Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Standard of Proof - Dissolution of marriage sought on grounds of harassment, suspicion of character, and extra-marital affairs - Appellant-wife failed to provide specific instances, dates, or examine material witnesses such as her parents or paternal uncle to corroborate the claims - Held, cruelty must be specifically pleaded and proved with cogent evidence; vague allegations without proof do not constitute cruelty. [Paras 17-21, 40-42].

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia) - Matrimonial Law - Alleged suicide attempts and physical abuse - Appellant claimed to have attempted suicide twice due to ill-treatment - No medical evidence, hospital records, or testimony from parents who reportedly facilitated treatment were produced - Held, mere trivial irritations or normal wear and tear of matrimonial life, or vague allegations without proof, cannot constitute cruelty. [Paras 28-30, 41].

Family Courts Act, Section 7(a) - New ground in appeal - Void Marriage - Minority at the time of marriage - Appellant argued during the appeal that the marriage was void due to her being a minor at the time of solemnization - Petition before the Family Court was filed only for dissolution on the ground of cruelty - Held, a ground for declaring a marriage as a nullity cannot be raised for the first time in appeal without specific pleadings and a petition for the same before the trial court. [Para 34].

Decision: Family Court Appeal dismissed – Order dated 30.01.2018 in O.P. No. 1542 of 2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad is confirmed – No order as to costs.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Partition Suit – Plaint alleged joint Hindu family possession over agricultural land; father of plaintiff allegedly sold suit property through registered sale deeds in 1998–1999 during plaintiff's minority without his knowledge — Defendants/petitioners filed application to reject plaint contending no pre-existing right, suit barred by limitation and improper court fee — Trial court dismissed application holding all points to be mixed questions of law and fact — Held: Trial court rightly dismissed the application; no perversity or illegality warranting interference under Article 227 [Paras 11, 22, 24–25].

Hindu Law – Ancestral and Self-Acquired Property – Nature of Property After Partition – Whether share received by father Janga Reddy on partition of grandfather's property was self-acquired or remained coparcenary property in his hands vis-à-vis his sons — Whether plaintiff, being born after or before the partition, acquired a right by birth — Held: These are disputed mixed questions of law and fact; whether property was sold by Janga Reddy as Karta of HUF or as absolute owner and the sanctity of the sale deeds can only be determined after appreciation of evidence at trial [Paras 14.1, 14.2, 15.1–15.5, 19, 22].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Plea that suit for cancellation of sale deeds executed in 1998–1999 is barred by limitation — Held: Unless the bar of limitation is patently and unequivocally clear from the plaint, it cannot form a ground under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; point of limitation is a mixed question to be decided after full trial [Paras 11, 17.2].

Court Fees – Deficiency – Plaint valued under Section 34(2) of the AP Court Fees Act — Held: Plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of deficiency in valuation of court fees [Para 17.1].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope – Held: Power of the High Court under Article 227 is to be sparingly exercised only where errors are apparent on the face of record or where the inferior court has exercised jurisdiction in a perverse manner; no such case made out [Para 23].

Decision: CRP No. 3407 of 2023 dismissed without costs — Interim orders and miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Matrimonial Law - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) - Dissolution of marriage - Cruelty and Desertion - Husband alleged wife ill-treated his mother, humiliated him for his appearance, and neglected household duties - Wife alleged physical assault and dowry harassment - Parties living separately since 2011 - Held - Sustained bitterness and multiple criminal litigations indicate a complete breakdown of marriage - Family Court order dissolving marriage confirmed - [Paras 5-13 and 44-50]

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 9 - Restitution of conjugal rights - Wife sought to join husband despite filing Section 498A IPC cases - Held - Given the gravity of allegations and 15-year separation, no possibility of reunion exists - Petition for restitution rightly dismissed - [Paras 33-47]

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 15 - Remarriage during pendency of appeal - Husband remarried one day after the decree of divorce - Held - Remarriage contracted before the expiry of the limitation for filing an appeal has no validity in law - However, as per settled law, such invalidity does not affect the core of the divorce decree if otherwise sustainable - [Paras 27-28 and 34-38]

