Passport Law – Refusal of Passport – Pendency of Criminal Proceedings at FIR Stage – Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 – Writ Petitions allowed – Petitioners challenged rejection or indefinite pendency of their passport applications by Passport Authorities on the ground of pending criminal cases – Held: Section 6(2)(f) operates only when a court of appropriate criminal jurisdiction takes cognizance of the case and the matter is pending before the criminal court – Where the matter is still under investigation and no charge sheet has been filed, the said provision has no application – Passport Authorities directed to issue, re-issue, or renew passports forthwith [Paras 4, 9, 12].

Constitutional Law – Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 of the Constitution – Fundamental Right – Proportionality – The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right which nourishes the independent and self-determining character of the individual – Liberty in the constitutional scheme is not a gift of the State but its first obligation – Any restraint on freedom of travel must be narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to the object sought, and clearly anchored in law – Procedural safeguards cannot be converted into rigid barriers or allow temporary disabilities to harden into indefinite exclusions – Section 6(2)(f) is a qualified restriction designed to secure presence of an accused, and cannot be treated as an absolute bar to holding a valid passport [Paras 11(3), 11(4), 11(5)].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act – GSR 570(E) – Exemption Mechanism – The Central Government notification GSR No. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 stipulates that issue of passport to a person falling within Section 6(2)(f) need not be stalled, provided the person obtains court orders specifying further period of validity or period of travel abroad – Section 22 and GSR 570(E) provide a statutory exemption mechanism which must be given full effect and cannot be ignored by the Passport Authorities [Paras 10, 11(5)].

Conditional Direction – Post-Charge Sheet Compliance – Upon filing of charge sheet in the criminal cases, petitioners are required to obtain necessary orders from the concerned courts regarding the further period of validity of the passport and conditions, if any, relating to travel abroad – In the event petitioners fail to obtain such orders, the Passport Authorities are at liberty to revoke the passports after due notice [Paras 13, 14].

Decision: All writ petitions allowed – Passport Authorities directed to issue, re-issue, or renew passports of the petitioners – Miscellaneous petitions stand closed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Modification of Conviction – Appellants convicted by trial court under Section 302/34 IPC for killing deceased Jitaram Satnami with a plough yoke during a land dispute – High Court on reappraisal finding that the assault was not premeditated but arose suddenly upon seeing the deceased on disputed land intending to sow paddy seeds – Accused were not armed and used the yoke already tied to the plough – Held: Case falls under Exceptions (i) and (iv) to Section 299 IPC — conviction modified to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence reduced to 7 years RI [Paras 14, 15, 16].

Eye-Witness Testimony – Credibility – P.W.1 (father-in-law of deceased and informant) and P.W.2 corroborated each other in material particulars regarding the assault — Cross-examination yielded nothing to discredit them — Minor contradictions between P.W.1 and P.W.2 (absence of reference to abuse in P.W.1's version) held to be immaterial and insufficient to demolish prosecution case — Held: Minor improvements and embellishments are not to be used to discredit other clinching evidence of occurrence [Paras 10, 11.3].

FIR – Validity – Scribe's Endorsement – FIR scribed in Odia though informant stated in Chhattisgarhi language — Scribe not examined — Held: Endorsement by scribe that contents were read over to informant who affixed LTI sufficient — No acceptable material to show scribe was not conversant with Chhattisgarhi — Doubt arising from presumption and speculation not tenable [Para 11.1].

Overt Act – Specific Attribution – Accused Lokanath – Argument that no witness specifically named Lokanath Satnami rejected — Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 first identified both accused in the dock and then described the assault — Specific overt act attributed to Lokanath including assault on right leg and subsequently on other parts of the deceased's body — Charge under Section 34 IPC also applicable [Para 11.6].

Abatement – Death of Co-Appellant – Appellant No. 1 Bhoka Satnami expired on 01.06.2015 during pendency of appeal — Appeal stood abated with regard to him by order dated 24.10.2025 — Remaining appeal proceeded against Appellant No. 2 Lokanath Satnami alone [Para 1].

