Hindu Marriage – Validity of Second Marriage – Pending Appeal against Decree of Divorce – Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Ayyappan's first marriage with the first petitioner was solemnised on 20.03.1977 – Decree of divorce granted by trial court on 13.06.1990 – First petitioner filed MFA 667/1990 before this Court on 10.07.1990 challenging the decree – Ayyappan contracted second marriage with the appellant on 30.01.1991 during pendency of the appeal – Appeal was ultimately allowed and decree of divorce reversed – Held: Second marriage contracted during pendency of appeal against divorce decree is void as contravening Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Family Court decree affirmed [Paras 6-11].

Section 15, Hindu Marriage Act – Right of Appeal – Effect on Subsequent Marriage – Section 15 permits remarriage only when no right of appeal exists, or the time for appeal has expired without an appeal being filed, or an appeal has been dismissed – An appeal is the continuation of original proceedings and acts done pending appeal are subject to its outcome – A party cannot defeat the appeal by contracting a second marriage during its pendency – Dissolution of marriage is complete once decree is made, subject to appeal [Paras 7-10].

Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain Distinguished – Appellant's reliance on Lila Gupta (1978) misplaced – That case concerned marriage during the one-year prohibitory period under the proviso to Section 15 and held such marriage not void – However, the Apex Court in that case itself underscored that such marriage is subject to the result of the appeal – In the present case, an appeal was filed within limitation and was ultimately allowed, reversing the divorce decree – The ratio of Lila Gupta does not assist the appellant [Paras 8-9].

Service of Notice in Appeal – Irrelevance – Contention that notice in the appeal was served only after the second marriage and hence marriage is saved, rejected – Relying on Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (AIR 1967 SC 581), a party who has obtained a decree of dissolution cannot by contracting an immediate second marriage deprive the other party of the chance to prefer an appeal or special leave petition – Such a party acts at their own risk [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Second marriage of Ayyappan with appellant held void under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Decree of Family Court affirmed.

Probate Law – Revocation of Probate – Caveatable Interest – Challenge to Title of Testator – Application Not Maintainable – Testator Rajeshwari executed Will dated 23.08.2005 bequeathing properties at Satara inter alia in favour of the Applicant (son-in-law) – Probate granted on 13.12.2011 – Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (brother and nephew of testator) filed application under Section 383 of Indian Succession Act for revocation of probate contending that testator had no title in the bequeathed properties since the earlier Will of their mother Radhabai in favour of Rajeshwari was cancelled by a subsequent Will in favour of Chandrahas – Held: Respondents are questioning title of testator and not asserting any right of inheritance through the testator; such persons are strangers to probate proceedings and do not possess caveatable interest; revocation application is not maintainable [Paras 11-12, 24, 26, 29-30].

Caveatable Interest – Conflicting Supreme Court Judgments – Reconciliation – Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha lays down that a person questioning existence of title of testator or capacity to dispose of property on grounds outside law of succession is a stranger to probate proceedings and cannot maintain a caveat – G. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar, rendered subsequently without noticing Krishna Kumar Birla, held that a person having even a slight interest in estate of testator can file a caveat – Conflict noted and reference made in Jagjit Singh v. Pamela Manmohan Singh but reference remained unanswered as appeal was withdrawn – Saroj Agarwalla v. Yasheel Jain (2017) followed Krishna Kumar Birla – Held: Following A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar, High Court must reconcile conflicting judgments and follow the one whose facts are more in accord with the case at hand; on reconciliation, G. Gopal is distinguishable as it involved caveator likely to succeed through testator's own settlement deed; Krishna Kumar Birla applies where challenge is to title of testator [Paras 13-15, 18, 23-24].

Probate Court – Jurisdiction – Title Cannot Be Determined – Probate Court is only concerned with due execution, attestation and testamentary capacity of testator – It is not competent to determine whether testator had title or authority to bequeath the properties or whether properties were joint ancestral or self-acquired – Challenge to title falls outside the purview of probate proceedings and must be adjudicated in a substantive suit – Respondents had already instituted a civil suit for title adjudication [Paras 19, 26, 29].

Probate – Optional Where Will Executed Outside Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction – Section 57 of Indian Succession Act only specifies class of Wills for which probate is necessary (those made in or relating to immovable property within Presidency towns) – For Wills executed outside those limits or relating to properties outside such limits, probate is merely optional and not prohibited – Grant of probate in respect of Will executed at Pune relating to properties at Satara is not invalid [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Order dated 20.12.2022 rejecting Applicant's maintainability objection set aside – Miscellaneous Application No. 616 of 2013 for revocation of probate held not maintainable and dismissed – Pending Interim Application also disposed of – No order as to costs.