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 25 - Permanent Alimony - Maintenance - Husband previously agreed to pay Rs.1.33 Crores in Lok Adalat settlement but failed to discharge full amount alleging wife’s non-cooperation - Wife suffering from cancer and residing with parents - Held - Regardless of breach of compromise terms, the wife is entitled to the agreed amount of Rs.1.33 Crores as full and final settlement for alimony and maintenance - Respondent directed to pay the amount within three months - [Paras 19-21 and 47-50]

Matrimonial Law - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Role of Courts - Held - While irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground for divorce under HMA for High Courts, it is a relevant factor to be considered while deciding petitions on grounds of cruelty and desertion - Long separation and lack of possibility of reunion justify the dissolution of marriage - [Paras 29-33 and 46]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of dissolution of marriage and dismissal of restitution of conjugal rights affirmed – Respondent-husband directed to pay Rs.1,33,00,000/- to the Appellant-wife within three months.

Tenancy – Declaration – Burden of Proof – Primary Onus on Plaintiff – In a suit for declaration of tenancy, the burden of proving tenancy lies squarely upon the person claiming to be a tenant — Respondent/plaintiff produced no rent receipts and no tenancy agreement and admitted having taken no action for 30 years regarding alleged non-issuance of rent receipts — Held: Failure to discharge this primary burden is fatal to the plaintiff's case [Paras 12–13, 22].

Tenancy – Long Possession – Permissive Possession – Long standing possession or permissive long possession does not by itself establish that a person is a tenant — Appellate Court erred in treating continuity of possession during gaps between nokar-namas as casting doubt on the respondent's status as a gardener — Such consideration was extraneous and irrelevant to the core question of proof of tenancy [Paras 14, 17–20].

Nokar-namas – Salary Receipts – Unilateral Documents – Evidentiary Value – 116 salary/payment receipts produced by the petitioner showed payments made to the respondent at Rs.50/- per month, later increased to Rs.100/-, indicating salary and not rent — Receipts signed by the respondent/plaintiff cannot be rent receipts, as rent receipts must be signed by the landlord — Even assuming nokar-namas were unilateral and not signed by the petitioner, they indicate the respondent accepting his status as a gardener, disentitling him from claiming tenancy [Paras 15–16].

Appellate Court – Perverse Reasoning – Illegal Onus – The Appellate Court's reasoning that once the petitioner/defendant's case based on nokar-namas and payment receipts was found doubtful, the plaintiff's positive contention of tenancy must be accepted, is perverse — This amounts to placing an illegal burden on the defendant to disprove tenancy rather than requiring the plaintiff to prove it — Such reasoning, if sustained, would cause miscarriage of justice [Paras 22–23].

Decision: Petition allowed — Impugned judgment and decree dated 07.10.2013 quashed and set aside — Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2012 dismissed — Judgment and decree dated 02.01.2012 of the Trial Court dismissing the suit confirmed.

Criminal Procedure – Absconding Accused – Non-Bailable Warrant – Proclamation – Attachment – BNSS – Procedure Restated – Applicant released on bail in Sessions trial for offences under Sections 307 and 504 IPC – Charges framed on 14.02.2024 in his presence – Applicant absent without exemption application from 12.08.2024 – NBW issued on 18.10.2024 – Recalled on 13.09.2024 upon furnishing personal bond – Applicant again absent from 18.10.2024 – NBW issued and continued for 29 dates – Proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on 03.11.2025 – Applicant failed to appear on six dates – Order of attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C. passed on 24.12.2025 – Application under Section 528 BNSS filed on 17.02.2026 – Held: Impugned NBW order kept in abeyance for two months; trial court at liberty to pass appropriate orders thereafter [Paras 3-9, 105].