Sentence – Reduction – Passage of Time – Occurrence took place 26 years prior to judgment — Ends of justice held to be best served by sentencing accused to 7 years RI with usual set-off in lieu of life imprisonment [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part — Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC set aside — Conviction substituted with Section 304 Part II IPC — Sentence of life imprisonment modified to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with set-off — Bail bonds of appellant Lokanath Satnami cancelled — Appellant directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve remaining sentence, if any.

Sabarimala Master Plan – High Power Committee – Appointment of New Chairman – Following demise of former Chairman Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Siri Jagan on 24.01.2026, the High Power Committee was unable to effectively discharge its functions – For ensuring continued and uninterrupted functioning of the Committee, appointment of a new Chairman held urgently necessary – Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun V.G., former Judge of the Kerala High Court, appointed as Chairman of the High Power Committee for implementation of the Sabarimala Master Plan [Para 13].

Sabarimala Master Plan – Role and Responsibilities of Chairman – High Power Committee – The Chairman presides over all meetings of the Committee and exercises overall supervision and control over its functioning – Vested with powers of the earlier Apex Level Steering Committee and Working Level Committee constituted by the State Government – Responsible for time-bound implementation of the Master Plan in accordance with Court directions – Empowered to co-opt representatives from the Pollution Control Board, PWD and other departments as required – Required to submit periodical status reports to the Court once every two months through the Advocate General – Duties include monitoring day-to-day progress, conducting site inspections, reviewing functioning of Technical Committee, prioritising projects based on availability of funds, resolving inter-departmental issues and ensuring financial discipline and transparency – Chairman also acts as vital link between the Court, State Government and Travancore Devaswom Board – Obligated to safeguard flora and fauna of the region and ensure no project compromises the ecological balance of the Periyar Tiger Reserve and the Western Ghats [Para 14].

Sabarimala Master Plan – Implementation – Status and Deficiencies – Master Plan prepared by M/s. IL&FS Eco Smart Limited approved by the Government of Kerala on 03.05.2007 – Government has allocated Rs. 390.2 Crores in total through annual budgetary provisions up to 2025–26 – Substantial infrastructure developed including 5 MLD Sewage Treatment Plant, Annadanam Mandapam, Darshanam Complex, parking areas, toilet complexes and water tanks – However, certain components of pilgrim management plan and queue complexes along trek route remain only partially completed – Disaster management component envisaged under the Master Plan not yet implemented – Certain ongoing projects not aligned with original framework of Master Plan – Audit findings noted that in absence of structured action plans and Detailed Project Reports (DPRs), developmental activities may deviate from originally envisaged projects – Time-bound action plan based on prioritisation of DPRs held imperative [Paras 8–9, 12].

Sabarimala Pilgrimage – Crowd Management – Institutional Framework – Suo motu proceedings W.P.(C) 8529 of 2026 initiated pursuant to order dated 06.02.2026 in SSCR No. 37 of 2025 in light of challenges faced during Mandala-Makaravilakku Season 2025–26 – Directions issued for institutional framework ensuring coordinated and advance planning among all stakeholders – Thirteen aspects identified for detailed examination including institutional governance, crowd management, virtual queue systems, technology integration, traffic management, safety, sanitation, medical services, environmental compliance and personnel training – High Power Committee directed to consider these aspects and ensure no duplication or overlap of functions [Paras 10–11, 15].

Decision: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun V.G., former Judge of the High Court of Kerala, appointed as Chairman of the High Power Committee for implementation of the Sabarimala Master Plan – High Power Committee requested to consider aspects highlighted in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No. 8529 of 2026 and ensure implementation remains aligned with objectives and structural framework of the Master Plan – Committee at liberty to move the Court by appropriate application or report at any stage if intervention is considered necessary – HPCR(S) No. 1 of 2026 closed [Paras 13–15].

