Domestic Violence Law – Right of Residence vs. Senior Citizens’ Rights – Section 17 PWDV Act – Held: The right of residence under Section 17 is a protective right, not an indefeasible right of ownership or a license to indefinitely occupy premises owned by in-laws when such occupation causes demonstrable harm to senior citizens. Where cohabitation becomes unworkable and detrimental to the health of the parents-in-law (one suffering from Parkinson’s), the daughter-in-law can be directed to vacate subject to provision of alternate accommodation. [Paras 18.2-18.6, 21.1].

Civil Procedure – Interim Mandatory Injunction – Eviction at Interlocutory Stage – Held: An interim mandatory injunction for eviction can be granted in exceptional circumstances to prevent irreparable harm. The "toxic" atmosphere in the household, confirmed by counsellor reports, and the deteriorating health of the senior citizen owner constituted irreparable injury justifying the restoration of the parents' peaceful possession pending trial. [Paras 20.1-20.3].

Domestic Violence Law – Alternate Accommodation – Section 19(1)(f) PWDV Act – Held: The Appellant’s rights were sufficiently safeguarded by the direction to the Respondents to provide alternate accommodation at a rental cap of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs/month, plus ancillary charges and school fees. This arrangement strikes a balance between the daughter-in-law’s statutory protection and the senior citizens’ right to dignity. [Paras 19.1-19.4].

Family Law – Welfare of Minor Children – Held: The eviction order does not prejudice the minor children where the alternate accommodation is in the same vicinity (Gurugram), ensuring continuity of schooling at Pathways School, and where the environment in the suit property had become hostile and adverse to their well-being. [Paras 23.1-23.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Interim arrangement for alternate accommodation and eviction upheld. Compliance period to count from 01.01.2026. [Paras 27-29].

Criminal Law – Appreciation of Evidence – Injured Witnesses – Police party ambushed by extremists; SP Pakur and 5 others killed; 3 injured witnesses (PW-12, 30, 31) survived – Held: Testimony of injured witnesses is entitled to a higher degree of credence as their presence is guaranteed – Minor discrepancies regarding the exact location of taking cover (ditch vs. near vehicle) do not erode evidentiary value in a chaotic ambush scenario – Identification of appellants in court accepted as reliable – [Paras 47, 59, 60].

Evidence Law – Identification – Dock Identification without TIP – Appellants identified by injured witnesses in court; no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted – Held: TIP is corroborative, not substantive – Where accused are named or known by aliases heard during the incident (extremists calling out names "Tala Da", "Pravir Da"), and witnesses identify them in court, the identification is valid – Failure to hold TIP is not fatal when accused are identified by injured witnesses who had opportunity to see them from close quarters during looting of arms – [Paras 59(VIII), 60].

Evidence Law – Res Gestae – Section 6 – Statements made by injured witnesses to police personnel arriving immediately after the ambush – Held: While technically the "transaction" of the attack ended, the statements made by injured victims groaning in pain to rescuers arriving shortly thereafter are relevant facts – However, conviction primarily based on direct testimony of injured witnesses – [Paras 33, 34, 61].

Criminal Law – Abetment vs. Presence – Section 109 vs. Section 114 IPC – Trial Court convicted appellants under Section 109 IPC – Held: Section 109 applies to abettors not present at the scene – Since appellants were present and participated, Section 114 applies – Conviction under Section 109 set aside; conviction under Section 302/149 affirmed – [Para 63].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Death Sentence vs. Life Imprisonment – Split Verdict – Trial Court awarded death sentence; Division Bench delivered split verdict (one acquittal, one confirmation) – Matter referred to Third Judge – Held: The ambush was a "rarest of rare" crime involving the cold-blooded murder of high-ranking police officials – However, the existence of a difference of opinion in the Division Bench (one Judge acquitting) is a weighty factor for commutation – Death sentence commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life – [Paras 66, 67, 68].

Decision: Appeals dismissed with modification in sentence. Conviction affirmed. Death sentence commuted to Life Imprisonment.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Cognizance of Offence – Supplementary Complaint – Validity – Petition challenged order taking cognizance of supplementary complaint arraigning additional accused after cognizance had already been taken in original complaint – Held: Cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender – Concept of “second cognizance” unknown to criminal jurisprudence – Supplementary complaint under Section 44 Explanation (ii) PMLA valid and deemed part of original complaint [Paras 64–66, 81–88, 113–115].

Criminal Procedure – Applicability of BNSS, 2023 – Pending Proceedings – Section 531(2)(a) BNSS – Cognizance of original complaint taken on 14.08.2023, prior to enforcement of BNSS on 01.07.2024 – Held: Proceedings were “pending” and therefore governed by Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – BNSS provisions including Section 223(1) inapplicable [Paras 16–20, 30, 46].

Criminal Procedure – Section 223(1) BNSS – Hearing of Accused before Cognizance – Scope – Proviso requiring hearing of accused applies only to complaints instituted after commencement of BNSS – Held: No violation in issuing summons on supplementary complaint when proceedings already pending under CrPC regime [Paras 18–19, 31–46].

Cognizance – Requirement of Reasoned Order – Distinction between Private Complaint and Complaint after Investigation – Enforcement Directorate complaint under PMLA filed after statutory investigation – Held: Magistrate/Special Court not required to pass elaborate or detailed order – Sufficient if order reflects application of mind to materials – Cognizance order dated 14.08.2023 upheld [Paras 47–63].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Nature of Complaint – Status vis-à-vis Police Report – Complaint under Section 44 PMLA treated akin to report under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC – ED officers not police officers, yet investigation precedes complaint – Held: Higher threshold applicable to private complaints not attracted [Paras 65–66].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC / Section 218 BNSS – Scope – Allegation of receiving and concealing proceeds of crime – Acts alleged wholly outside scope of official duty – Further held that employees of Government companies / PSUs not removable by Government are not entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC – No sanction required [Paras 67–77].

PMLA – Independent and Stand-alone Offence – Relationship with Predicate Offence – Sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act irrelevant to prosecution under PMLA – Once proceeds of crime traced, ED competent to prosecute – Restrictions under PC Act not imported into PMLA [Paras 78–80].

Further Investigation – Section 44 PMLA – Scope – Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1)(d) permits filing of subsequent complaint against additional accused, whether named earlier or not – Fresh materials or continued investigation sufficient – Non obstante clause gives overriding effect over CrPC provisions [Paras 102–115].

Judicial Review – Interference with Cognizance – Principles – Court reiterated limited scope of interference – No illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error found in order issuing summons on supplementary complaint [Paras 48–50, 118].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition dismissed – Order dated 17.03.2025 taking supplementary complaint on file and issuing summons upheld – Proceedings in C.C. No. 9 of 2023 to continue – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs.

Succession Law – Will – Proof of Execution – Registered Will dated 08.05.2003 relied upon by defendants to deny partition to sisters – Trial court held Will not proved – Held: Evidence of attesting witnesses (DW-2 and DW-3) and scribe (DW-4) consistent with execution requirements under Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act – Witnesses stated Will was executed by father in sound mind and attested in presence of testator – Minor inconsistencies in recollection not fatal – Passage of eight years since execution considered – Will held duly proved [Paras 20–28, 34]

Succession Law – Presumption from Registration – Will was a registered document – Held: Though registration alone is not proof of Will, it creates presumption of genuineness – Respondents failed to raise any suspicious circumstances or prove forgery – Trial court erred in discarding Ex.B-1 solely based on witness inconsistencies [Paras 29–31]

Civil Procedure – Plaint filed alleging intestate death – Contradictory plea – Plaintiffs claimed father died intestate but produced earlier Will dated 03.06.1997 only during cross-examination – Held: Conduct of plaintiffs in concealing previous Will amounts to approaching court with unclean hands – Adds credibility to appellants’ case [Para 32]

Appeal – Reappreciation of Evidence – Trial court failed to appreciate testimony of attesting witnesses and wrongly concluded that Will was not proved – High Court found compliance with legal requirements and reversed preliminary decree [Paras 33–35]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of trial court in O.S. No. 149 of 2008 set aside – Will dated 08.05.2003 held to be proved in accordance with law – No order as to costs.

Contract Law – Specific Performance – Uncertainty of Terms – Section 29 Contract Act – Agreement to sell (Ex.P1) mentioned sale of 9.5 acres of land but failed to specify khasra numbers, khewat, khatauni, or boundaries – Plaintiff's claim in plaint referred to 59 Kanals 3 Marlas (approx 7.4 acres) – Held: An agreement lacking essential particulars concerning the identity of the property is uncertain and unenforceable – Courts cannot adduce oral evidence to create clarity where parties failed to do so – Specific performance denied due to incurable vagueness – [Paras 16, 17, 18].

