Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., while addressing a revision petition in regard to maintenance of wife, held that

Magazine covers are not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the respondent /wife can sustain herself.

Instant revision petition is against the Family Court’s decision directing the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs 17,000 per month to the wife.

The daughter of husband and wife in the present matter passed away in the year 2010 and at present, they have two major adult sons who are well settled.

Parties have been living separately since the year 2012. Wife filed the petition under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance stating that she was treated with cruelty and was thrown out of the house in the year 2012 and she was unable to sustain herself, hence required maintenance from the husband.

It was stated that the husband was earning an income of Rs 50,000 from the post of Head Constable and also had some agricultural land from which he was earning an income.

Wife claimed Rs 25,000 per month as maintenance.

Husband submitted that the wife was a working lady earning handsomely. Adding to this he stated that she participates in Jagrans and does TV Serials and was in a position to take care of herself. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits of income.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Statement filed by the wife under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, she herself stated that she was doing modelling and it was for her to establish that income earned by her was so less that she couldn’t maintain herself.

Petitioners counsel also presented certain magazine covers and newspaper articles to establish that the respondent was employed and capable of maintaining herself.

Bench stated that law laid down by Supreme Court decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, indicates that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC have been enacted to remedy/reduce the financial suffering of a lady, who was forced to leave her matrimonial house, so that some arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself.

It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and to provide financial support to her and their children. A husband cannot avoid his obligation to maintain his wife and children except if any legally permissibly ground is contained in the statutes. 

Court noted that in the present matter, petitioner relied only on the statement given by the respondent/wife under Section 165 Indian Evidence Act. In the said statement she clearly mentioned her employment adding that her income was very low on which her sustenance was difficult.

In view of the above position, the onus to show how much the respondent/wife was earning shifts on the petitioner to show that it was enough for her sustenance. But petitioner failed to bring any evidence.

Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s position that newspaper clippings, etc. are not evidence.

 It was noted that the petitioner was working as an ASI and both the children were well settled, and he was not under any obligation to maintain his children but the wife.

On asking about divorce, it was stated that the petitioner’s children did not want him to take divorce from his wife, hence it becomes the moral and legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife.

Bench while dismissing the revision petition held that no material was placed on record to show that respondent/wife was able to sustain herself. [Jaiveer Singh v. Sunita Chaudhary, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1488, decided on 05-04-2021]

Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: Neerad Pandey, Advocate

For the Respondent: D.K. Sharma, Advocate

Hot Off The PressNews

Press Council of India has considered references received from various quarters by Government about the responsibility of Indian Newspapers in publishing foreign contents.

The Council is of the view that unregulated circulation of the foreign content is not desirable.

Hence, it advises the media to publish foreign extracts in Indian newspapers with due verification as the Reporter, Publisher and Editor of such newspaper shall be responsible for the contents irrespective of the source from which it is received.

Press Council of India

[Press Release dt. 25-11-2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

Press Council of India while considering the communication received from Election Commission of India advises the print media to refrain from publishing article which in any way whatsoever predict the results of the elections during the prohibited period under Section 126A to ensure free, fair and transparent election.

In the council’s view, the prediction of election results in any form or manner by way of predictions, etc. by astrologers, tarot readers, political analysts or by any persons during the prohibited period is a violation of the spirit of Section 126A which aims to prevent constituencies still going to polls from being influenced in their voting by such predictions about the prospects of the various political parties.

Print media is hereby advised not to publish/publicise any such article of results, during the prohibited period i.e. between 7 am on 28-10-2020 and 6.30 pm on 07-11-2020 in the current General Election to the State Legislative Assembly of Bihar, 2020 to ensure free and fair elections.

Hence, in view of the above, newspapers/ news agencies are advised to adhere to the above mentioned time frame before publishing the article of elections results, etc.

Press Council of India

[Dt. 20-10-2020]

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Telangana High Court: A Division Bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ and B. Vijaysen Reddy, J., directs the State to publish vital information about COVID-19 related data to the public at large so that people are aware about the situation and take required precautions for controlling the pandemic.

What has been sought in the present petition?

Direction to respondents on the following :

  • State of Telangana’s action in not taking appropriate measures to make all pandemic related data available to the public at large in a comprehensible manner as breach of its Constitutional duties and violative of fundamental rights of the citizens.
  • Directing the State of Telangana to have a dedicated web portal updated on a daily basis containing the above-stated information.

Media Bulletin on COVID-19 information

Initially when the virus was spreading, a Media bulletin on daily basis was issued by the State Government of Telangana which eventually when the COVID-19 cases started to rise in a steady manner, was halted.

According to the petitioner, until and unless the relevant data is collected and publicised, the extent of the disease spreading through the population would be unknown.

Since the relevant data is not being publicized, people at large will be of the opinion that the pandemic is no longer a serious illness, and that they are safe to venture out.

The cases in the State of Telangana are on a rise , since the testing is not being done on a large extent and relevant data is also not being revealed, phenomenal number of persons being detected may just be the tip of the iceberg. 

Court directs the State not only to publish the vital data on the internet, but also published on the front pages of all the Newspapers in the Print Media.

People should be made aware of the fact that the pandemic is only increasing day in and day out.

In the above regard, Advocate General, B.S. Prasad sought time to submit his report with regard to the steps being taken by the Government.

