Supreme Court: Governments Must Impart Sex Education and Raise Awareness About POCSO Act

 

The Supreme Court of India has recently interpreted the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) to emphasize the government’s responsibility to provide sex education and raise public awareness about the statute. The Court highlighted the need for a compassionate approach towards victims, aiming to help them recover and regain a sense of safety, dignity, and hope. This involves changing societal attitudes, improving legal frameworks, and ensuring accountability for perpetrators.

In a significant judgment, the Court ruled that merely storing “child sexual exploitative and abuse material” (child pornography) without deleting or reporting it indicates an intention to transmit, and merely watching such material without downloading it constitutes “possession” under the POCSO Act. The bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, interpreted Sections 43 and 44 of the POCSO Act to include the obligation of imparting sex education and public awareness. 

 Section 43 of the POCSO Act mandates the Central and State Governments to publicize the Act’s provisions through various media channels to ensure widespread awareness among the public, children, and their guardians.

 

 

Case Details : JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE vs. S. HARISH Diary No.- 8562 - 2024

Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act | Supreme Court: A Third Party Against Whom a Sale Deed Is Void Is Not Required to Seek Its Cancellation

 The Supreme Court, interpreting Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("SRA"), held that a third party affected by a void sale deed is not required to seek its cancellation. The Court emphasized that if a sale deed is executed between two parties, a third party who was not involved in the transaction, but whose rights are impacted, cannot be compelled to file a separate application under Section 31 of the SRA to cancel the deed.

In the case at hand, the core issue revolved around the legality of a sale deed executed by one co-owner of joint family property. This co-owner sold the entire property to the Appellant without the consent or authorization of the other co-owners (Respondents). Importantly, at the time of the transfer, the individual share of the co-owner who executed the sale had not been determined.

The Respondent challenged the validity of this sale by filing a title suit, asserting that the transfer was void because the co-owner/transferor was only entitled to sell his own undivided share in the property, not the entire property. Therefore, the transfer of the entire suit property to the Appellant was beyond the co-owner's legal rights and thus void.

Agreeing with the Respondent's arguments, the Supreme Court observed that when a property has multiple co-owners, a purchaser (like the Appellant) cannot acquire rights, title, or interest in the entire property based solely on a sale deed executed by just one of the co-owners. The co-owner/transferor could only transfer his undivided share, not the whole property.

The Court also addressed an argument raised by the Appellant, who claimed that since the Respondent had not specifically sought the cancellation of the sale deed, the deed could not be invalidated on its own. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the Respondent was not required to seek formal cancellation under Section 31 of the SRA. Therefore, the sale deed could be declared void without a separate cancellation suit.

**Case Title:** *SK. Golam Lalchand vs. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4177 of 2024*

Muslim Wife Initiating Divorce Entitled to Seek Interim Maintenance Under Section 151 CPC: Madras High Court

 The Madras High Court has held that a Muslim wife who initiates divorce proceedings is entitled to claim interim maintenance under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court affirmed that despite the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, not specifically providing for interim maintenance, courts are empowered to grant such relief under the inherent powers of Section 151 CPC when necessary to prevent injustice and address the needs of the wife during the pendency of divorce proceedings.

Relying on the ruling of the Madras High Court, the judge noted that when the marital relationship between the parties is undisputed, there is no impediment to the court granting maintenance through the exercise of its inherent powers. The court also referred to the full bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which held that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to award maintenance to the wife and minor children when warranted by the circumstances, based on a prima facie assessment of the merits of the case.

 

Case No: C.R.P.(PD).No.2660 of 2024 Madras High court