Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Appellant husband sought dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty alleging that the respondent wife disrespected his parents, left the matrimonial home after a few months, and did not invite him to see their newborn child – Family Court dismissed the divorce petition and allowed the wife's counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights – Held: Initial bickerings between spouses during the early stage of marriage do not constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) – Appellant failed to make out a case of either physical or mental cruelty – Interference with the Family Court's findings not warranted [Paras 14–18].

Maintainability – Single Appeal Against Two Distinct Reliefs – Counter Claim as Independent Petition – Preliminary objection raised by the Court as to whether a single appeal was maintainable against two distinct reliefs — dismissal of the divorce petition and the granting of restitution of conjugal rights – Held: A counter claim must be treated as an independent petition seeking an independent and distinct relief; even if a common judgment is passed, separate appeals are required against each relief – Court confined its consideration only to the challenge against dismissal of the divorce petition [Paras 9–13].

Allegations in Counter Claim – No New Cause of Action – Appellant sought to rely on allegations made by the wife in her counter claim questioning his character as an additional ground of cruelty – Held: Only the cause of action set out in the divorce petition can be considered; allegations in the counter claim cannot create a fresh cause of action for the petitioner to establish cruelty [Para 16].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed – No costs.

Criminal Law - Acquittal - Appeal Against Acquittal by Complainant - State Not Filing Appeal - Informant and de-facto complainant filed appeal challenging acquittal of accused for offences under Sections 498-A and 302 read with 34 IPC - Deceased was second wife of Accused No.1 - Prosecution alleged Accused Nos.1 to 3 murdered deceased by throttling her with dish wire and projected it as suicide - Trial court found death was suicide based on medical evidence - Held: Prosecution failed to prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt - Medical evidence clearly indicated death by suicide - Acquittal confirmed [Paras 1-9, 26-27].

Evidence - Homicidal Death vs Suicide - Burden of Proof - Autopsy Report - PW-6 Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted autopsy and opined death due to mechanical asphyxia - Postmortem certificate indicated death was suicide - Lingature mark on neck was oblique not horizontal - Width of lingature mark 15 mm, inconsistent with dish wire which would leave 3 mm mark - Hyoid bone intact with no injuries to surrounding soft tissues and muscles - Held: Medical evidence clearly indicates death by suicide - Prosecution failed to establish homicidal death - Burden not discharged [Paras 22].

Evidence - Eyewitness Testimony - Credibility - Inconsistencies - Prosecution relied on PW-7 to PW-9 to establish homicidal death - PW-7 claimed he went to deceased's house on information from PW-1 and witnessed incident through broken window - PW-1 did not state she asked PW-7 to verify situation - PW-7 stated PW-8 broke window but PW-8 did not support this version and stated he does not know facts and police did not examine him - PW-9's evidence substantially hearsay regarding witnessing Accused No.1 tying neck and throwing deceased to ceiling fan - Held: Evidence of PW-7 to PW-9 not worthy of credit - Material omissions and contradictions - Exaggerated testimony inconsistent with medical evidence [Paras 22].

Criminal Law - Cruelty and Harassment - Section 498-A IPC - Proof of Motive - Prosecution alleged deceased harassed by Accused Nos.1 to 3 to get her share in parental property - Deceased had relinquished property rights before marriage by signing stamp papers - PW-1 to PW-3 (sisters of deceased) claimed deceased complained of harassment but evidence showed PW-1 met deceased only once after marriage at mother's funeral - No specific instances of harassment established - No complaint to police during deceased's lifetime by deceased or family members - Held: Motive not proved - Prosecution failed to establish offence under Section 498-A IPC [Paras 16, 24].

Evidence - Natural Witness - Omission to Examine or Elicit Material Facts - PW-5 was owner of house where deceased and Accused No.1 lived together on third floor - PW-5 stated deceased and Accused No.1 lived happily - PW-5 found deceased hanging from fan with saree after door was broken - Door bolted from inside - Held: PW-5 was natural witness competent to speak about relationship between deceased and accused - Nothing stated by PW-5 about other accused living with Accused No.1 or harassment against deceased - Prosecution version not supported by natural witness [Paras 21, 25].