Property Law – Bona Fide Purchaser – Section 41 TPA – Defendant No. 1 sold land to Defendant Nos. 2-4 via registered sale deed – Revenue records showed no encumbrance or prior agreement – Sale deed executed one year after agreement date – Held: Purchasers (D2-D4) acted with due diligence by verifying revenue records – No suspicious circumstances existed to put them on inquiry – They are entitled to protection as bona fide purchasers for value without notice – [Paras 13, 14, 15].

Civil Procedure – Adverse Inference – Defendant No. 1 (Vendor) did not file written statement or enter witness box – Held: Adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act justified regarding execution of agreement, but relief denied on other grounds (uncertainty and bona fide purchase) – [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Judgment of the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit is affirmed.

Civil Procedure – Appellate Powers – Remand of Case – Order 41 Rules 23, 23-A & 25 CPC – Scope – Appellate court justified in remanding the matter when trial court failed to frame an essential issue going to the root of the case – In suit for specific performance of agricultural land, issue whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist and whether permission of competent authority was required is material – District Judge rightly exercised discretion under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC to direct framing of additional issues and recording of evidence thereon – Such remand does not amount to allowing parties to fill lacunae but ensures fair adjudication [Paras 28–35].

Specific Performance – Agricultural Land – Bar on Sale to Non-Agriculturist – Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 – Whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist is a foundational issue affecting enforceability of the agreement of sale – Failure of trial court to frame this issue vitiates adjudication – Appellate court within jurisdiction to remand for trial on that point [Paras 28, 35].

Evidence – Admissibility – Unregistered and Insufficiently Stamped Agreement of Sale – Once document admitted in evidence without objection, admissibility cannot be reopened at appellate stage – However, appellate court justified in directing trial court to examine validity where document is central to the dispute and objection arises from statutory bar – Direction to examine admissibility under Maharashtra Stamp Act held not unwarranted but ancillary [Para 32].

Appellate Practice – Duty of First Appellate Court – While reversing trial court’s decree, appellate court must assign reasons and deal with trial court’s findings – However, where remand is ordered to avoid prejudicing fresh adjudication, omission to record findings is justified – Order of remand not routine but valid when essential factual issues remain untried [Paras 22, 31].

Remand – Conditions and Limitations – Supreme Court precedents in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179, Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa (2021) 11 SCC 277, and J. Balaji Singh v. Diwakar Cole (2017) 14 SCC 207 explained – Remand permissible only where trial court omitted to try essential issue and evidence is needed – In present case, remand appropriate to decide plaintiff’s status as agriculturist – Appellant compensated by costs of ₹15,000/- for delay caused by respondents’ inaction [Paras 24, 33–36].

Direction – Respondents to pay costs of ₹15,000/- to appellant within fifteen days and before framing of additional issues by the trial court – Trial court to proceed in accordance with directions of the District Judge and decide additional issues independently and expeditiously [Para 36].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Order of remand by District Judge, Nagpur dated 02.09.2022, upheld – Respondents directed to pay ₹15,000/- to appellant within fifteen days – Trial Court to frame additional issues regarding (i) plaintiff’s status as agriculturist, (ii) validity of agreement under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, and decide suit afresh uninfluenced by prior findings.

Matrimonial Law - Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Proof and Appreciation of Evidence – Husband sought divorce alleging abnormal and violent behaviour of wife due to alleged psychiatric illness suppressed prior to marriage – Allegations of schizophrenia and violent conduct during honeymoon and matrimonial life – Held: Husband failed to prove that wife was suffering from psychiatric illness prior to marriage – No independent witnesses or documentary evidence adduced – Medical evidence only showed treatment for sleeplessness, restlessness and low mood during pregnancy – Family Court erred in presuming pre-marital mental illness – However, sustained matrimonial discord and conduct amounted to mental cruelty [Paras 11–15, 23–30].

Matrimonial Disputes – False or Failed Criminal Proceedings – Impact on Cruelty – Wife lodged complaints under Section 498-A IPC, DV Act and maintenance proceedings – Husband arrested, remanded, bail rejected and Look Out Circular issued – Criminal case ended in acquittal and no appeal preferred – Held: Repeated criminal litigation and its consequences constituted mental cruelty to husband – Relevant factor while granting divorce [Paras 16, 22, 25–27].

