Matrimonial Law – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – Proof of Marital Status – Respondent filed for maintenance claiming to be the wife of the petitioner – Petitioner denied marriage and stated respondent had a subsisting marriage with another man, Manik Ali – Respondent admitted earlier marriage and claimed to have divorced him through affidavit – Held: Affidavit before Notary does not constitute lawful dissolution of marriage – No valid proof of divorce from first husband produced – Family Court erred in presuming marital status with petitioner – Maintenance order unsustainable [Paras 15–28, 30–32]

Family Law – Validity of Divorce – Respondent relied on unverified affidavit as proof of divorce – No proceedings under Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 shown – Court held that lawful dissolution is mandatory before claiming marital status with another – Respondent failed to prove such dissolution – Claim of marriage with petitioner not tenable [Paras 21, 25–27]

Burden of Proof – Standard of Proof in Section 125 CrPC – Though strict proof of marriage is not required, where prior marriage is admitted, burden lies on claimant to prove its lawful dissolution – Respondent failed to do so – Held: Without proof of valid divorce, respondent could not claim to be wife of petitioner – Entitlement to maintenance not established [Paras 17–18, 26–27]

Decision: Criminal revision petition allowed – Order of Family Court dated 17.03.2025 set aside – Respondent not entitled to maintenance as she failed to prove lawful dissolution of previous marriage – No valid marital relationship with petitioner established.

Criminal Law – Recall of Witness – Section 311 Cr.P.C. / Section 348 BNSS – Petitioners sought recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination – Trial court dismissed application holding no sufficient cause for earlier non-cross-examination – PW-1’s testimony earlier closed with remark “Nil. Opportunity given” when accused were unrepresented – Held: Order resulted in gross injustice warranting interference under inherent jurisdiction [Paras 1, 5–6].

Criminal Procedure – Interlocutory Orders – Bar of Revision – Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. / Section 438(2) BNSS – Dismissal of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. ordinarily interlocutory and revision barred – Held: Bar on revision does not oust inherent powers where interlocutory order results in gross injustice – High Court duty-bound to invoke inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice [Para 4].

Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Accused compelled to cross-examine prosecution witness in absence of counsel – Accused being lay persons unable to conduct effective cross-examination – Held: Denial of legal assistance strikes at the core of fair trial and vitiates trial proceedings – In the name of expeditious trial, fairness cannot be sacrificed [Paras 5, 7–8].

Criminal Courts – Duty of Trial Court – Absence of Defence Counsel – Proper Course – Held: Where accused are unrepresented, trial court should appoint amicus curiae or seek legal aid counsel instead of compelling accused to cross-examine – Trial court may also exercise power to put questions to witness to reach truth – Emphasis on purity and fairness of trial [Paras 6, 8].

Inherent Powers – Ends of Justice – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court set aside impugned order refusing recall of witness – Trial court directed to grant fresh opportunity to accused through counsel to cross-examine PW-1 – Directions issued for systemic compliance and circulation among criminal courts to avoid recurrence [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 28.08.2024 set aside – Trial court directed to permit further cross-examination of PW-1 through counsel – Matter remitted for continuation of trial in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].

Writ of Mandamus – Requirement of Legal Right – Petitioners sought direction not to close alleged 30-feet road connecting colonies – Held, issuance of mandamus requires establishment of a judicially enforceable legal right and corresponding public duty – Petitioners failed to demonstrate existence of road through cogent material – Mere assertion insufficient – No mandamus can be issued in absence of proof of right [Paras 11-14, 20, 29].

Pleadings in Writ Proceedings – Burden of Proof – In writ jurisdiction, not only facts but supporting evidence must be pleaded and annexed – Petitioners relied only on photographs which did not establish existence of road – No village map or revenue record produced – No rejoinder filed to counter affidavit – Petitioners failed to discharge burden [Paras 15-19].

Suppression of Material Facts – Clean Hands Doctrine – Court found inconsistencies in pleadings and lack of supporting material – Petitioners approached Court without full and candid disclosure – Applying doctrine of suppressio veri, expressio falsi, discretionary relief declined [Paras 20-23].

Public Trust Doctrine – Protection of Water Bodies – Subject land classified as Vagu Poramboke reserved for natural water flow and flood protection – Banks/bunds of water bodies integral part of natural resource – State holds such resources in trust for public and future generations – Encroachments or diversion impermissible – Flood protection works cannot be stalled without proof of lawful right [Paras 24-28].