Evidence - Delay in Lodging FIR - Inconsistent Timeline - PW-1 stated she received information about death at 11 a.m., reached scene at 11:30 a.m., went to police station at 6 p.m. - FIR stated she received information from neighbors - During evidence stated PW-4 informed her - No consistency as to time when information received or source of information - Held: Delay in lodging FIR and inconsistency regarding timeline and source of information casts doubt on prosecution case [Paras 16].

Criminal Procedure - Acquittal Judgment - Interference by Appellate Court - Trial court found: (i) motive not proved, (ii) medical evidence indicating suicide, (iii) delay in lodging FIR, (iv) inconsistency regarding weapon used, (v) weak circumstantial evidence, (vi) presence of PW-7 at scene not believable, (vii) material omissions and contradictions, (viii) circumstantial evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 unreliable, (ix) prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Held: Upon careful examination of entire evidence and impugned judgment, prosecution failed to prove guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 3 for offences under Sections 498-A and 302 read with 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt - Findings of trial court sustainable - No grounds to interfere with acquittal [Paras 8, 26].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed - Acquittal judgment confirmed - Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that death was homicidal or that accused committed offences under Sections 498-A and 302 read with 34 IPC - Medical evidence established death by suicide - Eyewitness testimony unreliable and contradictory - Motive not established - Natural witness did not support prosecution version.

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Application for Rejection - Petitioner challenged order refusing to reject plaint on grounds that suit was not maintainable as filed by unauthorized Power of Attorney holder and was barred by limitation - Original plaintiff died during pendency and legal heirs substituted - Power of Attorney authorized agent to demand, enforce and recover property rights - Court held Power of Attorney sufficiently authorized agent to enforce right of pre-emption based on compromise decree - Suit not maintainable objection rejected [Paras 5, 9-13].

Power of Attorney - Authority to File Suit - Order III Rule 2 CPC - Scope of Authority - Power of Attorney executed due to principal's ill health authorizing agent to manage properties - Clause 2 authorized agent to demand, recover, enforce rights in respect of all property to which principal is or may be entitled - Suit filed to enforce right of pre-emption under compromise decree - Held: Power of Attorney language sufficiently broad to authorize filing suit to enforce such right - Whether claim legally valid is matter for trial - Power of Attorney holder competent to file suit [Paras 9-13].

Limitation - Substitution of Parties - Section 21 Limitation Act - Devolution of Interest - Original plaintiff died and legal heirs substituted - Petitioner contended suit barred by limitation as substitution occurred beyond three years from sale deed execution under Article 59 - Held: Section 21(2) excludes application of Section 21(1) where substitution occurs due to devolution of interest during pendency - Legal heirs substituted upon death of original plaintiff due to devolution of interest - Suit deemed instituted on original date of filing - No question of limitation arises [Paras 14-15].

Limitation Act - Section 21(2) - Exception to Section 21(1) - Substitution or Addition of Parties - Section 21(1) provides suit deemed instituted when new party added or substituted - Section 21(2) excludes this where party substituted owing to assignment or devolution of interest during pendency of suit - Original plaintiff's interest in suit property devolved upon legal heirs upon death - Substitution fell within exception - If suit originally within limitation, it does not become barred upon substitution of legal heirs - Otherwise object of Order 22 CPC would be frustrated [Paras 14-15].

Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Plaint Barred by Law - Application can be filed on grounds enumerated under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) - Rejection sought on ground plaint barred by limitation - Court must examine whether from face of plaint suit appears barred by law - Application rejected on proper application of Section 21(2) Limitation Act - Revision dismissed [Paras 8, 16-17].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed - Application for rejection of plaint rightly rejected by trial court - Suit not barred by limitation due to application of Section 21(2) Limitation Act - No opinion expressed on merits of plaintiffs' claim of pre-emption which is matter for trial.

Preventive Detention – Detenu already in Judicial Custody – Requirement of satisfaction regarding likelihood of release on bail – Detention order passed against petitioner involved in multiple NDPS cases while he was already in judicial custody and had not even applied for bail – Co-accused’s bail application had already been rejected – Detention order failed to record any cogent material indicating a real possibility of the petitioner being released on bail – Held: Preventive detention cannot be justified on mere apprehension; detaining authority must demonstrate a real likelihood of release and further prejudicial activity – Absence of such satisfaction vitiates the detention order [Paras 17–20].

