside the orders of the trial court, the first appellate court and the Kerala High Court, and restored the suit before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakara. 
• The trial court was directed to resume proceedings from the stage immediately before the interruption of the ordinary course of trial. 
• Observing that a suit filed in 2013, with issues framed in 2015, was being remitted after over a decade, the Court described the litigation as "a telling illustration of the very mischief which the procedural law was designed to prevent" and requested the trial court to decide the suit within three months.

What is Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 

About: 

• Order XIV of the CPC deals with the settlement of issues and the determination of a suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. 
• Rule 1 governs the framing of issues, which arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. 
• Rule 2 lays down the general rule that the court must pronounce judgment on all issues and carves out a limited exception allowing certain issues of law to be tried first as preliminary issues. 
• The present form of Rule 2 was substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, to discourage piecemeal trials and repeated remands. 

The Provision: 

Order XIV Rule 2 states: Court to pronounce judgment on all issues. 

Sub-rule (1): 

• "Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues." 

Sub-rule (2): 

• "Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to— 
• (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or 
• (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, 
• and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue."