Maintenance for Minor Child – Revision against trial court’s order – Respondent directed to deposit maintenance arrears and continue interim payments – Revision against ex-parte maintenance order favoring minor child – Trial court’s direction for respondent to pay Rs.25,000 p.m. as maintenance – Respondent’s plea to set aside ex-parte order granted, with costs of Rs.5,000 – High Court directs respondent to deposit entire arrears and continue interim maintenance of Rs.5,000 p.m. [Paras 1-6].

Trial Court’s Order – Interim Maintenance – Respondent agreed to deposit entire arrears – High Court directed trial court to expedite disposal of maintenance case – Emphasized adherence to fair process and timely payment [Para 5].

Modification of Order – Respondent’s compliance with maintenance arrears – High Court modified earlier order allowing deposit of entire arrears within two weeks – Registry directed to issue corrected order copy [Paras 2-5].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case disposed of with directions to deposit arrears and continue interim maintenance – Trial court to dispose of maintenance case on merits within three months – Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition closed [Para 6].

Dress Code – Fundamental Rights – Petitioners challenged the dress code imposed by the college which prohibited the wearing of Hijab and Nakab, arguing it violated their rights to freedom of expression and religious practice under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution. The High Court found that the dress code did not infringe on these rights, as it aimed to prevent the disclosure of students’ religion and maintain discipline and uniformity within the institution [Paras 1-16].

Essential Religious Practice – Pleadings and Proof – The petitioners contended that wearing Hijab and Nakab was an essential religious practice. The Court emphasized the importance of historical and factual evidence in establishing a practice as essential to a religion. It was observed that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient material to support their claim that donning a Hijab or Nakab was an essential religious practice [Paras 14-15].

Previous Judicial Precedents – The Court referred to various precedents to highlight that the prescription of a dress code by educational institutions does not necessarily violate constitutional rights. The Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Resham (2022) and the Bombay High Court decision in Miss Fathema Hussain (2003) were cited to support the view that dress codes aiming at uniformity and discipline are permissible [Paras 7-9].

Rights of Educational Institutions – The Court upheld the right of the College Administration to prescribe a dress code under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 26 of the Constitution. It was held that maintaining discipline and uniformity in the educational institution was within the rights of the administration and did not infringe upon the students’ rights to freedom of expression and religious practice [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The Court upheld the dress code prescribed by the College, stating it did not violate the constitutional rights of the petitioners. The dress code was deemed necessary for maintaining discipline and uniformity within the college, and the administration’s right to impose such regulations was affirmed. The Court noted that the petitioners’ actions in seeking publicity for the case before it was heard raised questions about their bona fides [Paras 16].

Motor Accident Claim – Assessment of Just Compensation – Appeal against Tribunal’s award – Tribunal assessed deceased’s income as Rs. 4,000 per month and granted compensation accordingly – High Court reassesses income based on evidence of partnership business in stone crushing – Future prospects added at 40% – Multiplier of 17 applied considering victim’s age – Personal expenses deducted at 1/4^th – General damages for loss of estate, consortium, and funeral expenses updated and enhanced as per Pranay Sethi guidelines – Compensation enhanced by Rs. 1,41,275 with interest from the date of filing claim – Directions for payment by insurance companies detailed [Paras 1-19].

Procedure – Calculation of Compensation – Tribunal’s calculation revised based on updated income and future prospects – High Court follows precedent in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma for calculation – Appeal partially allowed with enhanced compensation [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Judgment of Tribunal modified – Enhanced compensation awarded with interest – Insurance companies directed to deposit balance amount in equal proportion – Detailed directions for payment and release of amount specified [Paras 13-19].

Trusteeship Removal – Grounds of Removal – The appellant was removed from his position as hereditary trustee due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements under Sections 29 and 30 of the Act, unauthorized leasing of temple properties, improper handling of property registers, and unauthorized collection of donations for temple renovations. The court found that the appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanations for these charges, justifying his removal [Paras 1-26].

Preparation and Maintenance of Property Registers – The appellant omitted certain properties from the new property register and failed to submit the old property register, violating Sections 29 and 30 of the Act. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate records and the statutory obligations under the Act [Paras 10-16].

Unauthorized Leasing of Properties – The appellant leased out temple properties without the necessary permissions from the Commissioner, violating Section 34 of the Act. The court upheld the respondent’s finding that this constituted a serious breach of trust and justified removal from trusteeship [Paras 17-20].

Improper Collection of Donations – The appellant collected donations without forming a Thiruppani committee and without proper authorization, violating Rules 53 and 56. The court underscored the procedural requirements for collecting donations and the appellant’s failure to comply with them [Paras 21-25].

Decision - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. The order of removal passed by the respondent is upheld, and the appellant’s removal from the position of hereditary trustee is confirmed [Para 26].

Anticipatory Bail – Driving under Influence – The applicant sought anticipatory bail following an accident where she was alleged to have driven a car under the influence of alcohol, causing the death of two persons. Initially charged under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC and Section 184 of the MV Act, additional charges under Sections 304 and 427 of the IPC and Section 185 of the MV Act were later applied [Paras 1-4].

Custodial Interrogation – Justification – The court held that custodial interrogation was not required simply because new non-bailable sections were added. The applicant had already been released on bail for bailable offences, and unless the earlier bail was cancelled, the applicant could not be re-arrested. The court referred to Supreme Court judgments indicating that the addition of graver offences does not necessitate immediate arrest without a fresh order [Paras 7, 16-18, 35].