Preventive Detention – Consideration of Extraneous Material – Reference to criminal cases against family members – Grounds of detention referred to FIRs registered against wife and sons of the petitioner without explaining their relevance to the detention order – Justification attempted only during oral submissions – Held: Reliance on unexplained material amounts to consideration of extraneous factors and prejudices the detenu’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution [Para 21].

Preventive Detention – Right to Effective Representation – Non-supply of relied-upon document in language known to detenu – Bail rejection order of co-accused supplied only in English though petitioner knew only Urdu – Other documents were supplied in Urdu acknowledging the petitioner’s language limitation – Held: Once a document is relied upon, it must be supplied in a language understood by the detenu – Failure to do so violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution and vitiates the detention order [Paras 22–23].

Preventive Detention – Delay in Passing and Executing Detention Order – Live link between grounds and detention – Charge-sheet filed on 22.08.2024 but detention order passed only on 20.03.2025 and executed on 21.04.2025 – Administrative explanations and transfer of prisoner held insufficient – Held: Unexplained delay breaks the live link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, casting doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority [Paras 24–25].

Preventive Detention – Grounds of Detention must be Specific and Clear – Grounds alleged seizure of 21,935 grams of heroin across cases involving the petitioner without explaining the computation – Explanation during arguments that quantity included recovery from co-accused held insufficient – Held: Grounds must be precise and self-contained; detenu cannot be left to speculate as to how the figures relied upon by the authority were derived [Para 26].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Detention Order dated 20.03.2025 passed under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act set aside – Petitioner shall not be detained pursuant to the impugned order – Observations confined to the present petition and not to affect the merits of pending criminal cases [Paras 27–29].

Tenancy Law - Eviction - Reasonable Requirement - Section 13(1)(ff) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 - Landlord filed suit for eviction of tenant from one room to construct toilet and bathroom for ground floor tenants - Property had no toilet facility causing tenants to use toilet of neighboring property - Compromise decree in earlier suit allowed temporary use of neighbor's toilet with direction to make separate arrangement - Trial court decreed eviction finding reasonable requirement established - First Appellate Court reversed holding requirement was for tenants not landlord's own use - Held: Construction of toilet is bare necessity and essentiality for proper use of premises - Requirement not only of landlord himself but also normal emanations of landlord included - Expression "for his own use" not confined to actual physical user by landlord personally - Trial court's decree allowing eviction correct - First Appellate Court committed error of law and fact [Paras 1-3, 13-15].

Tenancy Law - Interpretation of "Own Use" - Liberal Construction - Section 13(1)(ff) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act - Defendant argued requirement pleaded was for tenants not landlord, therefore does not satisfy condition of landlord's own use and occupation - Held: Expression "for his own use" not confined in meaning to actual physical user by landlord personally - Court should adopt practical and meaningful approach guided by realities of life - Requirement not only of landlord himself but also all normal emanations of landlord included therein - Tests are: (i) whether requirement pleaded may properly be regarded as landlord's own requirement; (ii) whether actual occupation by person other than landlord would be deemed as landlord's own occupation - Words "for his own use" should receive wide, liberal and useful meaning - When tenanted portion has no toilet or latrine, construction of same is bare necessity for proper use - Though tenants residing presently, may be used by landlord in future - Need of landlord should not be confined to narrow interpretation [Paras 13-15].

Evidence - Admitted Facts - Necessity of Toilet - Defendant admitted in cross-examination that there was no latrine or toilet in suit premises - Plaintiffs established through prior suit that tenants were using toilet of neighboring property under temporary arrangement - Owner of neighboring property directed plaintiffs to make separate arrangement - Specific property selected to be converted into toilet as waste could be connected with existing safety tank conveniently and economically - Held: Defendant's admission leaves no scope to doubt requirement - Evidence established toilet and latrine needed for premises - Actual need and requirement admitted - Bare essentiality for proper use of property established [Para 12-13].

