Service Law – Pensionary Benefits – Applicability of MCSR 1982 – Deceased government servant appointed post-01/11/2005 was under DCPS – Upon death before 10 years of service, nomination under DCPS was invalid as it was made under MCSR 1982 – Subsequent GR dated 31/03/2023 extended family pension under MCSR to employees who died between 01/11/2005 and 31/03/2023 – Held: Petitioners entitled to family pension under MCSR 1982, nomination of brother not valid [Paras 23–26, 29–30, 33–36]

Nomination – Effect of Nominee vs. Legal Heir – Nomination made by the deceased in 2014 replacing wife with brother as nominee, held invalid – Form submitted under MCSR by employee covered under DCPS had no legal effect – Further, brother not covered under definition of “family” under Rule 116(16)(b) of MCSR 1982 – Wife and sons alone entitled to benefit [Paras 24, 30–32]

Government Resolution – Interpretation and Retrospective Application – GR dated 31/03/2023 clarified that family pension payable for deaths between 2005–2023 subject to option – Widow opted for MCSR family pension – Circular dated 24/08/2023 could not override or nullify the widow’s claim when no contrary option existed from employee – Held: Subsequent policy to be interpreted to benefit rightful claimants [Paras 26–28, 34–36]

Family Pension – Eligibility – Despite pending divorce and allegations, wife not disqualified under Rule 116 as there was no judicial separation or finding of adultery – Sons below age 21 also eligible – Respondents 5 and 6 not included under definition of “family” – Held: Entire benefit to be granted to widow and minor children [Paras 18, 30–31]

Decision: Petition allowed – State directed to disburse arrears and commence monthly family pension under MCSR 1982 – Respondents 5 and 6 (mother and brother) not entitled to any pensionary benefit – Arrears to be paid within 8 weeks or carry 9% interest p.a. thereafter [Paras 36–38]

Limitation – Suit for Recovery – Applicability of Article 14 – Not a Mutual Open Account – Plaintiff company supplied tyres and flaps on credit between 1980 and 1984 – Defendant made part payments totaling ₹2,27,380/-, and plaintiff sought to recover ₹34,971.05 with interest – Trial Court held suit within limitation based on last payment in March 1983 – Held: Lower Appellate Court rightly applied Article 14 of Limitation Act; limitation begins from date of each delivery, not from last payment [Paras 6–7, 10, 13].

Running Account – Mutual Open Account vs. Successive Supplies – Plea Rejected – Appellant argued that the dealings constituted a mutual and current account, invoking Article 1 of Limitation Act – Court found no reciprocal obligations or debits/credits to constitute mutuality – Plaintiff’s ledger entries were unilateral – Held: Article 1 inapplicable; case governed by Article 14 [Paras 9–11].

Appropriation of Payments – Sections 59–61 Contract Act – Does Not Extend Limitation – Appellant argued it could appropriate payments to prior debts per Contract Act – Court held that such appropriation determines which debt is discharged but does not affect the limitation period for cause of action—Recovery claim for deliveries beyond 3 years remains time-barred [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Lower appellate court’s dismissal of suit as time-barred upheld – No error found in application of limitation principles – Trial court’s contrary view incorrect [Paras 13–14].

Civil Writ - Immigration Law – Deportation – Exit Permit – Mother and minor daughters found living in a cave in Gokarna – Russian Consulate issued Emergency Travel Documents (ETDs) requesting immediate repatriation – Mother explicitly communicated her intent to return to Russia with children – FRRO processing Exit Permits – Held: Action of authorities in facilitating return based on ETDs and mother’s request not arbitrary – Does not amount to forced deportation – No violation of children's rights [Paras 1–4, 6–9, 12–13].

Child Rights – Best Interest Principle – UNCRC – Goa Children Act – Petitioner contended that deportation violates best interests of children and that he had applied for custody – Court noted the unexplained circumstances of mother and children being found in a cave – Russian government actively involved and committed to welfare – Return facilitated through consular cooperation and with mother’s consent – Held: Best interest of children would be served by enabling voluntary return to Russia – Petitioner's objections outweighed by compelling facts [Paras 7–11, 12–13].

Jurisdiction – Scope under Article 226 – Voluntary Repatriation Distinguished from Deportation – Court clarified that issuance of Exit Permits pursuant to ETDs and mother’s request cannot be equated with deportation under law – Repatriation action lies within executive domain and is lawful when done with procedural safeguards and consular coordination – Held: No case for interference under Article 226 [Paras 8–10, 13].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Union of India permitted to issue necessary documents to enable mother and children’s return to Russia – No interference warranted.

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Notice – Service Not Proved – Two post-dated cheques of Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.8 lakhs issued by respondent towards repayment of alleged loan – Cheques dishonoured for insufficient funds – Complaints filed under Section 138 NI Act – Magistrate convicted accused – Appellate court reversed conviction, holding that service of demand notice was not duly proved – High Court upholds appellate court’s view – Acknowledgement card in one case signed by unidentified minor girl not shown to be family member – In another case, notice sent to incomplete address – Held: Presumption under Section 27 of General Clauses Act and Section 114 of Evidence Act not available where service is not proved – Conviction unsustainable in absence of valid notice [Paras 18–21].

