In Raj Kumar @ Bheema vs State of NCT of Delhi [2025 INSC 1322], the Supreme Court issued a binding directive that in all proceedings where a witness is examined via video conferencing, the trial court must ensure the electronic transmission of the witness’s prior statements to them.
The Supreme Court directed that in every case where it is proposed to record the statement of a witness over video conferencing, and any previous written statement of such witness or a matter in writing is available, and the party concerned is desirous of confronting the witness with such previous statement/matter in writing, the Trial Court shall ensure that a copy of the statement/document is transmitted to the witness through electronic transmission mode.
This ensures that the procedure provided under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (corresponding to Section 144 and Section 145 of the Evidence Act) is followed in letter and spirit, so as to safeguard the fairness and integrity of the trial.
This measure rectifies the procedural irregularity that placed the defence at a disadvantage. Previously, the defence was often unable to effectively cross-examine a witness because of the non-presentation of the document containing their prior inconsistent statement in the virtual setting.
Muslim Man Cannot Deny Maintenance to First Wife by Citing Financial Obligation Toward Second Wife: Kerala High Court
26-11-2025
The Kerala High Court has held that a Muslim man cannot deny or reduce maintenance to his first wife by citing his responsibility towards his second wife or by arguing that their son is taking care of her. The judgment was delivered in the case Vappinu v Fathima and connected case.
Court’s Stand On Polygamy Under Muslim Law
Justice Kauser Edappagath clarified that although Muslim personal law permits more than one marriage, it does so only under exceptional conditions. The Court emphasised that under Sharia Law and Muslim personal law in India, monogamy is the rule and polygamy is strictly an exception, allowed only when the husband is capable of treating all wives equally.
Requirement Of Fair Treatment
The Court explained that fairness is not limited to emotional balance but includes financial equality as well. The Judge noted that the Quranic verse (IV: 3) permitting polygamy clearly warns that if a man fears injustice towards multiple wives, he must marry only one. Thus, a second marriage cannot be used as a justification to avoid the financial responsibilities towards the first wife.
Case Background
The dispute arose when Fathima, the first wife, filed a maintenance claim in 2016 stating she had no income and her husband Vappinu, who had worked in the Gulf for more than 40 years, had the financial means to support her. She contended that she was forced to live separately after his second marriage.
Family Court Proceedings
A family court granted her ₹5,000 per month as maintenance. Vappinu challenged the order before the High Court, stating that he was unemployed and that his first wife was running a beauty parlour. He further argued that he had to maintain his second wife and that the first wife separated without valid reason.
Husband’s Petition Against His Son
The husband also filed a separate petition seeking maintenance from his son. The family court dismissed this claim, and he appealed this dismissal before the High Court as well.
High Court’s Analysis On Financial Liability
Justice Edappagath noted that the husband failed to produce any evidence proving that his first wife had an income or financial support. The Court also observed that he was maintaining his second wife, demonstrating that he was capable of supporting the first wife too. Therefore, his responsibility towards the first wife continued irrespective of the second marriage.
Interpretation Of Section 144 BNSS
The Court referred to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which deals with maintenance for wives, children and parents. It clarified that a wife’s right to maintenance under Section 144(1)(a) is independent of any financial help she receives from her children. A husband’s statutory obligation remains intact. The Court also held that entering into a second marriage without the first wife’s consent constitutes valid grounds for the wife to live separately under Section 144(4) without losing her right to maintenance.
Final Decision
The Court held that the first wife was fully entitled to maintenance and that the husband had no legal basis to demand maintenance from his son. The High Court upheld the orders of both family courts and dismissed the husband’s petitions.
Legal Representation
The husband was represented by Advocates K Jagadeesh, V Renju and Nikhil K Gopinath.
The wife and her son were represented by Advocates KN Abhilash, Sunil Nair Palakkat, Rishi Varma TR, Rithik S Anand and V Sreejith.
Petitioner VERSUS Respondent: Vappinu VERSUS Fathima and connected case
Forgery Need Not Result in Monetary Loss; Conviction for Fake University Certificates Upheld Citing Harm to Academic Integrity: Kerala High Court
25-11-2025
The Kerala High Court has held that forgery under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be established even in the absence of monetary loss, as long as the act causes non-pecuniary injury affecting body, mind, reputation, or institutional credibility. Justice P.V. Balakrishnan delivered the judgment on Mohammed Abbas v State of Kerala, while upholding the conviction of a man found in possession of forged university certificates.
Background Of The Case
The revision petitioner, Mohammed Abbas, was convicted by the trial court for forging university certificates. His conviction was affirmed by the appellate court. While he was acquitted of conspiracy and cheating-related offences, he was found guilty under Section 465 IPC for creating forged documents. He approached the High Court contending that the forged documents had not caused any wrongful gain or loss to anyone.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner relied on Suresh K K v State of Kerala (2022 KHC 8105), arguing that the specimen handwriting collected by the prosecution during investigation could not be relied upon under the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. He claimed that without pecuniary loss or gain, the act could not amount to forgery.
Court’s Observations On Handwriting Specimens
The Court rejected this argument, relying on Santosh @ Bhure v State (GNCT) of Delhi (2023 SCC OnLine SC 538), which clarified that in the absence of a legal provision barring it, police can collect specimen handwriting and signatures during investigation. The Court held:
“Considering the fact that no bar is placed in the Identification of Prisoners Act from taking specimen handwriting from the accused, I have no hesitation to find that there is no illegality in the investigating officer collecting specimen handwriting of the accused and also in the trial court and the appellate court relying on the evidence of PW18…”
Analysis Of Section 464 And Section 465 IPC
The Court examined Section 464 IPC, which deals with making a false document, noting that the document must be made “dishonestly” or “fraudulently”. Section 24 IPC (dishonestly) requires pecuniary gain or loss, whereas Section 25 IPC (fraudulently) does not. Citing Dr. Vimla v Delhi Administration and State of U P v Ranjith Singh, the Court held that acts done fraudulently can include harm to body, mind, reputation, or other intangible injury.
Non-Pecuniary Harm And Academic Integrity
The Court emphasized that “such other” injuries include harm to institutional credibility, erosion of public confidence, impairment of academic integrity, and sanctity of official seals. Forging university certificates harms the reputation and credibility of academic institutions, as well as the future prospects of students.
Decision On Conviction And Sentence
The Court upheld the conviction under Section 465 IPC, observing that there was no illegality in the trial or appellate court decisions. However, it reduced the sentence from two years to one year of simple imprisonment.
Conclusion
This ruling clarifies that forgery need not result in monetary loss to attract liability under Section 465 IPC; non-pecuniary harm such as reputational or institutional injury suffices.
Case Title: Mohammed Abbas v State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl. R. P. 1227/2017