Vakalatnama – Importance of Attestation – Three petitioners initially denied signing vakalat – Court examined procedural safeguards under Appellate Side Rules and Order III Rule 4 CPC – Attestation not mere formality but mandatory safeguard to prevent impersonation and unauthorised litigation – Registry directed to verify attestation scrupulously – Advocates cautioned to mention name and Bar Council enrolment number while attesting [Paras 31-39, 42].

Incidental Enquiry – Denial of Signature – Registrar (Judicial) conducted enquiry – Report indicated petitioners signed document though alleged ignorance of contents – Court declined to delve deeper but issued caution to Bar and Registry [Paras 36-38].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioners failed to prove existence of alleged road or establish enforceable legal right – No costs – Registry directed to ensure proper scrutiny of vakalatnamas – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Anticipatory Bail – Cyber Crime – Misuse of Social Media and Digital Identity – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Cyber P.S. Case No.14/2025 involving serious allegations under BNS, 2023 and Information Technology Act, 2000 – Allegations of creation of fake email and Instagram accounts in the name of informant, circulation of obscene photographs, defamatory emails sent to employer, and threats of blackmail – Held: Prima facie materials collected during investigation disclose grave and serious offences – Discretion under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS declined [Paras 2, 6–9, 15].

Consensual Relationship – Limits of Consent – Right to Privacy and Dignity – Defence of consensual extra-marital relationship raised by petitioner – Court held that prior consensual relationship does not confer any right to violate dignity, privacy, or autonomy of the informant – Exploitation of vulnerability under guise of friendship or intimacy impermissible in law [Paras 9–10, 13–14].

Cyber Offences – Prima Facie Evidence from Case Diary – Investigation revealed petitioner’s mobile number used for creation of fake email and Instagram accounts – Obscene photographs sent even after registration of FIR to Vice-Chancellor of informant’s workplace – Independent witness supported allegations of threats, blackmail, and demand of Rs.25,00,000/- – Strong prima facie case made out against petitioner [Paras 6–8, 11].

Threats, Blackmail and Obscenity – Seriousness of Allegations – Allegations included threats to circulate obscene material, demand for money or divorce, and attempts to sabotage informant’s employment – WhatsApp chats revealed use of abusive and sexually explicit language – Such conduct held to transcend boundaries of lawful interaction and attract penal consequences [Paras 8, 14].

Anticipatory Bail – Extraordinary Discretion – Principles Governing Exercise – Power under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS is extraordinary and not to be exercised routinely – Court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that pre-arrest bail should not be granted where it may impede investigation in serious and organised offences – Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would adversely affect investigation [Paras 12, 15].

Investigation at Crucial Stage – Pre-Arrest Bail Likely to Hamper Probe – Digital evidence, cyber trail, and electronic devices required custodial interrogation – Grant of anticipatory bail would impair effective investigation and unearthing of full conspiracy – Public interest and victim’s rights weighed against petitioner [Paras 12, 15].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Interim protection earlier granted vacated – Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS in favour of petitioner.

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – Section 17(2) – Custody of Rescued Minor – Mother Allegedly Complicit in Prostitution – Child Welfare Committee Has Primacy – Petition Rejected – Victim girl (aged 17 years at time of rescue) was rescued from a prostitution racket in Crime No.395/2025 and placed in a Child Welfare Home – Mother filed application under Section 17(2) seeking custody claiming daughter had attained 18 years – However, investigation revealed that the mother had earlier also been involved in a similar crime (Cr.No.332/2024) and had again placed her daughter in the prostitution racket after her prior release – Held: When prima facie material shows the mother used her daughter for prostitution, the child cannot be handed over to the custody of such mother – Relying on Delhi High Court in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee vs. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4101 and Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Prerana vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 984, held that notwithstanding Section 17 and Section 17A of the IT Act, by virtue of Sections 31(1) and 39(3) of the JJ Act, it is only the Child Welfare Committee which has final authority in respect of custody and restoration of a child victim – Petition dismissed [Paras 9-12]

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act vs. Juvenile Justice Act – JJ Act Has Primacy for Persons Under 18 Years – A person under 18 years rescued from a prostitution racket under Sections 15 and 16 of the IT Act must be treated as a "child in need of care and protection" under the JJ Act and not as a "juvenile in conflict with law" – If produced before a Magistrate and found to be under 18 years, the Magistrate must forthwith transfer the case to the Child Welfare Committee – JJ Act being a later and special enactment for children prevails over the general provisions of the IT Act – Bombay High Court in Prerana directed that any juvenile rescued from a brothel should be released only to a parent/guardian found fit by the Child Welfare Committee; if found unfit, rehabilitation procedure under the JJ Act must be followed [Paras 11-12]

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Order dated 15.11.2025 rejecting custody application upheld – Child not to be handed over to mother who is prima facie alleged to have used the daughter in the prostitution racket.

