Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Adultery, Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition – Allegation that wife developed illicit relationship and fled with alleged paramour – No specific pleading or cogent evidence of voluntary sexual intercourse – Witnesses gave generalized statements based on suspicion – No proof of continuous desertion for statutory period – Held: Findings of Family Court well-reasoned and not perverse – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-50, 63-67, 79-81, 82-85].

Adultery – Standard of Proof – Section 13(1)(i), Hindu Marriage Act – Though matrimonial proceedings governed by preponderance of probabilities, charge of adultery being grave requires high degree of probability – Bald and generalized allegations without specific instances or corroborative evidence insufficient – No proof of adulterous act or continuing adulterous relationship at time of petition – Allegations based on suspicion and surmises – Divorce rightly refused [Paras 35-42, 44-47].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Allegation that wife stopped physical relations and frequently left matrimonial home – No specific act of misconduct proved – Ordinary marital discord and quarrels do not amount to cruelty – No evidence that conduct was so grave and weighty as to render cohabitation unsafe or impossible – Finding of no cruelty upheld [Paras 51-62, 64-67].

Desertion – Essential Ingredients – Factum of Separation and Animus Deserendi – Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act – Petition filed within two months of alleged departure of wife – Statutory requirement of continuous desertion for not less than two years immediately preceding presentation of petition not satisfied – Desertion ground not maintainable [Paras 68-76, 79-81].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 19, Family Courts Act – High Court can reappreciate evidence both on facts and law – Interference warranted only if findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law – No perversity found in appreciation of evidence by Family Court – Judgment affirmed [Paras 23-31, 49-50, 83-84].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2022 and 03.11.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No. 75 of 2021 affirmed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Scope of Sections 4 and 5 – Power of Tribunal – Eviction of Children – Senior citizen sought maintenance and eviction of sons from residential property – Tribunal directed sons to vacate premises and pay monthly maintenance – Held: Sections 4 and 5 empower Tribunal only to grant maintenance – No provision under Chapter II authorises eviction except in circumstances under Section 23 – Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction in directing eviction – Eviction direction set aside [Paras 22-24].

Maintenance – Statutory Ceiling – Section 9(2) – Maximum maintenance prescribed not to exceed Rs. 10,000 per month – Tribunal directed payment of Rs. 15,000 by one son – Though statutory ceiling noted, aggrieved party confined challenge to eviction direction – Court refrained from interfering with quantum at instance of son – Clarified statutory position regarding ceiling under Section 9(2) [Paras 19-20].

Eviction under Senior Citizens Act – Applicability of Section 23 – Conditions precedent – Court held Section 23 can be invoked only where property is transferred subject to condition of providing amenities and transferee fails to comply – No pleading or material to attract Section 23 – Hence eviction not sustainable under said provision [Paras 26-28].

Enforcement of Maintenance Order – Alternative Statutory Remedy – Section 11 – Mother sought implementation of Tribunal’s order by writ petition – Held: Act provides specific mechanism for enforcement of maintenance orders – Petitioner had not invoked Section 11 – Writ petition for implementation not maintainable in absence of exhaustion of statutory remedy – WPA No. 10504 of 2025 dismissed with liberty to approach Tribunal [Paras 25-28, 40].

Constitutional Law – Maintainability of Writ Petition by Children/Relatives – No statutory appeal provided to children under Section 16 – In view of Division Bench decision in Smt. Mamata Sarki – Writ petition maintainable at instance of aggrieved children against order of Tribunal [Paras 29-31].

Article 226 vs Article 227 – Orders of Maintenance Tribunal – Tribunal is quasi-judicial body and not civil court – Judicial review under Article 226 available against orders of Tribunal – Distinction between certiorari jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction explained with reference to T.C. Basappa, Umaji Keshao Meshram and Radhey Shyam – Held: Orders of Tribunal amenable to Article 226 jurisdiction – Aggrieved party may invoke Article 226 depending on nature of relief sought [Paras 33-39].

Judicial Review – Scope – Certiorari not appellate in nature – High Court can quash orders passed without jurisdiction or in excess thereof – Tribunal having no jurisdiction to order eviction under Sections 4 and 5, impugned direction liable to be set aside [Paras 35-39].

Decision:

WPA No. 10504 of 2025 (filed by mother) dismissed with liberty to approach Tribunal for enforcement under Section 11 of the Act – WPA No. 16316 of 2025 disposed of – Direction of Tribunal ordering eviction of son from property set aside – Maintenance direction left undisturbed.

