Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Sustained mental cruelty – Appellant-wife subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty – After birth of female child, harassment intensified – Multiple criminal and maintenance proceedings initiated – Respondent persistently failed to appear before courts and willfully defaulted in payment of maintenance despite judicial orders – Held: Cumulative conduct of respondent amounts to grave and continuing mental cruelty making cohabitation impossible – Marriage dissolved [Paras 8, 9, 10, 12, 18].

Mental Cruelty – Assessment on Totality of Circumstances – Family Court examined incidents in isolation and ignored consistent pattern of neglect and non-compliance – Appellant’s sworn testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination and stood corroborated by judicial records of maintenance and domestic violence proceedings – Failure to appreciate cumulative effect of conduct amounts to manifest error of appreciation of evidence – Appellate interference warranted [Paras 11, 12, 13, 17].

Non-Payment of Maintenance – Wilful Disobedience of Court Orders – Recovery warrants issued under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. – Arrears of interim maintenance under Domestic Violence Act remained unpaid – Repeated ex parte proceedings due to respondent’s absence – Such deliberate defiance of judicial orders and financial deprivation of wife and minor child constitutes sustained mental cruelty [Paras 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 9, 10].

Abandonment of Proceedings – Forfeiture of Right to Contest – Respondent disengaged counsel and willfully refrained from participating in mediation and appellate proceedings – Consistent abandonment of defence across matrimonial and criminal litigations – Held: Conduct signifies forfeiture of right to contest and implied acquiescence – Appeal allowed [Paras 14, 15, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 20.08.2024 passed by Family Court, Pokaran set aside – Petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act decreed – Marriage between parties dissolved – Decree sheet directed to be prepared.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Compromise-Based Bail – Breach of Settlement – Recall and Cancellation of Bail – Anticipatory bail earlier granted solely on the basis of a compromise arrived at before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre – Bail order expressly recorded that parties shall abide by settlement terms – Accused failed to comply with agreed obligation of handing over alternate flat and executing sale deed within stipulated time – Held: When bail is granted on the foundation of a compromise, such settlement ceases to be a private contract and becomes a solemn undertaking to the Court – Breach thereof amounts to abuse of the process of law and violation of judicial trust – Bail liable to be recalled and cancelled [Paras 7–7.2, 11].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Abuse of Process – “Shopping for Liberty” through Hollow Undertakings – Judicial Condemnation – Court took judicial notice of a growing trend where accused secure liberty on the pretext of settlement and subsequently resile from commitments – Such conduct undermines dignity of courts and reduces judicial orders to negotiable instruments – Held: Courts cannot permit litigants to take the judicial process for a ride by securing discretionary relief through deceptive compromises – Stern response warranted to preserve sanctity of justice delivery system [Paras 7.1, 10].

Criminal Procedure – Section 362 CrPC / Section 403 BNSS – Bar on Review – Distinction between Review and Cancellation of Bail – Objection raised that recall of bail order is barred by Section 362 CrPC – Rejected – Held: Setting aside bail due to violation of conditions does not amount to review or alteration of final judgment – Power to cancel bail is inherent and statutory corollary to power to grant bail – Where the very basis of bail order is destroyed by accused’s conduct, Court is competent to withdraw protection [Paras 9, 15].

Anticipatory Bail – Consideration on Merits after Recall – Nature and Gravity of Offence – Criminal Antecedents – Upon recalling compromise-based bail, Court proceeded to examine anticipatory bail on merits for the first time – Allegations disclose cheating, criminal breach of trust and fraud involving substantial monetary loss – Accused involved in multiple FIRs of similar nature – Repeated conduct not a mere civil dispute – Held: Seriousness of allegations, pattern of criminal conduct and societal impact disentitle accused from discretionary relief under Section 438 CrPC [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation not Sole Test – Prima Facie Case and Gravity Paramount – Argument that custodial interrogation not required rejected – Held: Absence of custodial interrogation by itself is not a ground for grant of anticipatory bail – Court must first assess prima facie case, nature of offence and severity of allegations – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents [Paras 8.1, 13–14].

Costs – Exemplary Costs for Misuse of Judicial Process – Court imposed costs of Rs.25,000/- on petitioner for abusing process of law – Costs directed to be deposited with Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Recovery mechanism provided in case of default – Held: Exemplary costs necessary to deter litigants from manipulating judicial leniency and to ensure no premium is placed on dishonesty [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Application for recall allowed – Earlier order granting anticipatory bail dated 17.01.2022 set aside – Main anticipatory bail petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to surrender within 15 days with liberty to apply for regular bail – Costs imposed – All pending applications disposed of.