Motor Accident – Compensation – Enhancement – Contributory Negligence Set Aside – Skilled Worker Income Applied – Total Compensation Enhanced to Rs. 8,43,705/- – Deceased Mahaveer died in a road accident on 21.04.2010 when a Jeep being driven rashly and negligently collided with his motorcycle – Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,49,384/- after attributing 20% contributory negligence to the deceased for not possessing a valid driving licence and carrying two pillion riders, and assessed income on the basis of minimum wages for an unskilled worker – Held: Contributory negligence finding quashed; income re-assessed on skilled worker minimum wages at Rs. 115/- per day; future prospects at 25%; compensation under conventional heads reassessed; total compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,43,705/- with interest as per Tribunal's award [Paras 1–17].

Contributory Negligence – No Valid Driving Licence – Three Persons on Motorcycle – Causal Connection Essential – Tribunal recorded a specific finding that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver and that no negligence was attributed to the deceased; yet imposed 20% contributory negligence on the deceased for not possessing a valid driving licence and carrying two pillion riders – Held: Driving without a valid licence does not by itself constitute contributory negligence unless it is established that the deceased was driving rashly and negligently and that such conduct contributed to the accident – Similarly, carrying two pillion riders is merely a statutory violation; it cannot form the basis of contributory negligence unless it is established that the act contributed either to the occurrence of the accident or to the impact upon the victim – There must be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or its impact – Impugned finding of 20% contributory negligence quashed [Paras 10.1–10.5].

Motor Accident – Income Assessment – Barber – Skilled Worker – In the absence of documentary proof of income, the income of the deceased, who was working as a Barber, is to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker as notified by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – The State of Rajasthan has specifically categorised the occupation of Barber as a skilled worker in its minimum wage notifications – Held: Tribunal erred in applying minimum wages for an unskilled worker; income re-assessed at Rs. 115/- per day applicable to a skilled worker [Paras 11.1–11.2].

Motor Accident – Conventional Heads – Future Prospects – The deceased was 45 years of age at the time of accident; future prospects to be added at 25% and not 30% as awarded by the Tribunal – Compensation under conventional heads re-assessed in terms of Pranay Sethi and Nanu Ram: loss of consortium at Rs. 40,000/- each to six dependants (totalling Rs. 2,40,000/-); loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-; funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced by Rs. 3,94,321/- over and above the Tribunal's award of Rs. 4,49,384/-, making the total compensation Rs. 8,43,705/- – Respondents directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months – Enhanced amount to carry interest from the date of filing of the claim petition at the rate specified in the Tribunal's award – Rest of the impugned award affirmed.

Consumer Law – Review Application – Non-Speaking Order – Letters Patent Appeals – Dismissed – Respondents filed complaints before NCDRC alleging deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and delayed possession of flats under redevelopment plan – NCDRC by Final Order directed appellant to refund charges for deficiency in open space with interest at 9% p.a., pay amount towards shortage in carpet area at Rs.24,650/- per sq. ft. with interest at 9% p.a., pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,00,000/- towards litigation costs to each respondent – Appellant withdrew Supreme Court appeals and filed Review Applications before NCDRC – Review Applications dismissed by a broad-reasoned Review Order – Writ Petitions challenging Review Order dismissed by Single Judge – Present LPAs filed contending Review Order was non-speaking and Final Order contained errors of fact apparent on face of record – Held: Impugned Order of Single Judge cured any deficiency in Review Order by examining all grounds raised in Review Applications and providing reasons for not entertaining them; appeals dismissed [Paras 1–18].

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Non-Speaking Review Order – Curative Effect of Appellate Reasoning – Appellant contended Review Order was a nullity being non-speaking and unsupported by reasons – Held: Even if Review Order provided only broad conclusions without detailed reasons, that deficiency stood fulfilled by the Single Judge's Impugned Order which examined all grounds taken in the Review Applications and provided reasons for not entertaining them – In such circumstances, the contention that the Review Order lacked reasoning is not available to the Appellant – Review Applications cannot serve as appeals in disguise; review jurisdiction is confined to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record and does not permit re-examination or re-hearing of the entire matter [Paras 8–17].