Tenancy Law - Termination of Tenancy - Notice to Quit - Section 13(6) West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act - Contractual tenancy for twelve months ended in month of Falgoon 1407 B.S. - Notice to quit served asking defendant to vacate by expiry of Jaistha 1408 B.S. - Defendant admitted receiving notice to quit - Landlord refused to accept rent after contractual tenancy ended - Defendant deposited rent with Rent Controller - First Appellate Court held determination of tenancy questionable - Held: After expiry of contractual tenancy, no renewal took place requiring fresh termination - Landlord has right to refuse rent - Notice to quit duly served - First Appellate Court's observation suffers from misconception and is unsustainable - Tenancy properly determined [Paras 10-12].

Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Additional Evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC - Defendant filed application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to adduce evidence that another room available where toilet could be constructed - Argued landlord inducted new tenant in another vacant room during pendency - Held: At stage of second appeal no scope to appreciate evidence further - Landlord is best judge to decide which room will serve purpose - Tenant cannot dictate - Plaintiffs pleaded specific room can conveniently be converted into toilet - Commissioner's map showed specific room nearest to safety tank making it more suitable - Consideration of availability of other room becomes redundant - Application comes to no help [Para 12].

Tenancy Law - Requirement Distinguished from Desire - Element of Need - Phiroze Bamanji Desai principle applied - There must be element of need before landlord can be said to require premises for own use and occupation - Defendant argued requirement must be distinguished from mere desire and actual element of need absent - Held: Admitted position that it is case of actual need and requirement - When tenanted portion where several tenants living has no toilet or latrine, construction of same is bare necessity and essentiality for proper use - Element of need clearly established - Requirement reasonable and bona fide [Para 13].

Tenancy Law - Bona Fide Requirement - Tests for "Own Use" - Joginder Pal principles - Tests to be applied: (i) whether requirement pleaded and proved may properly be regarded as landlord's own requirement; (ii) whether actual occupation and user by person other than landlord would be deemed as landlord's own occupation - Answer depends on: (i) nature and degree of relationship/dependence between landlord and person who would actually use premises; (ii) circumstances in which claim arises; (iii) intrinsic tenability of claim - Court on being satisfied of reasonability and genuineness of claim, as distinguished from mere ruse to get rid of tenant, will uphold landlord's claim - Held: All tests satisfied in present case - Construction of toilet bare necessity - Requirement reasonable, bona fide and genuine [Para 13-14].

Decision: Second appeal allowed - Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court dated 15/07/2011 set aside - Trial court's decree of eviction restored - Plaintiffs directed to deliver possession within sixty days from passing of appellate decree - In case of default, execution proceeding may be initiated - Defendant liable to pay mesne-profit for which liberty given to institute separate suit.

Civil Procedure – Commercial Suit – Reopening of Evidence – Recall of Witness – Additional Documents – Plaintiff filed suit for return of 4,100 grams of 22 carat gold or payment of market value of Rs. 1,98,26,124/- along with interest – Pending suit, plaintiff filed applications to receive additional documents (FIR in Crime No. 238 of 2023 registered against the defendant on a complaint of cheating), to reopen evidence on plaintiff's side and to recall PW1 – Trial Court dismissed all applications holding no reasonable cause shown for filing additional documents – Respondent did not file any counter to the applications – Held: Plaintiff must be given an opportunity to prove the conduct of the defendant; dismissal of applications defeats the petitioner's valuable right to establish his case; impugned orders set aside [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Civil revision petitions allowed – IA Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of 2026 allowed – Liberty granted to respondent to cross-examine the witness – Trial Court directed to proceed with the matter – No costs.

Education Law – Recognition as Research Guide – Alleged submission of forged publications – Petitioner, an Associate Professor in Hindi, applied for recognition as Research Guide under Mahatma Gandhi University Ph.D Regulations, 2016 – Application rejected by the University on the ground that the petitioner had submitted forged and unauthentic journals along with the guideship application – University also initiated proceedings by constituting an Institutional Academic Integrity Panel under UGC Regulations 2018 – Held: When allegations relate to authenticity of academic publications and possible academic misconduct, the competent academic authorities must first complete the statutory proceedings – Court declined to interfere at the preliminary stage [Paras 16–17].

Judicial Review – Academic Matters – Limited scope of interference – Dispute involved verification of genuineness of academic journals and allegations of submission of forged publications – Held: Such issues fall within the domain of expert academic bodies and the University authorities, and the High Court should not interfere unless the decision is arbitrary or without jurisdiction – Academic bodies are competent to determine authenticity of publications and compliance with research regulations [Paras 16–17].