Properties Beyond Jurisdiction – Counter Claim Rightly Rejected – Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title in respect of Premi House, Guna – Defendant No. 8 (petitioner), a legal heir of Babulal, filed counter claim seeking partition and declaration of title in respect of properties at village Ruthiyai, District Guna, which fell within jurisdiction of Court at Raghogarh and not Guna Court – Trial Court rejected counter claim; appellate court dismissed appeal – Held: Counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A(4) is required to be treated as a plaint and governed by rules applicable to plaints including territorial jurisdiction; when counter claim properties are situated beyond territorial jurisdiction of Trial Court, the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate it; orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court are valid [Paras 10-14].

Section 17 CPC – Suits for Immovable Property in Different Jurisdictions – Counter Claim Cannot Be Read with Plaint – Petitioner invoked Section 17 CPC by reading plaint and counter claim together to argue that since one property was within Guna Court's jurisdiction, the entire counter claim was maintainable – Held: Counter claim is independent of the plaint and must satisfy requirements of Section 17 CPC independently – Section 17 requires that the cause of action for filing the suit regarding properties in different jurisdictions must be one and the same – No cause of action was pleaded in the counter claim nor was there any similarity of cause of action between plaint and counter claim; Section 17 CPC not attracted [Paras 12-16].

Counter Claim – Must Be Against Plaintiff – Not Against Co-Defendants – Counter claim is further liable to be rejected on the ground that it was vague and did not mention addresses of properties at serial nos. 2 to 5 – Relief of partition claimed was against co-defendants only and not against plaintiffs – Cause of action for filing counter claim not specifically pleaded – Counter claim can be filed by defendant against plaintiff and may incidentally claim relief against co-defendant, but cannot be solely directed against co-defendants [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Miscellaneous petition dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court rejecting counter claim upheld – No interference warranted.

Habeas Corpus – Missing Wife and Minor Children – Welfare of Children – Scope of Writ – Petitioner's wife went missing along with two minor children from 06.03.2026 – FIR registered by police – Petitioner alleged wife was in danger at the hands of the third respondent – APP submitted that wife had developed a relationship with the third respondent and left voluntarily along with him, taking the children – Held: Insofar as the wife is concerned, she appears to have left of her own accord and the petitioner must work out his remedy before the concerned court – However, this Court is primarily concerned with the welfare of the two minor children who have been taken away [Paras 7-8].

Minor Children – Production Before Magistrate – Welfare Jurisdiction – Direction issued to second respondent to trace the whereabouts of the detenue and two children and produce them before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam – Judicial Magistrate directed to record statement of the detenue and to interact with the children to ascertain their welfare and take appropriate decision in accordance with law – Report to be sent to this Court [Para 8].

Decision: Habeas Corpus Petition disposed of – Second respondent directed to trace and produce the detenue and two children before the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam as expeditiously as possible – Petitioner to be put on notice on date of production – Judicial Magistrate to record statement of wife and interact with children and proceed in accordance with law – Report to be submitted to this Court.

Property Law – Sale Deed – Cancellation – Subsequent Purchaser – Caveat Emptor – Appellants/defendants 1 and 2 purchased fractional right over the suit property and right to construct a flat by virtue of Ext.A2 sale deed dated 25.05.2004 – Defendants 3 and 4 thereafter sold the same property to the plaintiff/respondent 1 by virtue of Ext.A1 sale deed dated 19.03.2008 – Trial Court decreed the suit cancelling Ext.A2 sale deed – Held: Defendants 3 and 4 had no valid title to execute Ext.A1 in favour of the plaintiff since Ext.A2 was a valid prior subsisting deed – Plaintiff was under a duty to inquire about prior encumbrances before purchase – Principle of caveat emptor squarely applicable – Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit [Paras 19-22].

Lok Adalath Award – Reconveyance – Conditional Obligation – As per Ext.A3 award passed in Lok Adalath, defendants 1 and 2 agreed to reconvey the property to defendants 3 and 4 only upon receipt of the agreed money – No amount was paid by defendants 3 and 4 as per the award – Conditions of Ext.A3 not performed – Defendants 3 and 4 therefore could not claim any right over the property after execution of Ext.A2 sale deed – Plaintiff's reliance on Ext.A3 to contend that Ext.A2 is null and void is untenable [Paras 20-21].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27, CPC – Limitation – New Point in Appeal – Appellants sought to produce FIR as additional evidence (Annexure A) at appellate stage to raise the plea of limitation – No such plea raised in the written statement before the Trial Court – No ground made out that the document was not in possession of appellants during trial or that they were prevented from producing it – Issue of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact cannot be decided merely on the basis of a document produced without supporting pleadings – I.A. No. 5 of 2022 dismissed – Additional evidence not receivable [Paras 9-18].