Review Application – Factual Errors Alleged – Calculation of Delay Period – Appellant contended that 27-month possession period was to run from the date of actual vacation of building (28.01.2013) and not from date of license agreement (31.01.2012), making the correct stipulated date 28.06.2015 and reducing the period of delay and thereby the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.3,75,000/- – Also contended that shortage in carpet area and amount directed to be refunded for open area deficiency were unspecified in Final Order – Held: Since flats were actually handed over only on 01.01.2016, the alleged factual error in the date of stipulated possession was of no significance to the ultimate finding of delay; grounds raised in Review Applications amounted to re-appreciation of evidence and not correction of errors apparent on face of record [Paras 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 12–13, 16].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeals dismissed – Impugned Order dated 07.01.2026 dismissing the Writ Petitions upheld – Pending applications disposed of – No order as to costs.

Writ Jurisdiction – Encroachment Removal – Disputed Questions of Fact – Writ petitions filed challenging inaction of CDA authorities in removing unauthorized constructions over Plot Nos. 602 and 606 despite orders under ODA Act, appellate confirmation, and fresh joint measurement on 10.07.2024 finding encroachment – Private opposite parties disputed the character of the land, claiming Plot No. 602 to be a private passage co-owned by them per ROR and Plot No. 606 to be private homestead land – Held: Issuance of a writ of mandamus directing demolition would require determination of disputed questions of fact, which is not permissible in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction [Paras 10, 13].

Civil Court – Pending Suits – Status Quo Order – Civil suits instituted between the parties pending adjudication in C.S. No. 1015 of 2024 and C.S. No. 995 of 2024 before Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Cuttack – Civil Court by order dated 06.01.2025 directed parties to maintain status quo and restrained CDA from acting upon measurement report dated 19.07.2024 – Said restraint order subsisted at the time of disposal – Held: Civil Court having taken cognizance and granted interim protection, the writ court must refrain from issuing conflicting directions [Paras 11, 12].

Measurement Reports – Correctness Disputed – Earlier direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 22558 of 2017 required joint measurement taking into account both existing and non-existing maps – Correctness of measurement reports and compliance with said direction disputed in C.S. No. 995 of 2024 – Such dispute cannot be resolved without appreciation of revenue records, maps and documentary evidence, which lies beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction [Para 12].

Writ of Mandamus – Refusal – Parties Before Civil Court – Well-settled that where disputed questions of fact are involved and parties are already before the Civil Court, the writ court should refrain from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction – Petitioners at liberty to approach the Civil Court in pending suits seeking appropriate relief – Civil Court to consider the prayer on the basis of materials and evidence placed before it [Para 13].

Decision: Both writ petitions disposed of – No direction issued for removal of alleged encroachment – Petitioners left to seek appropriate relief before the Civil Court in the pending suits.

Criminal Law – Remand – Grounds of Arrest – Section 47 BNSS – Remand Order Quashed – Petitioner had earlier been set at liberty by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P. No. 16200/2025 on the ground that grounds of arrest were not furnished to him – Co-ordinate bench had expressly directed that the prosecution may seek fresh remand only after furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the petitioner – Despite non-compliance with this direction, the Sessions Court passed a fresh remand order directing the petitioner to be taken back into custody – Held: The impugned remand order runs contrary to the express order of the co-ordinate bench and is liable to be quashed – Petitioner set at liberty forthwith [Paras 4, 5, 6].

Compliance with Court Orders – Binding Nature of Co-ordinate Bench Directions – The prosecution had admittedly not served the grounds of arrest as directed – The Sessions Court acted in undue haste in remanding the petitioner back to custody without insisting upon compliance with the co-ordinate bench order – Such conduct on the part of the concerned Court amounts to negating a judicial direction and cannot be sustained – Liberty of an accused cannot be curtailed in derogation of a binding High Court order [Paras 5, 6].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned remand order dated 03.03.2026 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, quashed – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith subject to compliance with the co-ordinate bench order – Prosecution at liberty to seek fresh remand after furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the petitioner – Registry directed to communicate order to the Superintendent

