In a shocking incident, an air hostess who came from Dubai to Bengaluru to meet her boyfriend fell from the fourth floor on Saturday at midnight. Police have arrested her boyfriend on the suspicion of his role in the woman’s death and booked him in a murder case.

According to the reports, Archana Dhiman arrived in Bengaluru just four days prior to her death. The 28-year-old was staying with her boyfriend Adesh, a software engineer in an IT firm, at an apartment in Renuka Residency society in Koramangala – a plush suburb in the city.

During the interrogation, Adesh told police that he and Archana had been drinking on the night of the accident. At around 12 am, Archana went to the balcony and slipped off the fourth-floor balcony. He said he immediately took her to the balcony where the doctors declared her brought dead.

Police suspect that the woman’s boyfriend might have killed her and have sent him to police custody. During the interrogation, it was found the couple used to fight often. According to the reports, the couple went to watch a film on Friday night and got into an argument when they returned home.

The investigating officers said Archana and Adesh met on a dating site and had been in a relationship for the last six months. But, recently, they were facing ups and downs in their relationship due to frequent fights. The official said Archana had come to Bengaluru to meet Adesh as they decided to part ways.

Archana’s body has been sent for post-mortem. Police are looking into the matter and are waiting for her post-mortem report to initiate further action.

A five-judge Constitution bench will decide upon legalizing same-sex marriages in India on April 18 and proceedings of the hearing will be streamed live as the issue of “seminal importance”, the Supreme Court said on Monday.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala, which today heard the combined pleas seeking the legalization of the gay marriages under the Special Marriage Act in the country said that a constitution bench of five judges would on April 18 further decide the fate of such matrimonies.

Noting that the issue was of “seminal importance” and any decision on the same would have a huge impact on the Indian society and will impact entire social fabric as a whole, the apex court noted Article 145(3) mandates that such a matter of law, which requires interpreting the constitution, must be decided by a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court.

The Centre has opposed the pleas arguing that gay marriages are incompatible with the “Indian family unit” consisting of a husband, a wife and their children which inevitably presupposes a biological man as a ‘husband’, a biological woman as a ‘wife’ and the children born out of the wedlock reared by the biological man as father and the biological woman as mother.

The BJP-led central government, in its affidavit filed before the top court, said that the petitioners cannot claim a fundamental right for same-sex marriage to be recognised under Indian laws despite consensual gay being decriminalized in the Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 judgement.

The government further argued that legalizing gay marriages would wreck the delicate balance between personal laws and accepted societal values in the country. Law Minister Kiren Rijiju, Monday, noted that the institution of marriage is a matter of policy, even though doesn’t disturb personal freedom and activities of individuals.

Representing the Centre, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued that giving legal status to gay marriages would trigger legal issues as marriage is a contract between a biological male and biological female in every major religion, not just among Hindus, but also in Islam.

The Centre’s council raised the legal status of adoption by a gay couple saying that the Parliament will have to examine will of the people and child’s and decide whether it can be raised in a such environment.

He said that the Parliament will have to factor in societal ethos while taking such a decision.

However, CJI Chandrachud retorted that the adopted child of a gay or lesbian couple does not have to be a gay or lesbian solicitor.

On January 6, the apex court had transferred and clubbed to itself, all such pleas pending in different high courts, including the Delhi High Court.

In its January 6 order, it had asked Advocate Arundhati Katju—representing the petitioners—and the Central government’s counsel, to prepare together a common compilation of the written submissions, documents and precedents on which reliance would be placed during the course of the hearing.

The petitioners’ counsel had requested the Supreme Court bench to transfer all such cases itself for an authoritative pronouncement on the issue and that the Centre can file its response in the top court.

Earlier, on January 3, the Supreme Court had said it would hear on January 6 the pleas seeking a transfer of petitions for recognition of same-sex marriages pending before the high courts to the top court.

The Supreme Court had in December last year sought the Centre’s response to two pleas seeking a transfer of the petitions pending in the Delhi High Court for directions to recognize same-sex marriages to itself.

Earlier on November 25 last year, the top court had sought the Centre’s response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act.

A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud, who was also part of the Constitution bench that decriminalised consensual gay sex in its 2018 landmark judgement, issued a notice to the Centre in November last year, besides seeking Attorney General R Venkataramani’s assistance in dealing with the pleas.

The petitions have sought a direction that the right to marry a person of one’s choice be extended to LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) people as part of their fundamental right. One petition seeks a reinterpretation of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in a gender-neutral manner where a person is not discriminated against due to his sexual orientation.

On September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, issued a landmark judgement wherein it decriminalized consensual gay sex among adults. It struck down a part of the British-era penal law under Article 377, on grounds that it violated the constitutional right to equality and dignity.

In its pathbreaking judgement, the apex court ruled that section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that criminalised consensual gay sex was “irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary”. The top court had said that the 158-year-old law had become an “odious weapon” to harass the LGBTQ community by subjecting its members to discrimination and unequal treatment.

A primary school teacher in Maharashtra’s Gondia district was arrested for allegedly sexually harassing minor girl students in his class and showing them obscene videos on his mobile phone, police said on Monday.

According to an official statement, a complaint filed against the 52-year-old assistant teacher posted at a Zilla Parishad school in Dangorli accused him of inappropriately touching eight Class 5 students and showing them obscene videos last month.

Based on the complaint, the teacher was arrested and a case under section 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and other relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was registered against him.

A senior police official said that the accused teacher was arrested on March 11 (Saturday), after an inquiry into the incident by the Block Education Officer (BEO).

Read Also: Akhilesh Yadav shares video of IPS officer demanding Rs 20 lakh bribe from businessman, probe on | WATCH

He said that a complaint was filed against the man after the girls narrated the ordeal to their parents, who then approached the school principal and filed a complaint at the Ravanawadi police station.

Further investigation is ongoing, he said.

The incident comes mere days after a similar case of a teacher showing porn movies to girl students at a rural school in Kolhapur came to the fore.

It was alleged that the accused teacher, identified as Vijay Kumar Bagdi, allegedly showed porn films to girl students at the Vidyalankar School in Shelawadi village falling under Radhanagari taluka.

The incident had led to protests as parents and relatives of the girls had accused the school administration of allegedly trying to hush up the matter. However, the teacher was later arrested and a case against him was registered under the POSCO Act and other relevant sections of the IPC.

Kolhapur SP Shailesh Balkawade had warned of legal action against the school principal and others if found guilty of hiding the incident.

Electric scooter explodes inside house in Karnataka’s Mandya district, fridge, TV damaged

Massive fire erupts in Mumbai’s Oshiwara furniture market, over 100 shops damaged