Arbitration Law – Review Jurisdiction – Scope – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Review applications filed against dismissal of Section 34 petitions – Ground urged that Court failed to consider Supreme Court judgment in Maula Bux v. Union of India – Held: Review jurisdiction is extremely narrow – Failure to expressly refer to a judgment does not constitute error apparent when legal position has otherwise been considered – Review akin to “ant-hole in a pigeon-hole” when original jurisdiction itself is limited [Paras 11, 19].

Contract Law – Liquidated Damages – Section 74 Contract Act – Proof of Loss – Lease deed containing lock-in period clause stipulating payment of 100% rent for remaining lock-in period on premature termination – Clause held to be genuine pre-estimate of damages and not penalty – Once legal injury or breach established, proof of actual loss not mandatory where compensation stipulated is reasonable – Mere absence of proof of loss not fatal [Paras 8, 15–17].

Precedents – Fateh Chand – Maula Bux – ONGC v. Saw Pipes – Harmonious Application – Maula Bux does not dilute principle in Fateh Chand – Distinction between cases where loss is capable of proof and cases where it is difficult or impossible – Supreme Court in ONGC v. Saw Pipes clarified that where liquidated damages are genuine pre-estimate, claimant need not prove actual loss – Earlier judgments considered and correctly applied [Paras 7, 9, 13–14].

Section 34 Proceedings – Limited Judicial Interference – Court reiterated that in Section 34 jurisdiction, re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of plausible alternative view is impermissible – Arbitral award upholding liquidated damages clause found to be within permissible legal framework – No perversity or patent illegality established [Paras 15, 17].

Lease Agreement – Lock-in Period – Commercial Reality – Lessor had customized premises as per lessee’s requirements and property could not be re-let due to registered lease reflecting in encumbrance records – Loss and legal injury established on facts – Pre-estimated compensation found reasonable and enforceable [Paras 16–17].

Decision – Review Applications dismissed – No error apparent on face of record – Common order dated 08.10.2025 upheld – No costs [Para 20].

Temporary Injunction – Specific Performance – Appeal From Order – Interference Warranted – Plaintiffs sought injunction restraining defendants from developing suit land pending suit for specific performance of agreements dated 10.02.2010 and MOU dated 26.02.2013 – Trial Court rejected injunction holding that MOU not executed by original landowners created no enforceable right – High Court set aside rejection holding approach of Trial Court parochial and unsustainable [Paras 1–2, 11, 15].

Agreement for Sale – Rights Prior to Formal Allotment – Not Purely Speculative – Original landowners received allotment proposal and LOI from CIDCO in 2007 – Subsequent agreements and MOU executed on basis of identified plot though corrigendum later substituted plot number – Held: Agreements could not be treated as speculative merely because physical allotment was completed later in 2022 [Paras 3, 7–9, 12–13].

Payments of Consideration – Prima Facie Proof – Conduct of Parties – Plaintiffs prima facie established payment of ₹3.12 crores to original landowners and intermediary defendants over long period through bank records – Denial by original landowners held prima facie untenable when receipt reflected in bank statements and admitted by intermediary defendants – Conduct of landowners found highly questionable [Paras 8, 11–12, 14].

MOU Executed by Intermediaries – Creation of Third-Party Rights – Agreement dated 10.02.2010 expressly permitted intermediary defendants to create third-party rights – MOU dated 26.02.2013 executed pursuant thereto – Held: Absence of signatures of original landowners on MOU not fatal at interim stage when they accepted benefits under arrangement [Paras 8, 11–12].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Due Diligence – Failure – Contesting respondents claimed protection as bona fide purchasers under Tripartite Agreement of 2023 – Court held that no due diligence was shown to have been conducted before entering transaction – Rights of subsequent purchasers could not override prior equitable rights of plaintiffs at prima facie stage [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Injunction – Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss – Plaintiffs established strong prima facie case based on substantial payments and contractual framework – Balance of convenience held in favour of plaintiffs who paid large consideration – Irreparable harm likely if construction or third-party rights created pending suit [Paras 11–14].

Decision: Appeal From Order allowed – Order rejecting injunction set aside – Application for temporary injunction allowed – Status quo to continue – Defendant Nos.19 and 20 restrained from dealing with suit land until disposal of suit.

Interim Maintenance – Wife and Minor Child – Article 227 – Modification of Quantum – Trial Court directed husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month each to wife and minor child – High Court held that in absence of concrete evidence regarding income of husband, maintenance awarded was on higher side – Held: Interim maintenance reduced to Rs.3,000/- per month each to wife and child [Paras 8–9].