Matter to be listed on 18-06-2020. [Amrita Aryendra v. State of Telangana, WP(PIL) No. 111 of 2020, decided on 08-06-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: While answering important questions related to freedom of press; meaning of criminal defamation against the State and requisites of Section 199(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the Single Judge Bench of Abdul Quddhose, J., observed that, application of mind by the State to the materials placed on record before granting sanction to the public prosecutor for launching prosecution under Section 199(4) CrPC is a necessary and that the State cannot act on an impulse or a whim. Moreover public prosecutor must independently assess the materials available on record and must independently take a view as to the availability of sufficient materials to launch prosecution on behalf of the State under Section 199 (2) CrPC.

As per the facts of the case, writ petitions were filed by several reputed editors challenging the Order launching the prosecution for criminal defamation against them by the State Government under Section 499 of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 199(2) of CrPC. The State Government of Tamil Nadu initiated the proceedings after the newspapers published articles against the then Chief Minister, J. Jayalalitha, which were considered defamatory in nature.

The counsel for the petitioners P.S. Raman and M.S. Murali, contended that freedom of press is considered a foundation for proper functioning of democracy and criticism should not be viewed as defamation, because in a free democratic society, those who are responsible for public administration should be open to criticism and citizens have a legitimate right to know the conduct of public officials as they have an influential role in society. It was further contended that the articles in question, did not pertain to the conduct of the public functionary in the discharge of his/her public functions; the sanction for prosecution was given in total disregard of Section 199(2); and the impugned sanction had been accorded by total non-application of mind. The State Government represented by S.R. Rajagopalan, A.A.G, denied the petitioner’s argument of non- application of mind while according the sanction to prosecute the editors and the newspapers.

Perusing the arguments, the Court at length discussed various aspects of criminal defamation enumerated under Chapter XXI, Sections 499-502 of IPC and various Supreme Court decisions on the point. The Court observed that as per IPC, “the person charged for defamation must have the intention to harm the reputation of the person against whom words have been spoken or any article has been published by him.” The Court further noted that criminal defamation is a non-cognizable offence under the Criminal Procedure Code; and the only non-cognizable offence in the Indian Penal Code having a large number of exceptions to any offence which indicates the legislative intent to restrict the usage of the criminal defamation law. The Court went on to say that “State should not be impulsive like an ordinary citizen in defamation matters and invoke Section 199(2) CrPC to throttle democracy”. However, the Court also pointed out that media houses too have a responsibility to remove the decay that is slowly creeping into the way news is being reported or published. The Court finally concluded the judgment by allowing the writ petitions as none of the prosecutions fell under the category of Section 199(2) CrPC. [.Thiru N. Ram v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1023 , decided on 21-05-2020]

Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Bombay High Court: Prasanna B. Varale, J. took cognizance of the amendment made in the Government Order whereby door-to-door delivery of newspapers has been completely prohibited in Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR), Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and in all containment zones as may be decided by the District Magistrates.

Earlier, by its order dated 20-4-2020, the High Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the Government’s decision to allow printing of newspapers but banning distribution thereof, after which the High Court had issued notice to the State Government. In that order of 20th April, the Court had specifically observed that the State Government, having regard to the spread of coronavirus, can certainly consider restricting door-to-door delivery of newspapers in particular areas.

Pursuant the Court’s order, the State Government made an amendment in its earlier order and directed that print media is exempted from lockdown from 20-4-2020. Wherever door-to-door delivery is done, it shall be with the knowledge of the receiver and the newspaper delivery personal shall wear mask and use hand sanitizer and maintain social distancing. However, it was further directed that door-to-door delivery of newspapers and magazines is prohibited in Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR), Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and in all containment zones as may be decided by the District Magistrates. In these areas, they may be sold through the establishments that are exempted under the order dated 17.04.2020.

Making an attempt to provide some logic or reason for the said amendment, D.R. Kale, the Government Pleader, relied on the following statement in affidavit in reply filed by the State:

“I say that according to the experts, COVID-19 virus can stay on various surfaces for a considerable amount of time and the newspaper is something that will be passed on by hand to hand by various people which can increases the chances of infection spreading to more number of people …”

According to the Court, this was only a general and sweeping statement. There is no reference to any comment of the experts. On the contrary, the statements of certain experts published in newspapers are to the effect that there is no need to carry an impression that newspaper is a medium for spread of coronavirus. The High Court observed that no logical explanation is forthcoming to explain the blanket ban imposed on door-to-door delivery of newspapers. It was also noted that as per certain news items, the readership as well as average time spent for reading newspapers has increased during the lockdown period. The Court said:

“On the backdrop of above referred facts, one fails to understand the logic behind the statement made in affidavit in reply in para-9 that the newspaper is something that will be passed on by hand to hand by various people which can increases the chances of infection spreading to more number of people.”

Amicus Curiae, Satyajit Bora, submitted that recently, the Madras High Court has dismissed a petition that sought a ban on distribution of newspapers. He prayed for an amendment to the petition so as to place a copy of the Madras High Court’s order as well as to raise certain grounds and add prayers in view of the affidavit in reply filed by the State. The oral prayer for amendment was allowed by the Court.

The Government Pleader also sought time to file an additional affidavit in reply, on which the Court granted 3 week’s time. The matter will be next heard on 11th June 2020. [High Court of Bombay v. State of Maharashtra, Suo Motu PIL (St.) No. 10567 of 2020, dated 27-4-2020]