Decision: Regular First Appeal allowed – Impugned decree and judgment dated 21.12.2018 of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvalla, in O.S. No. 45 of 2014 set aside – Suit dismissed – Appellants/defendants 1 and 2 entitled to costs throughout from the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

NDPS – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Foreign National – Illegal Custody – Article 21 Override – Applicant, a foreign national, was intercepted at IGI Airport on 02.07.2024 and 8 capsules containing cocaine recovered at the Airport itself from her undergarments – She was then taken to Safdarjung Hospital where 34 more capsules were eased out – Total recovery was 42 capsules containing 503 grams of cocaine (commercial quantity) – Formal arrest was shown only on 07.07.2024 after her discharge from hospital – Held: Once 8 capsules were recovered at the Airport and the offence stood revealed, the applicant should have been arrested immediately and produced before the Magistrate – Further recovery could have been effected pursuant to Court order – Remand could have been taken at the hospital if health hazard was a concern – Applicant remained in illegal custody from 02.07.2024 – Despite statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act, Article 21 must prevail – Bail granted [Paras 14-27].

Section 103, Customs Act – Production Before Magistrate – Where proper officer has reason to believe that goods liable to confiscation are secreted inside the body, the accused must be produced before the nearest Magistrate without unnecessary delay – Exception under Section 103(8) applies only where the person voluntarily admits to having goods secreted in his body – In the present case, no clear and specific admission of willingness was discernible from the bare contents of the notice – Service of notice through AI translation tool (Google Translator) was incomplete as the translated copy did not contain the applicant's replies or responses – Mere signatures on an incomplete translated notice do not amount to adequate communication of legal rights [Paras 16-22].

Section 50, NDPS Act – Notice – Mandatory Compliance – Section 50 provides that personal search can only be conducted before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Customs unlawfully informed the applicant that she could also be searched before any lady customs officer, which is contrary to the statutory mandate – Translation through AI tool was incomplete and did not contain the applicant's reply – Whether applicant was duly apprised of her rights was not discernible [Paras 19-21].

AI Translation Tool – Defective Compliance – Use of an AI tool (Google Translator) for serving notices upon a foreign national, without the translated copy containing the applicant's responses, renders the statutory compliance incomplete and inadequate – The identity of the person (Vikas Kumar) who allegedly explained the notice to the applicant in her vernacular language was not even included in the list of prosecution witnesses [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one local surety of like amount subject to conditions including reporting to IO on first Sunday of every month, not leaving NCR without prior permission, not contacting witnesses, and keeping mobile number active.

Civil Law – Joint and Unpartitioned Property – Co-sharer – Passage – Declaration of Specific Portion Not Sustainable – Land measuring 4 Bigha in Khasra No. 141 jointly owned by Ram Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Nirmal Singh and their mother Smt. Basant Kaur – Mukhtiar Singh, Nirmal Singh and Basant Kaur sold portions of land to plaintiffs through sale deeds executed in 1984 leaving 4 Biswa 11 Biswansi as access passage – Subsequently, Mukhtiar Singh and Nirmal Singh executed sale deed dated 29.09.1988 in favour of co-sharer Ram Singh regarding the said passage – Courts below declared the passage and held the sale deed void – Held: So long as the property remains joint and unpartitioned, declaration of a specific portion as an exclusive passage binding on a non-consenting co-sharer is not legally sustainable; sale deed executed by one co-sharer transferring undivided share to another co-sharer cannot be declared void [Paras 14-19].

Co-sharer's Rights – Transfer of Undivided Share – A co-sharer in joint property is entitled to transfer his undivided share and the transferee steps into the shoes of the vendor as a co-sharer – However, no co-sharer can claim exclusive ownership of or earmark a specific portion of joint land unless and until partition is effected by metes and bounds – Disputes regarding specific portions of joint property are ordinarily required to be resolved through partition proceedings [Paras 16-17, 22].