Bail – UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Prima Facie True Test – At the stage of bail, Court is required to assess material on broad probabilities and not conduct a detailed trial – Documents and investigation material to be taken as they are, without testing admissibility or reliability – Held: Accusation against the appellant found prima facie true on cumulative assessment of material [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Conspiracy – Proof – Circumstantial Evidence – Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence – Meeting of minds can be inferred from conduct, communications, and surrounding circumstances – Absence from some meetings not decisive – Held: Appellant’s conduct before and after the incident indicates participation in conspiracy [Paras 14–15.1].

Social Media Messages – Instigation – Intention – Appellant circulated screenshot of deceased’s post with provocative and inflammatory message after altering mobile number to reveal identity – Message capable of provoking violence in communally sensitive atmosphere – Relevant under Section 14 Evidence Act to infer intention and state of mind – Held: Prima facie instigation and motive established [Paras 6–10].

Terrorist Act – UAPA – Formation of Terrorist Gang – Material indicates organised plan to avenge perceived insult to faith and to strike terror in society – Killing of deceased as part of wider design – Held: Prima facie applicability of Sections 16, 18 and 20 UAPA [Paras 12–13, 18].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary Value – Confession of co-accused not substantive evidence by itself – However, when supported by independent circumstantial material, it can lend corroboration – Held: Even dehors extra-judicial confessions, sufficient prima facie material exists against appellant [Paras 15–17].

Bail – Length of Custody – Article 21 – Though prolonged incarceration is a relevant factor, it cannot override statutory embargo under UAPA when accusations are prima facie true and evidence is of sufficient probative value – Held: Continued detention justified in view of gravity and nature of offence [Paras 18–18.1].

Precedents – Applicability – Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and Pancho v. State of Haryana distinguished on facts – Case governed by principles laid down in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Union of India v. Barakathullah – Held: Bail rightly denied [Paras 16–17.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of Special Judge rejecting bail confirmed – Court holds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that accusations against the appellant are prima facie true – Statutory bar under UAPA attracted – No case for grant of bail made out.

Specific Performance – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court reiterated that interference in second appeal is permissible only when findings of the First Appellate Court are perverse, based on no evidence, inadmissible evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law – Reappreciation of evidence not permissible [Paras 16, 31].

Specific Performance of Contract – Registered Possessory Agreement of Sale – Agreement of sale dated 09.03.1979 duly registered – Entire sale consideration paid and possession delivered on date of agreement – Certified copy admissible where original lost in cyclone – Execution of agreement not disputed by executant’s legal representatives – Decree for specific performance upheld [Paras 19, 22, 24].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff proved oral demand for execution of sale deed during vendor’s lifetime and thereafter from legal representatives – Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte and did not dispute readiness and willingness – Requirement of notice held satisfied on facts [Paras 18–21].

Locus Standi – Third Party to Contract – Defendant No.3 not a party to the agreement of sale – Held, such defendant has no locus to challenge decree of specific performance granted against vendors’ legal representatives – Decree having attained finality as defendants 1 and 2 did not appeal [Paras 17, 22, 30].

Possession – Permissive Possession vs. Tenancy – Defendant No.3 claimed tenancy under original owner but failed to establish tenancy by evidence – Plaintiff proved permissive occupation after borrowing of money – Permissive possessor liable to vacate upon termination of permission [Paras 25, 29, 30].

Evidence – Conduct of Parties – Adverse Inference – Legal representatives of executant neither contested nor entered witness box – Presumption drawn against denial of execution and obligation to execute sale deed [Paras 20, 21].

Eviction – Consequential Relief – Once plaintiff held entitled to specific performance and execution of sale deed, permissive occupant/defendant No.3 liable to be evicted from suit schedule property [Paras 30].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirmed – No substantial question of law involved – Parties directed to bear their own costs

Commercial Law – Lease of Immovable Property – Jurisdiction of Commercial Court – Suit for recovery of mesne profits arising out of lease of immovable property used exclusively for commercial purposes – Property situated in commercial complex (Ansal Bhawan) and consistently used for commercial activities – Dispute squarely covered under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act – Mere involvement of Government as lessee does not oust jurisdiction – Held: Commercial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit [Paras 23–28].

SAFEMA – Bar of Civil Jurisdiction – Scope of Sections 14 and 23 – Property earlier forfeited under SAFEMA – Forfeiture proceedings subsequently quashed by High Court for lack of jurisdiction – Civil suit did not challenge forfeiture but sought mesne profits for unauthorised occupation – Section 14 SAFEMA does not bar independent civil claims for damages/mesne profits once forfeiture proceedings are annulled – Section 23 protection unavailable where continued occupation lacks bona fides after quashing of forfeiture – Held: Suit not barred by SAFEMA [Paras 29–35].

