Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — Ss. 3, 4, 5 and 7 — Claim of maintenance by divorced woman under S. 3 — Proper forum — Family Court or Magistrate’s Court: Though Supreme Court has upheld validity of 1986 Act, there is no authoritative pronouncement as to whether Family Court would have jurisdiction to entertain an application filed by a divorced Muslim woman for maintenance under the provisions of the Muslim Women’s Protection Act. Issue regarding legality of Family Court converting an application under S. 125 CrPC into an application under S. 3 of the 1986 Act, referred to larger Bench in view of disagreement at the Bench. [Rana Nahid v. Sahidul Haq Chisti, (2020) 7 SCC 657]
Constitution of India — Arts. 32, 14, 15, 16, 21-A, 38, 39, 46 and 51-A: Policy matters regarding primary education and matters which fall within the domain of experts, hence, interference by court is not warranted. [Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, (2020) 7 SCC 693]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 197 — Object of sanction for prosecution under — Circumstances in which sanction is necessary — Test to decide: Principles summarised regarding law relating to requirement of sanction to entertain and/or take cognizance of offence allegedly committed by police officer, under S. 197 CrPC and S. 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. [D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302, 364, 365, 387, 347, 201, 109 and 120-B — Abduction and illegal confinement of victim — Followed by his murder — Presumption of murder against those who abducted or illegally confined the victim: Abduction followed by murder in appropriate cases can enable court to presume that abductor is the murderer. Principle in this regard is that after abduction, the abductor would be in a position to explain what happened to his victim and if he failed to do so, it is only natural and logical that an irresistible inference may be drawn that he has done away with the hapless victim. S. 106 of the Evidence Act would come to assistance of prosecution in such matter. Said principle would also apply to those persons who illegally confine the person who stands abducted even if there is no evidence that they have themselves carried out the abduction. However, further held, this is not an inexorable rule, but to be applied based on factual matrix presented before the court. [Somasundaram v. State, (2020) 7 SCC 722]
Constitution of India — Art. 32 — Maintainability — Defective petitions and delay in removing defects by petitioner: In this case, there were baseless and reckless allegations against Registry of Court about delayed listing, charging excess fees, etc., tagging cases with other cases without authorisation of Court and favouritism towards influential lawyers/petitioners. There being no merit in allegations, writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs 100 on the petitioner advocate as a token to remind him of his responsibility towards the noble profession and that he ought not to have preferred such a petition. [Reepak Kansal v. Supreme Court of India, (2020) 7 SCC 805]