Marriage – Plea of Non-Consummation – Absence of Specific Pleading – Husband sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion – No specific plea of non-consummation raised in main H.M.O.P. – Such plea raised only at interim maintenance stage held unsustainable – Objection to maintenance on ground of non-consummation rejected [Paras 6–7].

Presumption of Legitimacy – Section 112 Evidence Act – Child Born Within Wedlock – Marriage solemnised on 10.02.2017 and child born on 09.12.2017 – Statutory presumption of legitimacy attracted – Wife entitled to rely on presumption under Section 112 – Prima facie entitlement to maintenance upheld [Para 6].

Maintenance Proceedings – Burden Regarding Income – Conflicting Claims – Wife alleged husband earning Rs.40,000/- per month as flower decorator – Husband claimed to be daily wage worker earning Rs.400/- per day – No documentary proof produced by either side – Court assessed maintenance on overall circumstances and reasonableness [Para 8].

Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – High Court not inclined to set aside grant of interim maintenance – Interference confined only to correction of quantum found excessive – Order of Trial Court otherwise affirmed [Paras 8–10].

Decision – Civil Revision Partly Allowed – Interim maintenance modified from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month each to wife and minor child – Arrears to be paid within six weeks – Trial Court directed to dispose of main H.M.O.P. expeditiously – No costs [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Assault on Minor – Injured Witness – Conviction under Section 324 IPC Affirmed – Appellants assaulted minor victim with iron rod causing bleeding head injuries – Injured victim’s testimony found cogent, natural and corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitnesses – Minor discrepancies as to time of incident held immaterial – Evidence of injured witness carries special evidentiary value – Conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC upheld [Paras 23–36].

Evidence – Injured Eye-Witness – Reliability – Victim sustained injuries during incident and deposed consistently regarding assault – Medical evidence corroborated version of assault with blunt weapon – Defence plea of accidental fall rejected – Law reiterated that testimony of injured witness should be relied upon unless major contradictions exist [Paras 24–29].

Section 504 IPC – Intentional Insult – Ingredients Not Made Out – Though abusive words were used, prosecution failed to establish specific intent or knowledge to provoke breach of peace – Abuse found to be a precursor to assault and not aimed at provoking public disorder – Conviction under Section 504 read with Section 34 IPC set aside [Paras 38].

Goa Children’s Act, 2003 – Section 8(2) – Child Abuse – Scope – Solitary incident of assault during a quarrel, though involving a child, does not by itself constitute “child abuse” – No evidence of cruelty, exploitation, deliberate ill-treatment or sustained maltreatment – Legislative intent is to address serious forms of abuse and not isolated incidents – Conviction under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act set aside [Paras 39–43].

Relative Witnesses – Credibility – Evidence of relatives of victim cannot be discarded merely on ground of relationship – No material to show animus or false implication – Testimony found consistent and trustworthy [Paras 30–32].

Weapon Recovery – Absence of Blood Stains – Non-detection of blood on iron rod not fatal to prosecution case – Explanation of washing away due to rain accepted – Weapon identified by victim and panch witness – Recovery held reliable [Para 33].

Sentencing – Probation of Offenders Act – Mandatory Consideration – Offence under Section 324 IPC punishable with imprisonment up to three years – Trial court failed to consider applicability of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act – Benefit of probation required to be considered, especially for first-time offenders and in absence of subsequent misconduct – Matter remanded to Children’s Court for limited purpose of considering grant of probation after obtaining Probation Officer’s report [Paras 44–49].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC confirmed – Convictions under Section 504 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 8(2) of Goa Children’s Act set aside – Matter remanded to Children’s Court for consideration of probation – Fine paid under Goa Children’s Act directed to be refunded [Paras 50].

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Permit Violation – Absence of Permit – Breach of Policy – Insurance Company Liability – Claimant sustained grievous injuries while working as cleaner in offending truck – Accident occurred in State of Madhya Pradesh – Evidence on record (Ex.D-7, Ex.D-9) showed permit authorised vehicle only for Delhi, U.P., Rajasthan and Haryana – No permit to ply vehicle in State of M.P. – Held: Plying vehicle without permit amounts to clear violation of Section 66 M.V. Act and breach of insurance policy conditions [Paras 12–15].

Insurance Law – Burden of Proof – Breach of Permit Conditions – Insurance company discharged initial burden by examining its officer and producing permit verification documents – Claimant himself admitted in cross-examination that vehicle had no permit for State of M.P. – Owner and driver remained ex parte and failed to rebut defence – Onus shifted to owner to prove valid permit, not discharged – Breach established [Paras 13–14].

