List of Current Affairs

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

A Single Judge Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, in Amrita M v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2026), quashed criminal proceedings under Section 509 IPC (Section 79 of BNS) against two women accused of body shaming and verbally abusing the complainant. The Court held that body shaming alone does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence of insulting the modesty of a woman. 

What was the Background of Amrita M v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• On 09.08.2023, the complainant filed a complaint alleging that three individuals, two girls and a boy, had verbally abused her and her friend in a public place. 
• The alleged remarks included name calling, fat shaming, body shaming, racist remarks and vulgar words. 
• The complainant further alleged that the accused were under the influence of alcohol when they yelled the abusive words at her. 
• An FIR was registered at Sadashivanagar Police Station against all three accused for the offence under Section 509 IPC, and a charge sheet was filed after investigation. 
• The boy (Accused No. 3) had earlier approached the High Court, and the proceedings against him were quashed. 
• The two girls (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) then approached the High Court through a criminal petition (CRL.P No. 4343 of 2026), seeking quashing of the proceedings against them. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Absence of Ingredients of Section 509 IPC: The Court held that the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material and statements of the complainant and witnesses did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 509 IPC. 
• On Body Shaming Not Amounting to Insulting Modesty: Having regard to the mandatory ingredients of Section 509 IPC, the Court observed that merely body shaming the complainant and insulting her about her physical appearance does not amount to the commission of the offence. 
• On the Doctrine of Parity: The Court noted that the allegations against the petitioners were identical, similar and common, arising from the very same incident, as those against the co-accused boy, whose proceedings had already been quashed. It therefore held that it would be just and proper to apply the doctrine of parity in favour of the petitioners as well. 
• Outcome: The criminal petition was allowed, and the proceedings pending before the jurisdictional court against the petitioners were quashed.

What is the Offence of Insulting the Modesty of a Woman? 

Statutory Provision: 

• Section 509 IPC: Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, commits the offence. 
• Punishment: Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and fine. (The maximum term was enhanced from one year to three years by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.) 
• Corresponding Provision under BNS: Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) retains the same offence and punishment. 
• Since the incident in the present case took place in 2023, before the BNS came into force on 1st July 2024, the IPC continued to apply. 

Essential Ingredients: 

• There must be an intention to insult the modesty of a woman. 
• Such insult must be through:  
  • Uttering any word, making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object, intending that it be heard or seen by the woman, or 
  • Intruding upon the privacy of the woman. 
• Intention is the core ingredient. Mere use of abusive or offensive words, without the intent to insult the woman's modesty, does not attract the section. 

Meaning of Modesty: 

• The term "modesty" is not defined in the IPC or the BNS. 
• In State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1966), the Supreme Court held that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. 
• In Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill (1995), the Supreme Court held that the ultimate test for determining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. 
• In Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra (2004), the Supreme Court reiterated that the culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter.

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News?

A Division Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi, in A v. S (2026), dismissed a husband's appeal seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Court held that childlessness cannot be treated as a matrimonial fault of the wife, and that a spouse who undergoes difficult fertility treatment demonstrates an intention to preserve, not abandon, the marriage. 

What was the Background of A v. S (2026) Case? 

• The marriage between the parties was solemnised in 2007. 
• The husband claimed that matrimonial life was peaceful only for the first six months, after which the wife's conduct changed. 
• He alleged mental cruelty on the grounds that the wife:  
  • Regarded her family as superior to his and made disparaging remarks about him and his family. 
  • Unnecessarily suspected him when he returned late from office. 
  • Publicly abused him, called him impotent, assaulted him with footwear, removed her thali and threw it at him, and left for her maternal home, refusing to return. 
• He also pointed out that the couple had no child and that the wife had not conceived despite treatment. 
• The wife denied all allegations. She stated that:  
  • The husband habitually consumed alcohol, and she had only objected to him driving home drunk. 
  • She never left the matrimonial home without informing him; rather, the husband himself used to leave her at her sister's house when travelling for work. 
  • She had undergone surgery for fibroids and was receiving medical treatment, and the absence of a child was not due to any wilful refusal on her part. 
• The Family Court refused divorce, holding that the husband's allegations were unsupported by evidence and that there was no conclusive proof that the wife was permanently incapable of bearing a child. 
• The husband appealed to the High Court in CMA(MD) No. 724 of 2022, arguing that the Family Court had placed undue emphasis on the lack of independent corroboration, since matrimonial cruelty usually occurs within the four walls of the home and cannot be proved through eyewitnesses or police complaints. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On Childlessness Not Being a Matrimonial Fault: The Court held that the inability of the parties to have a child cannot, by itself, be converted into a matrimonial fault of the wife. A spouse cannot be treated as having failed in the marriage merely because there was no child. 
• On the Object of Marriage: The Court stressed that marriage cannot be reduced to the sole object of procreation. 
• On Fertility Treatment as Evidence of Commitment: The Court noted that the treatment involved physical discomfort, repeated medical procedures, emotional uncertainty and considerable personal strain. The wife's willingness to undergo it could not amount to cruelty; rather, it showed her intention to preserve the marriage. 
• On Assessment of Cruelty: The Court agreed that cruelty must be assessed by considering the matrimonial relationship as a whole and not through a rigid or mechanical formula. However, unproved allegations do not automatically become proved cruelty. 
• On Proof of Foundational Facts: Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Court observed that while the cumulative effect of conduct is relevant, the foundational facts constituting that conduct must first be established. The husband had failed to prove his allegations. 
• On the Wife's Conduct: The Court noted that a person intending to abandon matrimonial life would not ordinarily express willingness to resume it, which further weakened the husband's case. 
• Outcome: Finding no infirmity in the Family Court's order, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

What is Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce? 

Meaning: 

• The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) does not define "cruelty". Its meaning has been developed through judicial interpretation. 
• Cruelty may be physical or mental. It refers to conduct of such a nature that it causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse. 

Statutory Provision: 

• Section 13(1)(ia) HMA: Either spouse may seek dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty. 
• Cruelty was made an independent ground for divorce by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. Earlier, it was only a ground for judicial separation under Section 10. 

Physical Cruelty vs Mental Cruelty: 

• Physical cruelty involves acts of violence or bodily harm, or conduct causing danger to life, limb or health. 
• Mental cruelty involves conduct that inflicts mental pain and suffering of such a degree that it becomes impossible for the parties to live together. 

Standard of Proof: 

• Matrimonial proceedings are civil in nature, and cruelty must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. 
• This was laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane (1975). 
• The burden of proving cruelty lies on the spouse who alleges it. 

Landmark Judgments on Cruelty: 

• Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988): Cruelty need not be intentional; the focus is on the effect of the conduct on the complaining spouse. 
• V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994): Mental cruelty is conduct that inflicts such mental pain and suffering that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. 
• Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007): The Supreme Court laid down an illustrative (not exhaustive) list of instances of mental cruelty and held that ordinary wear and tear of married life does not amount to cruelty. 
• K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013): Making false and defamatory allegations and filing false complaints against a spouse can amount to mental cruelty. 
• Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021): Unfounded defamatory allegations affecting a spouse's reputation and career constitute mental cruelty.