Presumption – Burden on Drawer – Rebuttal – Accused did not enter witness box – However, burden on complainant to prove essential ingredients of Section 138 not discharged – Statutory presumption under Section 27 GC Act arises only if notice is sent to correct address and delivery is probable – Court distinguishes C.C. Alavi Haji and Uttam Ram on facts – Held: Rebuttable presumption of notice receipt not established on flawed evidence [Paras 17–20].

Criminal Procedure – Ingredients of Offence – Section 138 NI Act – Legal requirement of notice and failure to pay within 15 days of receipt are mandatory – Failure to prove receipt of notice fatal to prosecution – Offence under Section 138 not made out [Paras 16, 21].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction order passed by Magistrate set aside by Sessions Court affirmed – Acquittal of Respondent in both cases under Section 138 NI Act upheld.

Criminal Law – Criminal Revision Against Framing of Charge - Criminal Conspiracy – Registrar of Cooperative Societies alleged to have approved fraudulent freeze list of members and expulsion of 48 original members of Naval Technical Officers CGHS – File notings showed serious discrepancies, absence of required affidavits, and false audit reports – Held: Material on record establishes grave suspicion of conspiracy and misuse of official position by petitioner – Framing of charge justified [Paras 54-80]

Forgery and Cheating – Petitioner approved freeze list despite internal file notings indicating incomplete and manipulated documents – Membership strength altered from 73 to 277 without supporting documents – Affidavits missing and audit reports based on falsified bank details – Held: Prima facie case made out for forgery, using forged documents, and cheating – Trial required to ascertain extent of complicity [Paras 66-74]

Registrar's Responsibility – Though approval followed hierarchical notings by subordinate officers, petitioner as Registrar was expected to independently verify authenticity of documents and red-flag irregularities – Argument of mechanical signing rejected – Held: Final approval in face of known irregularities demonstrates culpable neglect and active facilitation [Paras 75-81]

Bar of Sanction – Petitioner claimed protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 95 of the DCS Act for acts done in official capacity – Held: No sanction required under PC Act as petitioner had retired at the time of cognizance – Protection under Section 95 DCS Act available only for acts done in good faith – Whether petitioner acted in good faith is matter for trial – No bar to prosecution at stage of framing charge [Paras 91-98]

Criminal Conspiracy – Proof – Meeting of minds – No direct evidence of conspiracy alleged – Held: Criminal conspiracy rarely established through direct evidence – Circumstantial evidence showing concerted acts between petitioner and co-accused in approving manipulated list sufficient to infer prima facie conspiracy [Paras 86-88]

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – Framing of charge under IPC and PC Act upheld – Petitioner's plea of lack of sanction and immunity rejected – Trial to proceed on merits – Observations not binding at final stage [Paras 99-101]

Criminal Law – Murder – Single Blow – Sudden Quarrel – Appellants convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for assaulting deceased Bir Singh with a lathi during a dispute over tethering of goats – Occurrence found to be sudden without premeditation – Ocular evidence of sons of deceased (P.W.9 & P.W.10) found consistent, natural and corroborated by medical evidence – Post-mortem surgeon deceased during trial – Post-mortem report prepared by Government doctor held admissible and of high probative value [Paras 25–28].

Evidence – Post-mortem Report – Non-examination of Medical Officer – Court held that post-mortem report prepared by a Government doctor in course of official duty is admissible and persuasive despite the doctor’s death – Absence of his oral testimony does not vitiate prosecution case where medical and ocular evidence otherwise consistent [Paras 27–28].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery – Lathi recovered on disclosure of appellant Ram Kishan corroborated prosecution version – Held an incriminating circumstance linking accused to crime [Para 29].

Culpability – Intention or Knowledge – No premeditation proved – Assault occurred in heat of moment following altercation – Only single blow inflicted on vital part of head – No evidence of repeated blows or intent to kill – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 31–34].

Sentencing – Appellants aged above 70 years – Trial pending for over two decades – Having already undergone more than five years of imprisonment – Sentence modified to period already undergone – Fine maintained [Para 35–36].

Decision: Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence restricted to period already undergone – Fine maintained – Appeal disposed of [Paras 34–37].

Family Law – Paternity Dispute – DNA Test Sought by Father – Request Denied – Maintenance Proceedings – Presumption of Legitimacy Upheld – Petitioner-husband challenged trial court’s refusal to order DNA testing of minor child during pendency of wife's maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC – Held: No prima facie material produced by petitioner to rebut presumption under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Mere denial of paternity not sufficient – Long delay of over 12 years from divorce and 3 years after maintenance petition remains unexplained – Legal presumption of legitimacy applies [Paras 6, 25–28, 32, 34–35].

Scientific Evidence – DNA Test – Not a Routine Measure – Right to Privacy and Dignity Considered – DNA testing involves serious privacy implications – Court reiterated that DNA tests cannot be ordered merely on suspicion or as a shortcut to prove adultery – Child’s right to identity and dignity must be prioritised – DNA test not the only method to prove infidelity or lack of paternity – Courts must balance scientific tools with constitutional rights [Paras 18–22, 35–36].