Evaluation of Prima Facie Case – The court examined the evidence, including CCTV footage, eyewitness statements, and blood alcohol reports. It noted that the applicant drove in a rash manner, hit a two-wheeler, and fled the scene, violating Section 134 of the MV Act, which mandates providing assistance to the injured. Despite arguments about permissible alcohol limits, the court found sufficient prima facie evidence of negligence and knowledge of potential harm [Paras 9-12, 31].

Legal Principles – The court emphasized that anticipatory bail considerations include the nature of the offence, the severity of punishment, and the prima facie case against the accused. It referred to various judgments highlighting that the presence of alcohol, even within legal limits, can impair driving abilities, making any resultant accident foreseeable and legally tenable under more severe penal provisions [Paras 20-26, 34-36].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Application Rejected – The application for anticipatory bail was rejected due to sufficient prima facie evidence indicating the applicant's rash and negligent driving under the influence of alcohol, leading to the death of two persons. The court stressed the seriousness of the offence and the applicant's conduct post-accident, including attempts to mislead the investigation [Paras 39-42].

Municipal Law – Disqualification of President – Petitioner, directly elected President of Wai Municipal Council, challenged the order of disqualification and removal from the post – Allegations of accepting a bribe of Rs. 14,000 for clearing a contractor’s bill – Inquiry conducted by Sub-Divisional Officer and findings forwarded to the Collector, who recommended removal – Petitioner contended that the complainant was not the actual contractor and that the inquiry was not properly conducted [Paras 1-6, 9-18].

Procedure under Sections 55A and 55B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act – Requirement of a requisition signed by not less than half of the total number of Councilors for initiating removal of a directly elected President – Inquiry to be conducted by the Collector, with findings submitted to the State Government – In the present case, no such requisition was placed on record, and the inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, not the Collector – Held, the removal order is invalid due to procedural lapses and lack of proper inquiry [Paras 11-14, 19-23].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – The impugned order dated August 4, 2021, quashed and set aside – Petitioner to continue as President of Wai Municipal Council unless removed following statutory procedures – Emphasized the necessity for a full-fledged inquiry and adherence to statutory provisions for the removal of an elected office bearer [Paras 25-26].

Juvenile Justice – Detention in Observation Home – Appellant challenged the detention of a juvenile (CCL) in an observation home post-release on bail – Contention that continued detention violated statutory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act – Court held the Juvenile Justice Board’s order as beyond jurisdiction – Orders detaining the CCL in an observation home set aside [Paras 19-40].

Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act – Scope and Application – Court clarified that Section 104 permits amendment of orders relating to the institution to which a child is sent or under whose supervision the child is placed – It does not permit remanding a child to an observation home post-bail without cancellation of bail – Board’s reliance on Section 104 deemed erroneous [Paras 27-30].

Writ of Habeas Corpus – Maintainability – Court held that writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable where detention is illegal or lacks jurisdiction – In the instant case, continued detention of the CCL despite bail was deemed unlawful – Writ issued directing immediate release of the CCL [Paras 33-37].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Orders detaining the CCL in an observation home are set aside – Juvenile Justice Board directed to ensure compliance with conditions of bail and facilitate rehabilitation of the CCL within the statutory framework [Para 41].

Domestic Violence – Right to Reside – Petitioner sought interim reliefs under Section 12 of the DV Act to prohibit the respondent from committing domestic violence and evicting her and her minor child from the shared household – Magistrate granted prohibitory order but directed petitioner to vacate the house within a month – Sessions Court concurred – Revision Petition allowed, setting aside the eviction order – Divorced woman residing in shared household with minor child cannot be evicted without due legal procedure – Emphasis on protection under Section 17(2) of DV Act [Paras 1-21].

Shared Household – Interpretation – Court highlights expansive interpretation of ‘right to reside’ in shared household under Section 17 of DV Act – A woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside irrespective of her title or actual residence – Clarifies that divorced women residing in shared household at the time of divorce or after cannot be evicted without following legal procedures [Paras 8-14].

Legal Procedure – Eviction – Court criticizes trial and appellate courts for ordering eviction without due process – Emphasizes that even a trespasser cannot be evicted forcefully and must be removed following established legal procedures [Para 19].

Decision: Revision Petition Allowed – Orders of lower courts set aside regarding eviction – Petitioner and minor child allowed to reside in shared household pending final decision in M.C.No.59/2023 – Respondent at liberty to pursue legal eviction procedures [Paras 20-21].

Insurance Claim – Cyclone Damage – Appellants challenged the judgment awarding the respondent compensation for cyclone damage to stock insured under their policy – Trial Court had partially decreed the suit for Rs.1,01,091/- with 6% interest – Appellants argued damages should exclude verandah-stored stock not covered by policy and questioned privity of contract for interest – High Court upheld trial Court’s findings, confirming insured damages and interest award [Paras 1-19].

Policy Coverage – Arbitration Clause – Dispute on policy’s arbitration clause raised late at trial stage, not argued in appeal – Court found suit maintainable and arbitration clause non-restrictive for civil suit proceedings [Para 15].

Assessment of Damages – Court acknowledged surveyor’s report estimating damages in mill area and verandah – Defendants failed to disprove surveyor’s assessment or show policy exclusions – High Court affirmed trial Court’s reliance on surveyor’s report and granted damages accordingly [Paras 13-17].

Interest on Damages – Privity of Contract – Court rejected appellants’ argument on lack of contract for interest – Trial Court’s award of 6% interest from suit filing date upheld as reasonable and justifiable [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree of the trial Court affirmed – High Court upheld damages and interest awarded – Each party to bear their own costs [Para 19].