UGC Regulations – Academic Integrity and Plagiarism – Institutional inquiry – Where allegations of submission of forged or unauthentic publications arise in the context of recognition as Research Guide, proceedings under the UGC Regulations on Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism, 2018 may be initiated – Held: Determination of the allegations should be made through the Institutional Academic Integrity Panel constituted under the Regulations [Para 16].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Respondents directed to complete proceedings initiated under UGC Regulations 2018 within three months – Petitioner's application for recognition as Research Guide to be reconsidered on the basis of the outcome of those proceedings [Para 17].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque Dishonour – Power of Attorney Holder as Witness – Competency – Cheque dated 05.03.2011 for Rs. 2,50,000/- issued by accused dishonoured – PW1, Power of Attorney Holder of complainant, examined as witness having direct knowledge of and having witnessed the transaction leading to execution of cheque – Trial court discarded his evidence solely on the ground that his name was not cited in the preliminary witness schedule filed with the complaint – Held: In a private complaint prosecution, omission to cite a witness in the initial witness schedule is not a reason to disbelieve his evidence when he was duly examined and his testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination — trial court's view was hyper-technical and erroneous [Paras 8–9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Sections 118 and 139 – Presumption – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Burden of Proof – Trial court acquitted accused also on the ground that complainant did not prove his financial capacity to advance Rs. 2,50,000/- – Accused did not raise any challenge during trial as to complainant's financial incapacity – Held: Where accused does not dispute financial capacity of complainant during trial, no burden lies on complainant to prove the same — presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise in favour of complainant and were not rebutted by accused — finding of trial court on this point also erroneous [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed — acquittal set aside — accused convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act — sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- with default imprisonment of six months — accused directed to appear before trial court on 10.04.2026.

Maintenance — Minor Child — Section 125 CrPC — Both Parents in Government Service — Father's Obligation Absolute — Interim Maintenance of ₹8,000/- Per Month Upheld — Revisionist-father serving in CRPF challenged the order of Family Court awarding interim maintenance of ₹8,000/- per month to the minor daughter on the ground that the mother is also employed in CISF and the entire burden ought not to fall on him alone, and that his loan repayments and other liabilities substantially reduce his net take-home salary — Held: The statutory obligation of the father to maintain his minor child under Section 125 CrPC is absolute — The fact that the mother is also earning does not ipso facto absolve the father of his obligation — While the income of both parents is a relevant consideration for quantum, the father cannot avoid responsibility merely because the mother is employed — Section 125 CrPC is a social justice legislation to be interpreted liberally in favour of dependents — Revision dismissed [Paras 21–24, 28].

Maintenance — Quantum — Loan Repayments and Voluntary Liabilities — Aged Parents and Siblings — Cannot Override Child's Right — Revisionist contended that loan deductions of ₹6,454/- and ₹18,640/- and responsibility towards aged parents and siblings substantially reduced his capacity — Held: Voluntary liabilities such as loan repayments cannot override the paramount right of a minor child to maintenance unless such liabilities are shown to be unavoidable and compelling — Responsibility towards parents and siblings does not eclipse the statutory obligation towards a minor child — Duty to maintain a minor child stands on a higher pedestal — ₹8,000/- per month is reasonable considering inflation, rising cost of living, educational, nutritional and medical needs of a growing child [Paras 26–28].

Maintenance — Date of Award — From Date of Application — Discretion of Court — The discretion to grant maintenance from the date of application or from the date of order is statutorily vested in the Court — No perversity or misapplication of law demonstrated in granting maintenance from the date of filing of application [Para 29].

Revisional Jurisdiction — Sections 397/401 CrPC — Supervisory, Not Appellate — Interference Only on Manifest Illegality or Gross Perversity — Interim maintenance is provisional and subject to final adjudication — Revisionist will have adequate opportunity during trial to establish his contentions regarding income, liabilities and proportionate responsibility of the mother — No patent illegality or perversity made out [Paras 30–33].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed — Impugned order dated 24.07.2023 of learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee affirmed — Revisionist directed to continue paying interim maintenance of ₹8,000/- per month to respondent no. 2 — No order as to costs.