Trial in Absentia – Section 356 BNSS – Landmark Provision – New Law – Section 356 of BNSS introduces trial in absentia for proclaimed offenders – Where a proclaimed offender absconds to evade trial and there is no immediate prospect of arrest, such conduct is deemed a waiver of the right to be present and tried in person – Court may proceed with trial in like manner and with like effect as if accused was present and pronounce judgment – Conditions precedent: (i) two consecutive warrants with 30-day interval; (ii) publication in national/local newspaper with 30-day appearance window; (iii) information to relatives or friends; (iv) affixation at residence and local police station – Trial cannot commence until 90 days from framing of charge – State to provide advocate at its expense if accused unrepresented – No appeal lies against conviction after three years from judgment; appeal maintainable only if accused surrenders before appellate court – Depositions may be recorded by audio-video electronic means [Paras 62-66].

Absconding Accused – Four Stages – Statutory Procedure – Court delineated four stages at which an accused may abscond and prescribed the corresponding statutory procedure under BNSS for completion of investigation, inquiry and trial at each stage: (i) absconding during investigation; (ii) on bail during investigation or with arrest stayed; (iii) on bail after summoning; (iv) on bail after framing of charge – At each stage, procedure under Sections 75, 84, 85, 92, 193, 209 BNS, 210, 227, 230, 231, 232, 251, 263, 269, 335, 356, 362 BNSS and Rules 215-216 U.P. Police Regulations must be strictly followed – Amicus curiae to be appointed under Section 356(3) BNSS for defence of absconded accused at every stage [Paras 13, 61-65].

Speedy Trial – BNSS Timelines – Accountability – BNSS fixes strict timelines (Lakshman Rekha) at every stage of criminal proceedings – Preliminary enquiry: 14 days; supply of documents to accused: 14 days; committal proceedings: 90 days (extendable to 180 days); framing of charge: 60 days from first hearing; rape trial completion: 2 months from chargesheet; judgment: 30 days (extendable to 45 days); upload of judgment: 7 days – Non-compliance by Investigating Officer may attract Section 199 BNS (corresponding Section 166-A IPC) and Section 29 Police Act, 1861 – Court clerks and dealing assistants responsible for process compliance – Public Prosecutors accountable under Section 20 BNSS – Presiding Officers adjourning without cogent reason liable to departmental action [Paras 82-83, 87-100].

Section 356 BNSS vs. Section 299 Cr.P.C. – Recording of Evidence in Absence – Applicability – Section 335 BNSS (corresponding Section 299 Cr.P.C.) enables recording of prosecution evidence in absence of absconded accused where no immediate prospect of arrest exists – Such depositions admissible against accused upon arrest if deponent is dead, incapable, or untraceable – Must be preceded by appointment of amicus curiae under Section 356(3) BNSS and expiry of 90 days from framing of charge – Evidence to be recorded preferably through audio-video electronic means [Paras 59-60, 76].

Bail Bond – Forfeiture – Cancellation – Sureties – BNSS Procedure – Upon declaration as proclaimed offender, bail bond to be forfeited under Section 491 BNSS (corresponding Section 446 Cr.P.C.) – Court to call upon accused and sureties to pay penalty or show cause – Penalty recoverable as fine; default may lead to civil imprisonment up to six months – Section 492 BNSS (corresponding Section 446-A Cr.P.C.) mandates cancellation of bail bond and surety bonds upon breach; subsequent release only on fresh bond with adequate sureties – Court or police to inform other courts of bail cancellation where other criminal cases of absconded accused are pending [Paras 43-47, 72-74].

BNSS – Applicability to Pending Cases – Beneficial Procedure – Although BNSS came into force on 01.07.2024 and alleged offence predates it, the more beneficial procedure must be applied – Relied upon: Division Bench in Deepu and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2024) 8 ILRA 903 – Proceedings cognizance of which is taken on or after 01.07.2024 and all subsequent stages including inquiry, trial and appeal to be conducted as per BNSS [Para 84].

Decision: Application disposed of – Impugned NBW order dated 18.10.2024 kept in abeyance for two months – Trial court at liberty to pass appropriate orders if accused fails to cooperate at any stage of trial including framing of charge, recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS and pronouncement of judgment – Comprehensive directions issued to Director General of Police, Director of Prosecution, District Judge, Registrar General, Government Advocate, Chief Secretary, and all district authorities for circulation and compliance of this order within 60 days [Paras 101-105].