Civil Law - Transfer of Property Act – Section 58(c) – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Distinction from Sale with Condition to Repurchase – Interpretation of registered deed dated 24.09.1979 – Plaintiffs received Rs.13,000/- for household and agricultural expenses – Condition to reconvey property on repayment within 7 years – Restrictions imposed on enjoyment of property by defendant – Debtor–creditor relationship established – Held: Transaction constituted mortgage by conditional sale and not outright sale or independent agreement to repurchase [Paras 9-14, 16, 18].

Specific Relief – Decree for Reconveyance – Readiness and Willingness – Appellant contended that plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness for specific performance – Court held that once transaction is mortgage by conditional sale, right of redemption subsists – Plaintiffs were ready to repay mortgage amount within stipulated time – Decree for reconveyance and possession justified [Paras 4, 6.1, 14, 18].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Appellate Court’s findings on nature of transaction based on interpretation of document and settled principles – Questions framed at admission held not to constitute substantial questions of law – Limited scope of interference reiterated – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 18-20].

Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule – Document to be read as a whole – Intention of parties to be gathered from terms of deed – Clear and unambiguous language to be given natural meaning – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents explaining distinction between mortgage by conditional sale and sale with option to repurchase [Paras 10-16].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court decreeing suit for redemption and directing reconveyance of property on deposit of Rs.14,610/- upheld – Interim relief vacated – Record and Proceedings directed to be sent back.

Transfer of Property Act – Section 58(c) – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Distinction from Sale with Condition to Repurchase – Deed dated 24.09.1979 executed for Rs.13,000/- with stipulation to reconvey on repayment within 7 years – Restriction on enjoyment of property and indication of borrowing for household and agricultural expenses – Relationship of debtor and creditor established – Held: Transaction was mortgage by conditional sale and not outright sale or independent right to repurchase – Intention to be gathered from document as a whole applying literal rule of interpretation – Decree for reconveyance and possession upheld [Paras 9-15, 18].

Interpretation of Document – Literal Rule – Court must read document as a whole and assign natural meaning where language is clear and unambiguous – Surrounding circumstances secondary when terms are explicit – Supreme Court principles reiterated – True intention discerned from contents of Exh.26 – Document created security for debt and not absolute transfer of title [Paras 10-11].

Civil Procedure Code – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Substantial Question of Law – Appellant contended that appellate court erred in not examining readiness and willingness and in granting specific performance – High Court held that findings regarding nature of transaction were based on proper appreciation of document and settled legal principles – No substantial question of law survived for consideration – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 18-20].

Mortgage vs. Sale – Essential Tests – Single document embodying condition – Consideration amount indicative of borrowing – Restrictions on enjoyment – Right of redemption subsists – Applying tests laid down in Bhoju Mandal and Patel Ravjibhai Bhulabhai – Held: Exh.26 satisfied ingredients of mortgage by conditional sale – Plaintiffs entitled to redeem and obtain reconveyance upon payment of Rs.13,000/- [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of first Appellate Court directing plaintiffs to deposit Rs.14,610/- (mortgage money) and directing defendant to execute reconveyance deed and hand over peaceful possession upheld – Interim relief vacated – Record and Proceedings directed to be sent back to trial Court.

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Search Assessment – Abatement under Section 158BA(2) – Petitioner contended that assessment for A.Y. 2022-23 was pending on date of search under Section 132 and hence stood abated by operation of Section 158BA(2) – Held, abatement under Section 158BA(2) is attracted only in relation to assessment or reassessment pertaining to “any assessment year falling in the block period” and in context of total undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B – Mere pendency of scrutiny assessment under Section 143 does not ipso facto result in abatement unless statutory conditions are satisfied [Paras 7, 7.10, 8.15].

Block Period – Interpretation of Section 158B – Court analysed definition of “block period” using the expression “means … includes” – Held, definition is exhaustive – Assessment Year 2022-23 falls within six assessment years preceding previous year of search – However, applicability of Chapter XIV-B depends upon assessment of “total undisclosed income” as a result of search – Not automatically attracted to scrutiny of disclosed income [Paras 7.2–7.5, 8.7, 8.10].

Search under Section 132 – Scope vis-à-vis Assessee – Panchnama revealed that search was conducted in respect of certain corporate entities and not specifically against petitioner in his individual capacity – Impugned assessment was based on CASS scrutiny of return filed by petitioner in individual status – No material placed to show that search yielded incriminating material relating to petitioner’s undisclosed income for relevant assessment year – Held, factual foundation for invoking Section 158BA(2) not established [Paras 8.16–8.24, 8.28].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternate Remedy – Entertaining Disputed Questions of Fact – Court reiterated principles in Radha Krishan Industries and Chhabil Dass Agarwal – Held, disputed factual issues regarding existence of undisclosed income, linkage of search material and applicability of Chapter XIV-B cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction – Petitioner failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error apparent on face of record – Writ petition not maintainable [Paras 8.29–8.31, 9.2].