Government as Tenant – Liability for Mesne Profits – Government continued in possession without payment of rent after forfeiture order and even after quashing thereof – Continued occupation without authority or payment held unjustified – Government liable to compensate owners for unauthorised use and occupation [Paras 35, 37].

Civil Procedure – Abatement – Death of Plaintiff – One of the plaintiffs died during pendency of suit – Legal representative brought on record – Right to sue survived as suit concerned joint ownership and monetary relief – No abatement of suit – Objection held technical and meritless [Para 36].

Mesne Profits – Limitation – Continuing Wrong and Recurring Cause of Action – Claim for mesne profits governed by Article 51 of Limitation Act – Each month of unauthorised occupation gives rise to recurring cause of action – Plaintiffs bona fide pursued writ remedy for possession and arrears – Limitation cannot be applied mechanically to defeat substantive justice [Paras 38–42].

Limitation Act – Section 14 – Exclusion of Time Spent in Writ Proceedings – Time spent in prosecuting writ petition for restoration of possession liable to be excluded – Writ proceedings treated as “civil proceedings” prosecuted in good faith – Plaintiffs entitled to exclusion till possession restored – Consequently, mesne profits restricted to three years prior to institution of writ petition [Paras 43–49].

Assessment of Mesne Profits – Methodology – Market rent determined on basis of contemporaneous lease deeds of comparable properties – Rate per sq. ft. applied to area of suit property – Method adopted by Single Judge upheld as sound and reasonable – However, recalculation required due to limitation [Paras 50–52].

Decision – Partial Allowance of Appeal – Decree for mesne profits upheld on merits but modified on limitation – Plaintiffs entitled to mesne profits only for period 23.09.2016 to 02.07.2020 – Amount recalculated at ₹67,13,340/- with interest @ 6% p.a. – Appeal partly allowed to limited extent – Impugned judgment otherwise affirmed [Paras 53–54].

Service Law – Lecturers in Government Polytechnics – Career Advancement Scheme – Academic Grade Pay (AGP) – Petitioners appointed as Lecturers between 1989–1999 and promoted to Selection Grade with AGP ₹9,000 – Junior Lecturers possessing Ph.D. granted AGP ₹10,000 – Petitioners challenged prescription of Ph.D. qualification as discriminatory – Held: No vested right to higher AGP in absence of prescribed qualification [Paras 3–5, 23–25].

Academic Policy – Prescription of Qualifications – Role of AICTE – AICTE, a statutory expert body under the AICTE Act, empowered to prescribe qualifications, service conditions and pay structures – Introduction of Ph.D. requirement for AGP ₹10,000 under Clarification dated 04.01.2016 held within statutory competence – Courts must defer to expert bodies in academic matters unless decision shown to be arbitrary or mala fide [Paras 7–10, 17–21].

Equality Clause – Articles 14 & 16 – Reasonable Classification – Classification between Ph.D. and non-Ph.D. Lecturers for grant of higher AGP based on higher academic attainment – Classification held intelligible and having rational nexus with object of improving academic standards and incentivising research – No violation of Articles 14 or 16 established [Paras 18–23].

Career Advancement – Incentive for Higher Qualification – Prescription of Ph.D. qualification intended to encourage faculty to acquire higher academic credentials – Policy decision aimed at enhancing quality of technical education – Such differentiation permissible in service jurisprudence [Paras 19–21].

Judicial Review – Limits in Academic and Policy Matters – Courts not equipped to substitute their views for those of statutory expert bodies on academic standards – Interference warranted only if decision is patently arbitrary, irrational or illegal – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents emphasising restraint in judicial review [Paras 17, 20–21].

Clarification vs. Amendment – Retrospective Effect – AICTE Clarification dated 04.01.2016 held to operate prospectively in governing eligibility for higher AGP – Does not divest any vested or accrued right of Petitioners – Distinction from cases involving retrospective alteration of service conditions [Paras 22–23].

Tribunal Orders – Validity – Central Administrative Tribunal correctly applied statutory framework and principles governing academic policy – Impugned orders dismissing Original Applications upheld – No perversity or illegality found [Paras 26–27].

Decision – Writ petitions dismissed – Prescription of Ph.D. qualification for grant of AGP ₹10,000 upheld as valid – No interference warranted with AICTE Regulations or Tribunal’s orders – Pending applications dismissed [Paras 27–28].