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Appeal Against Acquittal – Sections 307/324/34 IPC – Appeal Dismissed – Respondents accused of assaulting PW-1 Prabhu Shyam and PW-5 Ghanshyam with knife and danda during intervening night of 17/18 October 2009 at C-10, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi, arising from refusal to provide a cigarette – FIR No. 210/2009 registered at P.S. Khyala – Charges framed under Sections 307/324/34 IPC – Trial Court acquitted both accused finding prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – State preferred appeal under Section 378 CrPC – Respondent No. 2 died during appeal – Held: Prosecution case riddled with material contradictions on place of occurrence, weapons used, and improvements in testimony; Trial Court rightly granted benefit of doubt; acquittal upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 58–60].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Appellate Interference – Settled position that appellate court may re-appreciate evidence but interference with acquittal warranted only when findings are perverse, manifestly illegal or wholly contrary to evidence – Where two reasonable views are possible, view favourable to accused to be adopted – Double presumption of innocence operates in favour of accused on acquittal – Held: Principles governing appeals against acquittal reaffirmed; court not sitting as first court of appreciation [Paras 37–38] — Relied upon: Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415.

Contradictions – Place of Occurrence – Material Inconsistency – PW-1 Prabhu Shyam stated stabbing occurred inside his house; PW-5 Ghanshyam stated entire incident occurred outside the house in front of the gate; complaint dated 20.11.2009 (Ex. PW1/DA) filed by PW-7 Suresh to DCP stated incident occurred near C-Block, Valmiki Mandir, near P.S. Khyala — a materially different location from all other versions — Investigating Officer PW-12 SI Gurdeep Singh confirmed no witness had informed him of any incident inside the house nor was he taken inside premises – Held: Contradictions on place of occurrence, being a foundational fact in criminal prosecution, go to the root of the case and render prosecution version uncertain [Paras 43–45].

Contradictions – Weapons Used – Material Improvement – Original prosecution version in rukka and chargesheet: accused Rinku @ Shiv Kumar armed with danda, accused Harish alone armed with knife – Version introduced at trial by PW-1 and PW-5: Harish brought two knives and handed one to Rinku, both accused thereafter inflicting knife injuries – Improvement contradicted by Investigating Officer who stated no witness had informed him of two knives or of Rinku carrying a knife – Also contradicted by PW-7 Suresh and PW-8 Balram, both prosecution witnesses, who consistently stated only Harish carried knife while Rinku carried danda – Knife never recovered despite disclosure statement of accused Harish – Held: Improvement going to heart of alleged criminal act substantially impairs reliability of testimony [Paras 46–50] — Relied upon: Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657.

Section 307 IPC – Intention to Cause Death – Sudden Quarrel – Absence of Prior Enmity – Incident arising from trivial demand for cigarette during Diwali night; no pre-existing enmity between parties; no evidence of premeditation – Use of knife alone insufficient to establish intention required under Section 307 IPC; surrounding circumstances, nature of injuries, parts of body targeted and overall conduct of accused also to be considered – Held: Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused had intention to cause death; charge under Section 307 IPC not made out on facts [Paras 39–53] — Relied upon: Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366; Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 602.

Non-Examination of Material Witnesses – Several persons allegedly present at or near scene of occurrence — Baljeet, Ranjeet, Kundan, Firoz and others — repeatedly mentioned in prosecution testimonies but none examined during trial – Non-examination of independent witnesses assumes particular importance where testimonies of examined witnesses themselves suffer from contradictions – Held: Failure to examine independent witnesses further weakens prosecution case [Paras 55–57].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment dated 20.07.2015 of the Additional Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi acquitting respondents of offences under Sections 307/324/34 IPC upheld – Pending applications stand disposed of.