Delay – Unexplained Silence of Petitioner – Conduct Impugns Credibility of Claim – Divorce was granted in 2012 and maintenance petition filed in 2021 – DNA test application filed only in 2025 – Court found no reasonable or acceptable explanation for delay – Silence for over a decade suggests ulterior motive to humiliate the respondent and delay maintenance proceedings [Paras 25, 34, 38].

Legal Presumption – Section 116, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Conclusive Proof of Paternity During Marriage – No Proof of Non-Access – Child born during valid marriage attracts statutory presumption of legitimacy – Husband failed to prove non-access during the relevant period – Law discourages unwarranted inquiries into paternity where marriage subsisted [Paras 26–28].

Constitutional Law – Right Against Self-Incrimination – Right to Privacy – Courts Cautioned Against Intrusive Tests Without Justification – Referring to Supreme Court precedents (Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, Smt. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, Aparna Firodia v. Ajinkya Firodia), court reiterated that DNA tests cannot be directed unless strong prima facie case is made – Intrusive procedures like DNA testing impinge upon Article 20(3) and 21 – Such tests cannot be permitted to settle personal scores or as a weapon in matrimonial disputes [Paras 21–23, 29–31, 35–37].

Abuse of Process – DNA Petition Found Frivolous – Filed to Harass and Delay – Court found DNA application to be filed only to prolong proceedings and malign character of wife – Held: No legal justification shown to interfere with trial court order – Revision petition dismissed with observations on misuse of legal process [Paras 32, 38].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – No prima facie case made for DNA testing – No interference warranted with trial court’s well-reasoned order dated 12.06.2025 – No costs awarded – Connected miscellaneous petition also closed [Paras 38–40].

Hindu Marriage – Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal against decree – Allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and suppression of husband’s mental illness not proved – No FIR or complaint filed – Evidence produced by wife unreliable and hearsay – Husband made genuine attempts to resume cohabitation which wife refused – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights upheld – No error found in judgment of Family Court [Paras 2–5].

Maintenance and Permanent Alimony – Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Nature and Scope – Interim maintenance under Section 24 can be granted during pendency of proceedings when applicant lacks independent income – Permanent alimony under Section 25 may be granted at the time of decree or subsequently – Right to maintenance available to either spouse but is discretionary – Conduct of parties is relevant consideration after 1976 amendment inserting “conduct of parties and other circumstances of the case” [Paras 7–11].

Discretionary Relief – Fault Principle – No party can take advantage of its own wrong – Maintenance cannot be claimed as of right by a spouse found at fault – However, to prevent destitution or vagrancy, Court may grant limited maintenance even to erring spouse – Quantum of maintenance to be proportionate to basic needs in such cases [Paras 11–12].

Restitution Decree – Effect on Claim for Maintenance – Court cannot direct that decree for restitution of conjugal rights shall have no effect on consideration of maintenance application – Wife, however, may apply separately for maintenance to avoid destitution; relief under Sections 24 and 25 remains discretionary and fact-dependent [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights dated 27.11.2014 in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014 affirmed – No order directing that decree shall not affect claim for maintenance – Liberty reserved to appellant to apply independently for maintenance as per law [Paras 15–16].

Juvenile Justice – Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Petitioner No. 1, arrested for murder under Section 302 IPC, was in judicial custody since 2017 – During trial in 2024, he raised a claim of juvenility and produced a scholar register showing his date of birth as 13.12.2002 – The trial court failed to determine his age as required under Section 9(2) of JJ Act and mechanically forwarded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board – The Board declared him juvenile on 15.05.2025 – Held: Since the claim was raised before the trial court, only the court was competent to determine age – Board’s order was without jurisdiction and a nullity – Petitioner’s continued detention in jail thereafter was illegal

Juvenile Justice – Detention in Jail – Prohibition under JJ Act – Under Section 10(1) of the Act, a child in conflict with law cannot be placed in police lock-up or jail – Even during age inquiry, such person must be kept in a place of safety – Petitioner’s detention in Naini Central Jail after raising juvenility claim was contrary to statutory mandate – Held: Present custody illegal

Habeas Corpus – Judicial Custody – Maintainability – Although habeas corpus is generally not maintainable against judicial remand, an exception arises where the detention is shown to be patently illegal or without jurisdiction – In present case, remand was mechanically passed without determination of age – Held: Writ of habeas corpus maintainable

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Juvenile in conflict with law can be detained for maximum three years under JJ Act – Petitioner had been in jail for over 8 years – Continued detention violative of Article 21 – Illegal and unconstitutional

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Writ of habeas corpus issued – Superintendent, Naini Central Jail, Prayagraj directed to release Petitioner No. 1 immediately – Commissioner of Police to produce Petitioner before trial court – Trial court directed to determine age under Section 9(2) JJ Act – If found juvenile, he to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for further action – If not, trial to proceed as per law