MP High Court: Working Mother’s Income Doesn’t Absolve Father’s Maintenance Duty

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a father’s obligation to maintain his minor child doesn’t cease merely because the mother is employed. Upholding interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/month for a school-going daughter, while affirming rejection of the wife’s claim (a salaried government employee), the Court held that the mother’s income is relevant only to quantum, not liability. Interim maintenance remains a temporary safeguard, and courts must form only a prima facie view at this stage.

Case: Shri Vikas Bhadoriya v. Smt. Jyoti Bhadoriya and Others, 2026

Delhi HC: Casteist Remarks in Private Office Not Covered Under SC/ST Act Without “Public View”

The Delhi High Court quashed proceedings under Section 3(1)(x), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that alleged casteist remarks made within private office premises, absent any public presence, fail the statutory requirement of occurring “in any place within public view.” Justice Madhu Jain, exercising jurisdiction under Section 528, BNSS (Section 482 CrPC), held that even accepting the complaint’s allegations wholly, this essential ingredient was absent, disentitling prosecution.

Case: Christine Swaroop Raj & Ors. v. State & Ors., (2026) DHC 5667

Supreme Court: Section 77-B IT Act Must Be Read to Determine Bailability Under Section 66

Setting aside a High Court order in a habeas corpus matter, the Supreme Court (M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.) held that Section 77-B, IT Act, 2000 must be considered when determining the nature of offences under Section 66. The appellant’s son was detained on a Look Out Circular linked to an FIR under Sections 66, 72, 84-C IT Act and Section 78(1)(ii), BNS. The Court clarified the HC erred in treating Section 66 as non-bailable.

Case: Maharaj Saran v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) No. 6547 of 2026

SC: Wrong Statement in Pleadings Isn’t “False Statement” Warranting Perjury Prosecution

The Supreme Court quashed a perjury case against a litigant and his counsel, holding that a mere wrong statement in pleadings cannot be equated with a “false statement” justifying prosecution under Section 379, BNSS (Section 340 CrPC). Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar examined whether prosecution under Sections 227, 236, 237 BNS (corresponding to IPC Sections 193, 199, 200) could rest merely on a prima facie “wrong statement” finding, and answered in the negative.

Case: Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram & Anr. v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 1365/2015, 2026 INSC 724

SC: Guard-Cadre Promotions Count Toward MACPS Entitlement, Even at Same Grade Pay

The Supreme Court held that promotions earned within the Railway Guard cadre count toward Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) entitlement, ruling that Guards who reached Mail/Express Guard rank aren’t entitled to further financial upgradations. Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih set aside Rajasthan HC and CAT orders favouring a retired Guard, holding a promotion remains genuine despite unchanged Grade Pay if it involves formal selection, added responsibilities, and higher allowances.

Case: Union of India and Others v. Harbans Lal Verma, 2026 INSC 739