Statutory Interpretation – Taxing Statute – Court reiterated settled principles that taxing statutes must be construed strictly – Nothing can be read into statute nor implied – Abatement provision cannot be invoked dehors entire scheme of Chapter XIV-B – Legal fiction under Section 158BA must be applied within its statutory contours [Paras 8.13, 8.25–8.27].

Distinction between Section 153A and Section 158BA – Petitioner relied on Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC 433 – Held, Section 153A (assessment of total income) operates in distinct field from Section 158BA (assessment of total undisclosed income of block period) – Ratio of Abhisar Buildwell cannot be mechanically applied without examining statutory scheme of Chapter XIV-B and factual matrix [Paras 8.5–8.7].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Court declined to interfere with Assessment Order dated 17.03.2025 passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 260 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2022-23 – Petitioner relegated to avail statutory remedies – No order as to costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Multiple Cheques – Single Complaint – Accused prosecuted for dishonour of four cheques issued towards repayment of common liability – Consolidated statutory notice issued under Section 138(b) – Contention that four distinct offences cannot be consolidated in one complaint – Held: Where cheques are issued as part of one series of acts forming same transaction, prosecution through single complaint is maintainable under Section 220 Cr.PC [Paras 8-10, 13-14].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 218 – Separate Charges – General Rule – For every distinct offence, separate charge and separate trial required – Exceptions carved out under Sections 219 and 220 Cr.PC – Section 219 permits joint trial of not more than three offences of same kind within 12 months – Present case involving four cheques not covered by Section 219 but governed by Section 220 [Paras 4-7, 12].

Section 220 Cr.PC – Same Transaction – Test – Offences may be tried together if arising from one series of acts so connected as to form same transaction – Proximity of time, unity of purpose, continuity of action and common design are relevant factors – Execution and issuance of four cheques towards discharge of single debt and failure to pay despite consolidated notice constitute same transaction [Paras 8-10].

Vani Agro Enterprises v. State of Gujarat – Distinction – In Vani Agro, four separate complaints were filed and question concerned consolidation under Section 219 Cr.PC – Present case involves single complaint – Supreme Court in Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act (2021) 16 SCC 116 clarified that Section 220 Cr.PC permits joint trial of several cheques forming part of same transaction – Reliance on Vani Agro misplaced [Paras 12-14].

Section 482 Cr.PC – Quashing – Petition challenging maintainability of complaint dismissed – No illegality in Magistrate’s finding that prosecution through single complaint is sustainable [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Criminal M.C. dismissed – Single complaint for dishonour of four cheques issued as part of same transaction held maintainable – Proceedings in S.T. No. 143/2019 to continue.

Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Extension of Time – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Defendant admitted execution of Agreement dated 11.02.2009 and receipt of Rs.2,25,000/- as earnest money out of total consideration of Rs.3,80,000/- – Target date 25.03.2009 extended to 08.06.2009 and thereafter to 10.08.2009 through written endorsements – Defendant admitted signatures on endorsement dated 25.03.2009 – Allegation of police coercion found contradictory and unsubstantiated – Held extensions duly proved by documentary evidence and attesting witnesses – Concurrent findings not liable to interference [Paras 23-27, 33-35, 37].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16 Specific Relief Act – Plaintiff paid substantial portion of consideration in cash – Affidavit dated 10.08.2009 (Ex.P2) sworn before Tehsildar proved plaintiff’s presence before Sub-Registrar with balance sale consideration – Defendant failed to prove his alleged presence on 25.03.2009 – Defendant admitted construction of his kothi was ongoing necessitating extension – Held plaintiff continuously ready and willing to perform contract [Paras 28-33, 37].

Conduct of Parties – Contradictory Stands by Defendant – Defendant denied and admitted signatures at different stages including on written statement and endorsements – Withdrawal of suit against police and no action after adverse report on Human Rights complaint – Conduct rendered defence unreliable – Held defendant attempting to wriggle out of agreement after receiving earnest money [Paras 31, 35].

Evidence – Objection under Sections 61 & 62 Evidence Act and Order 13 Rule 4 CPC – Objection not raised before Trial Court or First Appellate Court – Cannot be permitted to be raised for first time in Second Appeal – Distinction between legal plea and legal objection noted – Held objection untenable at this stage [Para 19].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless substantial question of law arises – Findings regarding execution, extensions, readiness and breach are pure findings of fact – No perversity or procedural illegality shown – Appeal dismissed [Paras 38-40].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court dated 08.08.2017 and First Appellate Court dated 17.02.2018 decreeing suit for specific performance affirmed – No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC.