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Quashing of FIR - Scope of interference - Rice millers challenged FIRs alleging shortage of paddy stocks - Held - At the quashing stage the High Court must not act as a trial court by weighing evidence or testing the truth of allegations - The only test is whether the allegations taken at face value prima facie make out the ingredients of the alleged offence - Investigation at a nascent stage should not be scuttled - [Paras 49-51, 95-96]

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 - Section 316(5) - Criminal Breach of Trust by Agent - Definition of Agent - Petitioners contended they were job workers and not agents - Held - Execution of agreement and entrustment of government paddy creates a relationship of agency coupled with dominion over property - Fiduciary nature of possession and unexplained shortages revealed during inspection demonstrate criminal breach of trust - Characterization of transaction as job work does not detract from the legal effect of entrustment - [Paras 56, 99-100]

Arbitration and Civil Remedies - Parallel Proceedings - Overlapping liability - Existence of arbitration clause in Custom Milling Agreement - Held - Mere existence of an arbitration clause or civil remedy for contractual breach cannot substitute or override the criminal process where acts constitute offences under law - Civil and criminal liabilities may coexist where allegations disclose commission of a cognizable offence - [Paras 32-34, 85-87]

Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Misappropriation of public funds - Complaint lodged several months after inspection report - Held - Delay in lodging an FIR involving misuse of public funds and welfare-oriented procurement schemes does not vitiate proceedings - Delay is a matter of evidence to be examined during trial and not a ground to quash the investigation at the threshold - [Paras 60-63, 102-104]

Agreement - Terms and Conditions - Joint Custody - Non-inclusion of government employees as accused - Held - Mere non-inclusion of Corporation employees as accused is not fatal to the prosecution - Any conspiracy or role of officials will be revealed during the course of investigation - [Paras 64-65, 105]

Decision: All criminal petitions dismissed – Miscellaneous applications closed.

Criminal Law - Bribery and Abetment - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Allegation that A-1 demanded bribe to process transport bills and A-2 received the amount on A-1 instructions - Trial Court convicted A-1 for bribe demand and A-2 for abetment - High Court re-examined evidence regarding the timing of FIR registration and the defense version of payment - Testimony of P.W-1 and P.W-5 revealed that FIR and reports were prepared after the trap was concluded - Defense proved that the money was paid towards legitimate hire charges for lorries used by the contractor - Held - Conviction based on an illegal investigation and perverse findings on facts cannot be sustained - Appeals allowed - [Paras 1-44].

Criminal Law - Illegal Investigation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 154 and 162 - Registration of FIR after commencement of investigation - Prosecution claimed FIR was registered before trap - Cross-examination of P.W-1 and P.W-5 established that documents were signed at the ACB office post-trap - FIR reached the Special Court only on the following day along with trap reports - Held - The information recorded after commencement of investigation is hit by Section 162 CrPC and cannot be treated as a valid FIR under Section 154 CrPC - Such proceedings are illegal and violate fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution - [Paras 17-26 and 40].

Evidence Law - Defense Plea - Burden of Proof - Rebuttal of Presumption - Defense contended that payment was for hire charges of private lorries engaged by the contractor - Defense examined lorry owners as D.W-1 and D.W-2 - P.W-1 admitted hiring extra vehicles to meet transport targets - Stock registers showed A-1 was at the godown during the alleged demand time - Held - The defense plea was probable and corroborated by material evidence - Trial Court finding that defense witnesses were setup was perverse and based on surmises - [Paras 27-36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the Special Court dated 18.01.2008 in C.C. No. 4 of 2004 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Fine amounts to be refunded and bail bonds cancelled.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 483 - Bail - NDPS Act - Custodial necessity - Petitioner arrayed as an accomplice based on information from co-accused Jawan Singh - No recovery of contraband effected from the petitioner - Co-accused and other similarly placed persons already granted bail by a Coordinate Bench - Investigation complete and charge sheet filed - Held, looking at the period of custody and the fact that further proceedings will take time, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail. [Paras 1-9].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Sections 8 and 21 - Prosecution Procedure - Evidentiary requirements - Recovery of 27.77gm of Heroin from co-accused - Petitioner implicated in the distribution chain based on hearsay from co-accused - Lack of legal evidence - Held, naming a person and forwarding them for trial requires legal evidence; it is not the concern of the police to ignore whether sufficient evidence is available or not. The prosecution's failure to advise against recommending a charge sheet despite deficiency of evidence noted. [Paras 10-11].