Possession and Access – Protection Pending Partition – Although exclusive declaration of passage over joint land is set aside, plaintiffs' possession over land purchased through registered sale deeds deserves protection – Each co-sharer is deemed to be in possession of every inch of joint holding and is entitled to make reasonable use without excluding other co-sharers – Existing user of the disputed strip as means of access to the purchased plots shall continue pending partition – Rights including access to be finally determined in partition proceedings [Paras 20-21, 25-29].

Substantial Question of Law: Whether the courts below were justified in declaring a specific portion of joint and unpartitioned land as a passage and in holding the sale deed dated 29.09.1988 executed in favour of defendant Ram Singh to be null and void, despite the admitted position that the land comprised in Khasra No. 141 remained joint and unpartitioned and that Ram Singh was a co-sharer therein.

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Decree of courts below modified – Declaration of suit property as an exclusive passage set aside – Sale deed dated 29.09.1988 in favour of Ram Singh not treated as void – Possession of plaintiffs over purchased land protected – Parties at liberty to seek partition; rights including access to be determined at partition.

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Allegations of manufacturing and selling goods by misusing established brand identity – FIR and charge-sheet disclose prima facie offences of cheating, forgery and deception – High Court declined to quash proceedings holding that disputed facts require trial and continuation of prosecution not an abuse of process [Paras 10, 24–25].

Section 482 CrPC – Scope and Limits – Inherent powers to be exercised sparingly and in rare cases – Court cannot undertake detailed examination of evidence or adjudicate disputed facts at threshold – Held: Only prima facie case to be seen [Paras 10–12].

Commercial Dispute vs Criminal Offence – Petitioners contended matter is civil in nature relating to trademark/copyright – Held: Allegations indicate fraudulent conduct and deception of consumers, thus not purely civil dispute [Paras 5–7, 21].

Cheating and Fraud – Use of Deceptive Branding – Allegations of rebranding inferior goods with names of reputed companies to mislead consumers – Held: Such conduct, if proved, constitutes dishonest intention attracting penal provisions [Paras 6–7].

Precedents – Application of Bhajan Lal Principles – Quashing permissible only where allegations do not disclose offence or proceedings are mala fide – Present case does not fall within such categories [Para 11].

Trial – Role of Court – Determination of issues like intention, deception, and misuse of brand requires appreciation of evidence – High Court cannot act as trial court under Section 482 CrPC [Para 23].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Prayer for quashing FIR and criminal proceedings rejected – Trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Interim Order – Creation of Third-Party Rights – An interim order dated 16.07.2021 in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in A.S. No. 1280 of 2017, while releasing original documents to the appellant/respondent No. 2, expressly restrained him from creating third-party rights over the suit schedule properties or pledging/mortgaging the original documents – Respondent No. 2 applied for modification of the interim order to permit pledge of property for a bank loan, which was rejected on 04.08.2022 – Despite this, respondent No. 2 executed a mortgage deed (Document No. 4299 of 2023 dated 07.08.2023) and thereafter a registered sale deed (Document No. 25358 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024) in favour of third parties – Execution of both deeds admitted by respondent No. 2 – Held: Charges of wilful disobedience proved – Contempt committed [Paras 3-26].

Defence – Nominal Transaction – Kararnama – Not Accepted – Respondent No. 2 sought to justify the sale deed as a nominal transaction and pleaded that on the same date the purchasers executed a kararnama agreeing to reconvey the property by 10.06.2026 – Held: The execution of the mortgage deed and the sale deed was a conscious and deliberate act – Application for modification of the interim order was rejected and despite that the alienations were made – Defence of nominal transaction is not acceptable – Financial compulsion cannot justify violation of a Court's order [Paras 19-24].

Wilful Disobedience – Meaning – "Wilful" means an act done voluntarily with specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law – Even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt – The act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case [Para 25].

Apology – Not Bona Fide – Rejected – Apology is an act of contrition and must be offered at the earliest opportunity in good grace – An apology tendered only when punishment is imminent is shorn of penitence and is the act of a cringing coward – The apology in the present case is not bona fide as the disobedience was conscious and contumacious and the modification application was rejected before the alienations were made – Apology rejected [Paras 27-30].

Punishment – Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act – Respondent No. 2 punished with simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 2,000/- – Additional cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed to be remitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee – Respondent entitled to subsistence allowance of Rs. 500/- per day during civil imprisonment to be deposited by the contempt petitioner – In default of fine, action to be taken under Section 421 CrPC/Section 456 BNSS [Paras 31-41].

Decision: Contempt Case allowed – Charges proved – Apology rejected – Respondent No. 2 sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.