Matrimonial Law – Mental Cruelty – Divorce – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Pre-suit and Post-suit Cruelty – Decree of Divorce Affirmed – Marriage solemnised on 27.04.2005; wife left matrimonial home on 02.11.2009; husband instituted divorce suit on 15.01.2010; wife lodged criminal complaint on 05.02.2010 (three months after the alleged incident and 21 days after filing of divorce suit) – Trial Court decreed divorce on grounds of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage – On appeal, Division Bench found pre-suit cruelty established through evidence of PW-1 (husband) corroborated by PW-2 (elder brother, residing in matrimonial home), whose evidence remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination – Admissions of DW-3 (wife's mother) in cross-examination corroborated plaint allegations as to wife's stubborn nature, imposition of will on matrimonial family, and baseless character assassination of husband – Post-suit cruelty established through two criminal complaints (Asansol P.S. Case No. 31/2010 under Section 498A IPC; Asansol P.S. Case No. 15/2017 under Sections 403, 406 and 120B IPC) both culminating in acquittal on ground of no evidence – Husband detained for nine hours at police station after arrest from outside workplace on basis of baseless complaint – Cumulative conduct of wife held to constitute mental cruelty – Held: Decree of divorce on ground of cruelty affirmed; appeal dismissed [Paras 27–51, 65–67].

Evidence – Interested Witness – Elder Brother of Husband – PW-2, elder brother of respondent-husband residing in matrimonial home, corroborated PW-1's evidence in entirety – Appellant contended PW-2 was an interested witness – Held: Mere relationship with a party does not automatically render a witness interested or unreliable; PW-2's direct knowledge of events by virtue of residing in matrimonial home made him a competent and reliable witness – Evidence-in-chief of PW-1 and PW-2 remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination [Para 31, 32].

Evidence – Apparent Contradiction – "Difference of Opinion" vs. "Marital Dispute" – Husband stated at one place that differences arose from inception of marriage and at another that marital dispute arose 1–1½ years after marriage – Held: Qualitative distinction exists between "difference of opinion" from the date of marriage and "marital dispute" that crystallised about 1–1½ years thereafter; the two statements are not contradictory or mutually exclusive [Para 33].

Criminal Acquittal – Effect on Civil Proceedings – Mental Cruelty – Acquittal of husband in both criminal cases not on technical grounds but on finding of no evidence by the criminal court – Ratio of Chiranjeevi v. Smt. Lavanya (where acquittal was for failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt, not for no evidence) held inapplicable – Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani, (2020) 18 SCC 247 applied: husband undergoing trial on wife's complaint and being acquitted for lack of evidence itself constitutes cruelty perpetrated by the wife – Followed also in Poulomi Biswas v. Shamik Biswas (coordinate Bench of this Court) [Paras 41–46].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Ground for Divorce – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Article 141, Constitution of India – Parties separated since November 2009; no resumption of conjugal life; no animus revertendi on part of wife; son of parties attained majority – Held: Irretrievable breakdown of marriage, though not an independent statutory ground of divorce, falls within the ambit of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 52–58].

Permanent Alimony – Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act – Suo Motu Award – Scope – Appellant contended Trial Court ought to have granted permanent alimony suo motu at the time of passing the divorce decree – Held: Section 25(1) requires an application to be filed; affidavits-of-assets of both parties are to be filed and considered; no such application was filed by the appellant-wife either before the Trial Court or before the High Court at any stage – No court can suo motu pass an order of permanent alimony without a prayer therefor and supporting materials – Judgments in Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259 and M.V. Leelavathi v. Dr. C.R. Swamy, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1724 distinguished: in both cases the Supreme Court acted under Article 142 and there had been adjudication of permanent alimony by the Trial Court – Held: Appellant at liberty to file a fresh application for permanent alimony before the competent civil court at any time subsequent to the decree, as expressly contemplated by Section 25(1) [Paras 60–64, 68].

Decision: Appeal dismissed on contest – Impugned judgment and decree dated 09.12.2021 of the learned Additional District Judge, Fourth Court at Asansol, District Paschim Bardhaman in Matrimonial Suit No. 40 of 2011, decreeing divorce in favour of respondent-husband affirmed – Appellant-wife granted liberty to file application for permanent alimony under Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act before the competent civil court – No order as to costs.