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 273 - Trial Court Duty - Compensation for groundless prosecution - Corresponding to Section 250 CrPC - Non-application of mind at grass-root level - Held, Trial Courts are required to look into the deficiency of evidence at the stage of framing of charge; if deficiency exists, it warrants the invocation of Section 273 BNSS to award compensation to innocent persons for unnecessary custody and prosecution. [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Application allowed – Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties – Copy of the order directed to be sent to ACS Home and DGP Rajasthan for taking action against non-application of mind in investigations.

Civil Law - Declaration of Title - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 3 - Property Identification - Plaintiff claimed title over 1.40 acres of land derived from parent Cadastral Survey Plot No. 2816 - Dispute arose due to clerical error in Revisional Settlement where the plot was incorrectly recorded as Plot No. 3047 instead of Plot No. 3057 - Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff based on a 1983 registered sale deed and a prior 1982 civil court decree that had already declared the revenue entries erroneous - First Appellate Court reversed the decree holding the property description in the plaint schedule as vague due to the absence of specific four-corner boundaries - High Court observed that the property was clearly identifiable by its plot number and area which are reliable markers in land administration - Held - The absence of boundaries in a property schedule does not automatically render a description vague if other identifiers like plot numbers and precise acreage are present - A government survey plot number refers to fixed mapped coordinates - Defense witnesses admitted in cross-examination that the plaintiff purchased the land corresponding to the parent plot - Reversing judgment set aside and Trial Court decree restored - [Paras 1-136].

Civil Law - Specific Relief - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 34 - Maintainability of Suit - First Appellate Court found the suit unmaintainable for failure to seek recovery of possession and for praying for temporary instead of permanent injunction - High Court scrutinized the prayer clause and found an explicit prayer for permanent injunction - Held - A prayer for permanent injunction constitutes further relief under Section 34 - Under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC the court has the power to mould the final relief and grant a decree for recovery of possession to ensure substantive justice if the title is proved and the plaintiff is found out of possession - [Paras 48, 58, 106-123].

Civil Law - Land Records - West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 - Section 51C - Record of Rights - Presumption of Correctness - Respondents relied on revenue records showing their names - High Court reiterated the settled principle that revenue records are for fiscal purposes and do not confer title - Held - Any statutory presumption attached to revenue records under the WBLR Act or WBEA Act evaporates once a competent civil court delivers a definitive declaration on title - The 1982 civil decree declaring the revenue entries void is res judicata and binding - [Paras 31, 49, 94-103].

Civil Law - Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 80 - Notice to State - Respondents argued suit was vitiated for lack of pre-suit notice to the State of West Bengal - Held - Section 80 notice is not mandatory when the State is impleaded as a proforma defendant and no substantial relief is claimed against the sovereign - The absence of notice does not affect the maintainability of the suit against private defendants - [Para 124].

Civil Law - Property Law - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 48 - Priority of Rights - Original owner Tinkari Chakraborty sold his entire interest to the plaintiff in 1983 - His daughter later executed a sale deed in favor of the respondents in 2012 - Held - Under the doctrine of nemo dat quod non habet no person can transfer a better title than they possess - Once the vendor divested himself of title in 1983 his heirs inherited nothing - The subsequent 2012 deed is a legal nullity - [Paras 89, 118].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Reversing judgment of the First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court in Title Suit No. 76 of 2012 restored – Plaintiff declared absolute owner – Decree for confirmation and recovery of possession granted – Sale deed of 2012 in favor of respondents declared void.