Family Law - Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant-husband challenged the Family Court's rejection of his divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Alleged cruelty due to wife's medical issues, abusive behavior, and property pressure – Also alleged desertion without cause – Held: Appellant failed to plead or prove specific acts of cruelty or desertion – Family Court rightly found no cause of action and dismissed the divorce suit – High Court upheld findings, holding that general dissatisfaction or quarrels do not constitute cruelty – Appeal dismissed with affirmation of Family Court decree [Paras 2, 5, 9, 18-24].

Cruelty – No Specific Allegations or Dates – No Cogent Evidence Led – Divorce Denied – Appellant failed to specify dates or facts constituting cruelty in his petition or evidence – No corroboration from witnesses or documents – Held: Marital discord or occasional fights do not amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) – Burden of proof not discharged – Findings of Family Court upheld [Paras 11-13, 18-20].

Desertion – Lack of Pleading and Evidence – False Allegation – No Case for Divorce – Appellant alleged wife deserted him but gave no date or evidence – Did not file petition under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights – Held: No proof of wilful desertion by respondent – Allegation found baseless – Divorce rightly denied on this ground as well [Para 21].

Mental Cruelty – Mere Marital Discord Not Sufficient – Law Reiterated – Held: Normal wear and tear of married life or occasional verbal fights not adequate to constitute mental cruelty – Court must consider effect of conduct on the aggrieved spouse – Reference made to Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Dastane v. Dastane – Legal threshold of cruelty not met [Paras 12-13].

Family Court Judgment – No Error in Appreciation of Evidence – Findings Based on Oral and Documentary Record – Held: Trial court rightly observed that there was no cause of action pleaded and no evidence to support cruelty or desertion – No perversity or illegality found – Appellate Court affirms judgment [Paras 5, 19-20, 23-24].

Appellate Review – Interference with Trial Court's Factual Findings Not Justified – Held: Appellate court should not interfere with findings based on oral evidence unless manifestly erroneous – Reference to Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi (2008) 10 SCC 497 – High Court affirms Family Court decree [Para 22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Merit in Grounds Raised – Family Court's refusal to grant divorce upheld – Appeal dismissed accordingly [Para 24].

Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Adultery – Divorce Decree Set Aside – Respondent-husband was granted divorce by Family Court citing cruelty and desertion – High Court on appeal found no specific incidents of cruelty or reliable evidence of adultery – Allegations of illicit relationship with co-respondent were unsubstantiated – Evidence showed wife was willing to resume matrimonial life – Held: Allegations were general, vague, and lacked legal substance – Divorce decree set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 13, 18-23, 26-27].

Cruelty – Must Be Proved with Specific Incidents – Mere Marital Discord Not Sufficient – Respondent failed to specify dates or incidents indicating mental or physical cruelty – Court held minor quarrels and occasional spats do not constitute legal cruelty – Conduct must be grave, continuous and cause genuine apprehension of harm – No such case made out – Burden of proof not discharged [Paras 18-22].

Adultery – Allegation Must Be Supported by Proof of Voluntary Sexual Relationship – No Evidence of Illicit Relationship – Court observed that adultery must be proved with clear evidence of physical relationship – Mere suspicion or social interaction does not suffice – No independent witness, circumstantial proof, or documentary evidence was produced – Allegation held to be baseless and motivated to create ground for divorce [Paras 24-26].

Repeated Divorce Litigations – Second Petition on Same Facts Not Maintainable – Earlier M.M. Case No. 62 of 2009 was compromised – Fresh divorce case filed on identical allegations without new cause of action – Court disapproved repeated litigation without genuine grievance – Reflects lack of bona fide on husband’s part [Paras 15, 18].

Appellant Willing to Resume Matrimonial Life – Conduct Undermines Ground of Desertion – Wife consistently expressed readiness to cohabit – Court held that readiness of one party to continue the relationship negates allegation of desertion by other spouse – Respondent-husband made no effort for restitution – Did not file petition under Section 9 HMA [Paras 18, 22-23].

Final Decision – Appeal allowed – Divorce decree dated 25.02.2019 set aside – M.M. Case No. 176 of 2011 dismissed – Parties not divorced – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of [Paras 27-29].

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim – Liability of Registered Owner – Vehicle Uninsured – Compensation Liability Affirmed – Offending scooter involved in accident was admittedly uninsured – Registered owner argued that vehicle was taken by respondent-driver without authority and that driver had agreed to bear compensation liability – Held: Registered owner cannot evade liability under Section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act – Absence of insurance and failure to prove forcible taking of vehicle makes registered owner liable – Dismissal of appeals upheld by relying on Supreme Court rulings in Naveen v. Vijay and Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet – Registered owner may pursue independent remedy against the driver but remains liable to injured parties [Paras 5, 9-12].

