Legal Updates for Law Exams: 3rd December 2021

1. Father Responsible To Maintain Child Till Adulthood: Supreme Court

• The liability and responsibility of the father to maintain the child continues till the child/son attains the age of majority, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment dissolving the marriage of a couple.

• "It also cannot be disputed that the son has a right to be maintained as per the status of his father", the Court added.

• Further, the court said that a child should not be made to suffer due to disputes between his parents.

• In this case, the wife had approached the Apex Court against the High Court judgment that dismissed her appeal against the judgment of Family Court dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. She requested the court to expunge the findings against her on "cruelty". Taking note of the factual aspects, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed thus:

• However, considering the fact that both, the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband are not staying together since May 2011 and therefore it can be said that there is an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage between them. It is also reported that the respondent-husband has already re-married. Therefore, no useful purpose shall be served to further enter into the merits of the findings recorded by the courts below on "cruelty" and "desertion" by the appellant-wife. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the decree passed by the learned Family Court, confirmed by the High Court, dissolving the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband is not required to be interfered with on account of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

• The court added that the husband cannot be absolved from his liability and responsibility to maintain his son till he attains the age of majority.

• "Whatever be the dispute between the husband and the wife, a child should not be made to suffer. The liability and responsibility of the father to maintain the child continues till the child/son attains the age of majority. It also cannot be disputed that the son has a right to be maintained as per the status of his father." While confirming the divorce decree, the bench directed the husband to pay Rs.50,000/- per month with effect from December 2019.

Source: Bar & Bench

2. Central Vista A Project Of National Importance; Measures Taken To Ensure No Pollution: Centre Tells Supreme Court

• The Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs has told the Supreme Court that the Central Vista development project and the construction work for the new Parliament building are projects of national importance. The Ministry further informed the bench that projects of national importance subject to their compliance with the relevant norms were exempted from the construction ban imposed by the Commission for Air Quality Management in Delhi-NCR, as per its order passed on November 16.

• The Ministry further affirmed that the Parliamentary building and the Central Vista avenue site complies with the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules and each and every condition which is put is to ensure that it does not cause any pollution.

• "So far as the construction of new Parliament Building and redevelopment of Central Vista Avenue is concerned, the answering respondent has taken all the measures as contemplated under the C&D Waste Management Rules which inter-alia includes measures like use of anti-smog gun, mist spray system, use of dust suppressant like magnesium chloride, use of conveyor belt to transfer construction material, keeping all construction material in wet condition etc," the affidavit states.

• The affidavit has been filed in compliance with the Top Court's order dated November 29, 2021, wherein the bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant had sought the Centre's response with regards to the allegation that construction work for the Central Vista Redevelopment project was a major cause of pollution.

• Though the Commission had lifted the construction ban with effect from November 22, the Supreme Court had re-imposed the ban on construction works as per its order passed on November 24, in view of the worsening air quality situation in the national capita.

• The Ministry in its affidavit has further submitted that at present the construction activities are being undertaken in two parts:

• The new Parliament building and Central Vista avenues which are projects of national importance; and Metro Rail, Railways, Airports, ISBTs etc

• All other construction activities that were being carried out by CPWD in Delhi and NCR Region were stopped in compliance with direction No 44, "Dust Control Measures", passed by the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas.

Source: Bar & Bench

3. Intention To Cause Death Immaterial If Prosecution Proves Ingredients Of "Thirdly" Of Section 300 IPC: Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court has observed that once the prosecution establishes the existence of three ingredients forming part of "thirdly" in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on the accused part to cause death.

• The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka was considering a criminal appeal against an order dated July 18, 2016, passed by the Rajasthan High Court ("impugned order").

• By the impugned order, the High Court while maintaining the conviction u/s 147, 364, 201 and 329/149 of IPC, had brought down the conviction u/s 302, IPC to Part II of Section 304 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. The fine amount was not disturbed.

• The 5 respondents were the accused(s) who were prosecuted u/s 147, 364, 302/149, 201 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

• While allowing the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the order passed by the Session's Court, the bench observed that,

• "We are constrained to observe that the High Court adopted an easy method of accepting the only contention canvassed that the offence made out was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. As noticed earlier, the High Court ignored that there were injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. The High Court did not notice that all the elements of "thirdly" in Section 300 were established."

• Supreme Court's Analysis: To decide the issue as to whether the case will be covered by "thirdly" in Section 300, the bench in the judgement authored by Justice AS Oka relied on the judgement in Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab 1958 SCR 1495. 

Source: Bar & Bench