Civil Law - Partition – Claim as Coparcener – Proof of Paternity – Plaintiff claimed to be son of late Hanuma Reddy through alleged second wife – Defendants denied marriage and paternity – No pleading as to date, month and place of alleged second marriage – Mother (PW2) gave inconsistent version regarding year of marriage – No independent evidence of marriage or cohabitation produced – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proving valid marriage and paternity – Not entitled to share in suit properties [Paras 13-16, 22, 31-32].

Documentary Evidence – Voter List – Affidavits – SSC Certificate with Corrections – Evidentiary Value – Voter list held to be self-serving and only corroborative – Affidavits (Ex.A6, A7) found self-serving and not proved through attestors – SSC certificate (Ex.A9) contained material corrections in name, father’s name and date of birth without proper authentication – Birth letter (Ex.A10) not proved as public document under Section 76 Evidence Act – Held: Documents insufficient to establish paternity [Paras 16-21, 31].

Prior Partition – Admissions – Land Reforms Proceedings – Plaintiff admitted registered partition dated 19.02.1971 between deceased and defendants – In 1975 land reforms proceedings deceased declared he had only wife and two daughters and no son – Held: Strong circumstance against plaintiff’s claim of paternity [Paras 23-24, 31].

Non-joinder of Necessary Parties – Partition Suit – Plaintiff admitted alienations of suit properties under registered sale deeds (Ex.A11 to A15) prior to suit – Alienees not impleaded – No pleading regarding alienations – Held: Suit defective for non-joinder of necessary parties – Relief of partition cannot be granted in absence of alienees [Paras 26-28].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Delay of 21 Years – Appellant sought to produce Gazette, service register extracts, transfer certificate and duplicate SSC certificate at appellate stage – No satisfactory explanation for non-production during trial – Documents not essential for pronouncing judgment – Attempt to fill lacunae – Held: Conditions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC not satisfied – I.A.No.1 of 2024 dismissed [Paras 36-43].

DNA Test – Appellate Stage – Request after 21 Years – Plaintiff sought direction to respondents for DNA test to prove paternity – No foundational pleadings regarding marriage – Trial concluded long back – DNA test not to be ordered as matter of course – Relied on Goutam Kundu principles – Held: No strong prima facie case – Application belated and unwarranted – I.A.No.2 of 2024 dismissed [Paras 46-50].

Finality of Litigation – Clean Hands – Plaintiff suppressed material facts regarding alienations and possession of third parties – Held: Plaintiff approached Court without clean hands – Not entitled to equitable relief [Paras 26-27].

Decision: I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 dismissed – Appeal Suit No.4145 of 2003 dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 06.08.2003 in O.S.No.55 of 1996 confirmed – Each party to bear own costs – Miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Bail – UAPA – Long Incarceration – Appellant in custody for over 2 years and 6 months – Only 4 out of 21 prosecution witnesses examined – Cross-examination of 3 witnesses pending – Trial not likely to conclude in near future – Held: Prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 – Long custody by itself is a significant ground for grant of bail even in UAPA cases [Paras 3, 6, 11].

UAPA – Section 43-D(5) – Embargo on Bail – Statutory restrictions do not oust constitutional courts’ power to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights – Rigours of Section 43-D(5) melt down where trial is not likely to conclude within reasonable time and substantial incarceration already undergone – Held: Constitutional Courts can grant bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions where Article 21 is infringed [Para 6].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Pre-trial detention must be reasonable and proportionate – Continued incarceration cannot become punishment before conviction – Courts must balance gravity of allegations with constitutional mandate of personal liberty – Held: Lengthy and arduous trial process cannot be allowed to become punishment in itself [Paras 6-7].

Serious Allegations – Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Allegations of being part of criminal gang with separatist ideology and conducting recce of Shiv Sena leader – No recovery of firearms, ammunition or incriminating material from appellant – Not involved in any other criminal case – Held: Seriousness of allegations alone cannot justify indefinite detention pending trial [Paras 5, 8].

Constitutional Supremacy – Penal Statutes – Even in stringent penal statutes like UAPA, courts must lean in favour of constitutionalism and rule of law – Liberty is intrinsic to Article 21 – Held: Restrictive provisions cannot override constitutional guarantees [Para 9].

Purpose of Bail – Bail is to secure presence of accused at trial and not to punish – Continued incarceration without timely trial unjustified – Held: Appellant entitled to regular bail subject to stringent conditions [Paras 10-11].

Conditions of Bail – Appellant directed to furnish bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties – Surrender passport – Appear before Trial Court and Investigating Officer – Not influence witnesses – Not indulge in criminal activity – Periodic appearance before SHO – Liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 22.11.2023 dismissing bail set aside – Appellant granted regular bail subject to conditions – Observations confined to bail and not to affect merits of trial [Paras 11-13].