Insurance Policy – Compliance with Motor Vehicles Act – Policy issued subject to Chapters X and XI of M.V. Act – Requirement of permit under Section 66 read with Section 158 M.V. Act is mandatory – Insurance company not required to specifically mention permit condition when policy incorporates statutory compliance – Violation disentitles insured from indemnification [Paras 14–17].

Supreme Court Precedents – Route / Area Violation – Gohar Mohammed v. UPSRTC – K. Nagendra v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Vehicle being plied beyond authorised route/area exonerates insurer from liability – However, to balance interests of third-party victim, pay and recover principle to be applied [Paras 15–18].

Third Party Claims – Pay and Recover – Though insurer not liable due to breach of policy conditions, claimant being third party cannot be denied compensation – Held: Insurance company directed to first satisfy award and thereafter recover amount from owner/driver of offending vehicle [Paras 18].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Finding of Claims Tribunal fastening liability on insurance company set aside – Insurance company held not liable due to absence of permit – However, insurer directed to pay awarded compensation to claimant and recover same from owner/driver – Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Contract – Oral Agreement – Commission Claim – Proof of Concluded Contract – Suit for recovery of commission alleging oral agreement from 1986 to pay 5% commission on all sales of chemical products – Defendant contended arrangement was only ad-hoc and temporary – Correspondence revealed insistence by defendant for execution of written contract which plaintiff refused – Held: Mere past dealings or temporary arrangement cannot constitute a perpetual concluded contract – Plaintiff failed to establish existence of binding oral contract for indefinite period [Paras 12–14, 19–20].

Agency – Temporary Arrangement vs Permanent Appointment – Plaintiff claimed appointment as marketing agent for indefinite period – Evidence showed defendant sought formal written consultancy agreement which plaintiff declined – Continued insistence on earlier oral understanding insufficient to prove permanent agency – Arrangement held to be ad-hoc and non-conclusive [Paras 13–14, 18–19].

Evidence – Secondary Evidence – Photocopies of Invoices – Section 65B Evidence Act – Plaintiff relied on photocopies of invoices (Exs.P22–P24) to prove sales and commission – No pleadings in plaint regarding source or loss of originals – No foundational facts laid for leading secondary evidence – No notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC issued to defendant for production of originals – Documents unauthenticated and unsigned – Held: Photocopies inadmissible and unreliable – Trial Court rightly rejected them [Paras 15–16].

Accounts and Proof of Commission – Burden on Plaintiff – Plaintiff admitted maintenance of accounts but failed to produce ledgers, income tax returns or authenticated statements to prove receipt or entitlement of commission – Mere assertion without corroborative documentary proof insufficient to sustain money decree [Paras 14, 17, 19].

Admissions and Correspondence – Limited Evidentiary Value – Legal notice and reply showed settlement of dues up to 31.03.1992 – No acknowledgment of continuing liability thereafter – Non-examination of one officer of defendant not sufficient to draw adverse inference in absence of documentary proof of agreement [Paras 20].

Civil Appeal – Interference with Trial Court Findings – Appellate Court found no perversity or misappreciation of evidence by Trial Court – Findings based on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence – No ground to interfere under Section 96 CPC [Paras 19–21].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 22.12.2016 in O.S. No. 5859 of

Indian Succession Act – Succession Certificate – Christian Intestate – Deceased leaving widow and lineal descendants – Trial Court refused certificate on ground that mother of deceased is also legal heir – Held, erroneous – Under Sections 32 and 33, where intestate is survived by widow and lineal descendants, mother does not inherit – Estate devolves upon widow and children – Refusal of succession certificate unsustainable in law [Paras 6-7].

Indian Succession Act – Distribution of Estate – Section 33 – Intestate leaving widow and lineal descendants – One-third of property to widow and remaining two-thirds to lineal descendants – Mother excluded when direct lineal descendants exist – Trial Court misconstrued statutory scheme – Impugned order liable to be set aside [Paras 6-7].

Succession Certificate – Shares in Company – No nomination – Requirement of certificate by company for transmission – Appellants, being widow and sons of deceased, entitled to seek certificate under Section 372 – Dismissal despite prima facie entitlement improper – Appellate Court directed issuance of certificate within specified time [Paras 3, 8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 08.11.2019 in P & S.C. No.532/2018 set aside – Trial Court directed to grant succession certificate in favour of appellants forthwith in accordance with law.