Uninsured Vehicle – No Relief Against Compensation Liability – Affidavit by Driver Not a Ground to Discharge Owner – Registered owner relied on driver’s affidavit stating he would pay compensation – Held: Such affidavit does not affect liability of registered owner under the Act – Owner must satisfy award and may seek recovery from driver separately – Tribunal rightly held both owner and driver jointly and severally liable [Paras 5, 11-12].

Appeals Against Compensation – No Enhancement Sought by Claimants – Finding Limited to Owner’s Liability – No appeal for enhancement was filed by claimants – Scope of appeal confined to contest of liability by registered owner – Tribunal award upheld to the extent of holding owner liable – Appeals dismissed [Paras 4, 12].

Criminal Law - Maintainability of Second Petition – Abuse of Process – Section 482 CrPC – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner, having earlier challenged his arrest and failed, filed a second petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the entire proceedings on similar grounds – Held: Filing successive petitions under Section 482 on same or similar grounds without change in circumstances amounts to abuse of process – Second petition not maintainable [Paras 10-11].

Quashing of FIR – Serious Economic Offences – ₹188 Crore Public Fund Misappropriation – Petition Dismissed - The allegations involved diversion of public funds from a Scheduled Tribes welfare corporation using forged documents and dummy accounts – Petitioner allegedly received proceeds in cash and gold and was later arrayed as Accused No.1 in charge sheet – Held: Prima facie material exists showing petitioner's involvement in conspiracy – Quashing of proceedings refused at pre-trial stage [Paras 12-14].

Illegal Arrest – Transit Warrant and Production – No Violation Found – Despite Lack of Transit Warrant – Petitioner was not named in FIR initially; however, on recovery of ₹8 crores cash and gold, he was taken into custody and produced before jurisdictional magistrate in Bengaluru – Held: Procedural lapse, if any, was cured upon production and remand – No basis to declare arrest illegal or release petitioner on that ground [Paras 15-18].

Constitutional Remedy – Articles 226 and 227 – Scope in Criminal Matters – Relief Denied - Petitioner sought constitutional remedy for quashing criminal proceedings alleging violation of rights under Article 21 – Held: Given the gravity of economic offence and public interest involved, extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not be exercised to scuttle criminal proceedings at nascent stage [Paras 19-20].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – Court held that petition was devoid of merit, repetitive, and an attempt to revisit issues already concluded in earlier proceedings – Entire proceedings to continue uninhibited by the present petition [Para 21].

Sales Tax – Exemption on Inter-State Sale – G.O. 3602 dated 28.12.1963 – Claim Rejected – Petitioner purchased gingelly seeds within Tamil Nadu (tax-paid) and from other States; claimed exemption on inter-State sale of locally purchased seeds – Assessing authority found stock mingled on inspection; Tribunal upheld denial of exemption – Held: Mere maintenance of separate accounts insufficient when physical mingling established – Exemption rightly denied – Writ dismissed [Paras 2–10].

Scope of Judicial Review – Article 226 – Court cannot reappreciate factual findings of tax authorities where inspection reports conclusively show mingling of goods – Tribunal’s decision based on evidence upheld – Writ Court’s role limited to examining decision-making process, not merits [Paras 7–9].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Orders of Assessing Authority and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Confirmed – No costs [Para 10].

Family Law - Maintenance – Enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Increase Allowed – Revision Allowed – Petitioner sought enhancement of ₹10,000/month maintenance fixed in 2012 to ₹30,000/month citing increase in cost of living, medical needs, and respondent’s pension – Family Court had rejected plea stating no substantial change in circumstances – High Court held that increase in respondent’s pension from ₹28,705 (net salary in 2012) to ₹40,068 justifies enhancement – Maintenance enhanced to ₹14,000/month from date of revision petition [Paras 1, 7, 20-28].

Comparison of Net Salary and Pension – Faulty Reasoning by Family Court – Corrected by High Court – Family Court compared 2012 gross salary with current pension without considering that original maintenance was based on net salary – High Court found this comparison flawed and based enhancement on present net pension being substantially higher than net income in 2012 [Paras 14, 21].

CGHS Card Entitlement – Right of Legally Wedded Wife – Respondent Directed to Restore Wife’s Access – Respondent removed petitioner’s name from CGHS card despite ongoing maintenance – High Court held that as legally wedded wife, petitioner is entitled to CGHS benefits – Respondent directed to facilitate inclusion of her name on the card within two months [Paras 22-24].

Change in Circumstances – Interpretation – Includes Rise in Cost of Living and Health Needs – Court reaffirmed that “change in circumstances” under Section 127 Cr.P.C. includes not just income variation but also health issues, inflation, loss of family support, and deterioration of earning spouse’s health – Mere retirement doesn’t bar maintenance enhancement [Paras 17-18, 26-27].