Evidence – Failure to Corroborate Serious Allegations – Allegations of physical violence, threats of suicide and assault on elderly relative not supported by testimony of parents, neighbours or independent witnesses – Mediator also not examined – Court held that uncorroborated serious allegations cannot be accepted mechanically [Paras 13–14, 18–21].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Relevance – Though irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground for divorce – Court entitled to consider prolonged separation, failed mediation and absence of possibility of reunion as relevant circumstances – Parties living separately since 2012 – Mediation failed – No scope of reconciliation [Paras 32–35].

Maintenance – Minor Child – Enhancement by Appellate Court – Family Court awarded ₹10,00,000/- towards maintenance of minor daughter – Appellate Court found amount inadequate considering child’s age, education, future marriage and financial capacity of father – Respondent had already paid ₹17,00,000/- earlier – Held: Ends of justice require enhancement – Directed payment of ₹80,00,000/- as full and final settlement towards maintenance and alimony for child by deposit in FDR – Wife not entitled to permanent alimony as she is gainfully employed [Paras 36–37].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Decree of divorce confirmed – Maintenance for minor child enhanced to ₹80,00,000/- payable within three months – Failure to comply to entitle appellant and child to take legal steps – All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Muslim Law – Remarriage with Divorced Husband – Halala – Respondent claimed to have remarried petitioner after prior divorce – Evidence revealed existence of intervening marriage with another man, but no proof of its dissolution was provided – Under Muslim law, remarriage with divorced husband is void unless intervening marriage is consummated and lawfully dissolved (Nikah Halala) – Held: In absence of legal dissolution of intervening marriage, alleged remarriage with petitioner is void and hit by doctrine of Halala – Respondent disqualified from claiming maintenance as wife [Paras 7–10, 14–15]

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Presumption of Marriage – Long Cohabitation – Respondent relied on continuous cohabitation to claim presumption of valid marriage – Held: Presumption of marriage based on cohabitation arises only where no legal impediment exists – Since respondent’s prior marriage with another man was not proved to be dissolved, she remained legally married and could not validly remarry petitioner – No legal status as ‘wife’ – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be granted [Paras 13–15]

Burden of Proof – Remarriage – When marriage is denied, burden lies on party asserting it – Respondent failed to prove essential elements of Nikah including presence of witnesses and performance by authorised Khatib – Neither mosque register nor witnesses examined – Evidence held insufficient to establish valid Muslim marriage [Paras 11–12]

Procedure – Summary Nature of Section 125 Proceedings – Evidence Requirement – Court held that despite the summary nature of Section 125 CrPC, basic legal prerequisites for spousal status must be established – Maintenance claim under Section 125 cannot succeed in absence of legal proof of marital status [Para 16]

Remand – Opportunity to Adduce Evidence – Considering impact of maintenance order on marital status, court remanded case for fresh decision – Held: Family Court to allow both parties to adduce further evidence on dissolution of intervening marriage and validity of alleged remarriage – Maintenance order set aside [Para 16]

Decision: Impugned maintenance order set aside – Case remanded to Family Court, Malappuram for fresh disposal – Parties to be given opportunity to adduce further evidence – To be decided within three months.

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Attempt to Murder – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Appeal Against Acquittal Dismissed – Complainant and wife allegedly assaulted by accused using knife and iron pipes – Injuries confirmed by medical officer but contradictions in witness accounts regarding time, identity, mode of assault, and absence of key eyewitness (son) examined – Prosecution witnesses failed to identify accused properly in FIR – Evidence of independent eyewitness Kantibhai found unreliable due to prior connection with complainant – Doctor’s evidence contradicted claim of indoor treatment and severity of injuries – Investigating Officer admitted no seizure of clothes or FSL report of weapons – No proof of caste identity or use of caste-based slurs – Held: Serious inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and investigative gaps justify trial court's acquittal – No perversity in trial court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9–11]

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Appellate Court in Acquittal Appeals – Principles Restated – Appellate Court can reappreciate evidence but must exercise caution and respect double presumption of innocence – Acquittal can be reversed only when judgment suffers from perversity, misreading of evidence or leads to manifest miscarriage of justice – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasonable one based on evidence – No interference warranted [Paras 7–8]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.11.1999 in Atrocity Case No. 89 of 1996 confirmed – Bail bonds cancelled – Record and proceedings to be returned to Trial Court