Balancing Equities – Senior Citizens on Both Sides – Modest Enhancement Ordered – Both petitioner and respondent being senior citizens, Court adopted a balanced approach – Maintenance enhanced modestly to ₹14,000/month in view of respondent’s limited post-retirement income and petitioner’s medical needs [Paras 25-27].

Final Decision – Family Court’s order set aside – Maintenance enhanced to ₹14,000/month with effect from date of revision – Arrears to be cleared within six weeks – CGHS card to be restored within two months [Paras 28-29].

Civil Law - Title and Possession – Dismissal Confirmed – The appellants (plaintiffs) sought declaration of title, possession, and alternatively partition, over land alleged to be part of a tank acquired by their father – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found that the defendants were in possession for over 25 years, pursuant to a 1984 family partition, and plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession – Revenue records relied upon by plaintiffs were held insufficient to establish title – The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC – Second appeal dismissed, confirming concurrent findings [Paras 1–3, 14–26].

Title Suit – Declaration and Possession – Plaintiffs Must Prove Their Own Title – Plaintiffs failed to establish legal ownership or entitlement over the suit land – Defendants proved possession under 1984 partition – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their own title and cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case – Courts below rightly rejected claim [Paras 14, 18, 24].

Adverse Possession – Long Possession by Defendants – Suit Barred – Plaintiffs approached Court after over 25 years – Defendants in open, uninterrupted possession since 1984 – Held: Plaintiffs lost any right over suit land by efflux of time – Suit barred by limitation under Article 65 of Limitation Act [Paras 19, 21, 24].

Unregistered Partition Deed – Ex.B.3 – Admissible as Memorandum of Oral Partition – Partition deed though unregistered was treated as proof of earlier oral partition – Plaintiffs’ witnesses admitted to 1984 partition and continuous possession by defendants – Held: Courts below rightly relied on Ex.B.3 to establish family division [Paras 16, 18].

Co-ownership – Not Established – Plaintiffs and Defendants Not Co-heirs – Plaintiffs not entitled to claim partition or joint possession – Held: Presumption of joint possession or claim of co-heirship not applicable – Alternative relief of partition rightly rejected [Paras 22-23].

Revenue Records – Not Proof of Title – Exs.A1, A2, A6-A9 – Pattadar passbooks and adangals held insufficient to prove legal title or possession – Held: Such records do not confer ownership in absence of supporting title deed or consistent possession [Para 21].

Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Courts below applied correct legal principles – Held: High Court cannot re-appreciate facts unless findings are perverse or legally flawed – No such error found – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 14-15, 25-26].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed – No costs awarded – Plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession after 25 years of inaction [Para 26].

NDPS Offence – Bail Application – Section 20(b)(ii)(B) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act – Bail Granted – The petitioner, arraigned as the second accused, was alleged to have conspired with the first accused in transporting 2 kg of ganja using a vehicle allegedly hired by him – No contraband was recovered from the petitioner’s possession – The vehicle was not registered in his name – Investigation was mostly complete and the petitioner had already spent a reasonable period in custody – Held: Section 37 of the NDPS Act not attracted due to intermediate quantity – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1–6].

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles of Double Presumption – Acquittal Upheld – The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of two accused charged under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC for assaulting and robbing the complainant – The Trial Court acquitted the accused citing inconsistencies in identification, non-sealing of recovered items, and contradictory testimonies – High Court reiterated the principle of double presumption of innocence applicable after acquittal and found no compelling reason to interfere – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-16].

Identification – TIP Refused – Delayed and Tainted Identification Not Reliable – Complainant identified accused in court more than a month after arrest, claiming he recognized them during court visit – Accused had refused TIP citing prior exposure in police station – High Court held such identification lacked evidentiary value due to procedural compromise and delay [Paras 6, 11, 14].

Recovery – Failure to Seal Recovered Items – Recovery Not Credible – Purse, PAN card, and ID card allegedly recovered from accused were neither sealed nor subjected to forensic testing – IO admitted inability to link currency notes to the complainant – Recovery held to be in open condition and devoid of evidentiary worth [Paras 9, 14].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Independent Witness Denied Presence of Accused – Defence witness DW6, an independent eyewitness and neighbor, stated that quarrel occurred between complainant and other persons and the accused were not present – Prosecution did not cross-examine the witness – DD entries and MLC also did not mention robbery – Held: Prosecution version doubtful [Paras 7-8, 14].

Appellate Review of Acquittal – Scope Limited – No Interference Without Perverse Finding – Citing precedents including Ravi Sharma v. State (2022) and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. (2020), Court reiterated that appellate courts must be cautious in reversing acquittals – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s assessment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-13, 15].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No.2 under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC upheld – No interference warranted in well-reasoned judgment of Trial Court – Proceedings against respondent No.1 abated due to death during pendency of appeal [Paras 6, 15-16].