Matrimonial Law - Recovery of Gold Ornaments and Istridhan – Partial Modification of Trial Court Decree – Quantum of Recovery Reduced – The wife claimed recovery of 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments allegedly entrusted to the husband – The Family Court had awarded recovery of 50 sovereigns or its market value as on the date of petition – Upon reappraisal of evidence, High Court found inconsistencies in wife’s version regarding entrustment and retention of gold ornaments – Photographs and admissions indicated part of the ornaments remained with the wife – Held: Wife entitled to recover 30 sovereigns or their market value at the time of recovery; decree modified to that extent [Paras 6-9].

Valuation Date – Entitlement to Market Value on Date of Recovery – The Family Court erroneously awarded market value of gold ornaments as on date of petition – High Court clarified settled position that valuation must be as on date of recovery – Decree modified accordingly [Para 9].

Maintenance – No Interference with Award of Maintenance – The wife and daughter were granted ₹4,000/- and ₹3,000/- respectively as monthly maintenance – High Court found appellant’s claim of inability to earn unsubstantiated and no evidence of wife’s independent means of livelihood – Held: Maintenance amount reasonable, Family Court rightly fixed maintenance based on husband’s earning capacity – No interference warranted [Para 10].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Dismissal Unchallenged – Family Court had dismissed husband’s claim for restitution of conjugal rights; no appeal filed challenging that finding – Held: Finding attained finality [Para 1].

Decision – Decree Partly Modified and Revision Dismissed – Appeal partly allowed reducing recoverable quantity of gold ornaments to 30 sovereigns with market value as on date of recovery; maintenance decree upheld in entirety; revision petition dismissed [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹3,000 for sanctioning a bill – The High Court observed that the de facto complainant (PW.1) and key witnesses (PW.2 and PWs.3-7) were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution’s version – Accused offered spontaneous explanation that the money was a hand loan sent by PW.16, which was corroborated by PW.16 – Held: In the absence of proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of bribe, mere recovery of money is insufficient to convict – Conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 2-35].

Bribery and Illegal Gratification – Requirement of Proof of Demand – Demand Not Established – Held: Demand of bribe is sine qua non to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – PW.1 turned hostile, and no direct evidence of demand was established – The prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted [Paras 23-26, 33-35].

Recovery of Tainted Money – Mere Recovery Without Demand Insufficient – Held: Recovery of tainted money from the accused without establishing demand or voluntary acceptance does not fulfill ingredients of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act – Appellant’s explanation of receiving hand loan remained unrebutted – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23-26, 30-34].

Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act – Not Applicable in Absence of Demand – Held: Presumption under Section 20 requires proof of demand and acceptance – When foundational facts regarding demand are absent, presumption cannot arise – Acquittal warranted [Para 27].

Appellate Interference – Acquittal on Reappreciation of Evidence – Appellate Court found concurrent hostile testimony, absence of demand, and credible alternative explanation – Conviction set aside on reevaluation of evidence in light of binding precedents [Paras 23-35].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Fine amount to be refunded – Bail bonds discharged – Miscellaneous applications closed [Para 35].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) - Interim Maintenance – Enhancement – Financial Capacity of Husband – Maintenance Upheld – The petitioner-husband challenged the enhanced maintenance of ₹1,00,000/- per month fixed by the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground of his chronic medical condition and financial constraints – The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claims of exorbitant medical expenses with any documentary evidence – It was further found that the petitioner leads a lavish lifestyle with substantial monthly expenses and admitted income far higher than disclosed – Held: Maintenance rightly enhanced to ensure dignity and standard of living of respondent wife in proportion to husband’s financial status [Paras 1-4, 6-9].

Proof of Income – Lifestyle Indicators – Judicial Scrutiny – The Court analyzed the petitioner’s own affidavit of assets and liabilities reflecting average annual income between ₹28 to ₹36 lakhs, ownership of properties, mutual funds, and high personal expenditure – Rejected petitioner’s attempt to understate his income – Observed that living standard and financial disclosures are credible indicators of capacity to pay maintenance [Paras 7-9, 18-24].

Obligation to Maintain Wife – Sacrosanct Duty – Capable Husband Cannot Evade Maintenance – The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that an able-bodied husband is bound to maintain his wife irrespective of fluctuations in declared income – Referred to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing legal obligation to provide financial support to wife and ensuring she maintains similar status as husband [Paras 19-21].

Non-Entitlement of Major Children – Legal Clarification – The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that respondent’s major sons from previous marriage are not entitled to maintenance under the D.V. Act – Restricted maintenance solely to respondent wife, rejecting any claim towards major children [Paras 10, 13].

Property Alienation – Restraint Order Justified – Fraudulent Transfers – The Court upheld the trial court’s direction restraining the petitioner from alienating his immovable properties during pendency of proceedings in view of his conduct of transferring properties to avoid payment of maintenance – Such actions reinforced wife’s apprehensions and warranted judicial protection [Paras 11].

Second Marriage Irrelevant to Maintenance Rights – No Disqualification under D.V. Act – The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that respondent being a second wife or having children from previous marriage precludes maintenance – Reaffirmed statutory entitlement to maintenance irrespective of marital chronology [Para 12].

Final Decision – No Interference Warranted – Maintenance Upheld – Petition Dismissed – The Court concluded that the enhanced interim maintenance of ₹1,00,000/- per month was based on sound legal principles, correct assessment of financial status, and absence of illegality or perversity – Petition dismissed with no relief to petitioner [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law - Murder  – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302/120-B IPC – Conviction Upheld - The appellant challenged her conviction for conspiring to murder a 9-year-old boy through a child in conflict with law by drowning him in a stepwell – The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence comprising six factors: family dispute (motive), incriminating conversation, last seen evidence, suspicious behaviour, extra-judicial confession, and recovery of the deceased’s body – The High Court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction affirmed [Paras 12-27].

Last Seen Theory – Supporting Circumstances Essential – The Court reiterated that last seen evidence alone is insufficient for conviction but when supported by other incriminating factors, it can sustain conviction – Reliance placed on Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha – Held: In the instant case, last seen theory was corroborated by motive, conspiracy, and medical evidence, leaving no reasonable doubt [Paras 19-20].

Motive – Not Mandatory but Strengthens Circumstantial Chain – The Court held that even in the absence of strong motive, other conclusive circumstances can lead to conviction – However, in this case, motive through prior family quarrel was proved through unshaken testimonies – Held: Absence of motive not fatal where other circumstances prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 13-16].

Medical Evidence – Consistency with Prosecution Story – The post-mortem report established death by drowning due to asphyxia within the timeline of the incident, corroborating the prosecution’s narrative – Held: Medical evidence aligned with circumstantial evidence confirming cause of death [Para 23].

Failure to Explain Incriminating Circumstances – Accused's Silence Adds to Guilt – The Court held that failure of the appellant to offer any plausible explanation for incriminating circumstances formed an additional link in the chain of evidence – Applied principle laid down in Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand [Para 26].

Sentence – Minimum Prescribed Punishment Upheld – The Court declined to reduce the sentence considering the gravity of the crime – Held: Sentence of life imprisonment with fine under Section 302 IPC is mandatory and proportionate [Para 28].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction Affirmed – The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302/120-B IPC and sentencing her to life imprisonment with fine [Paras 27-29].

Regular Bail – Section 18 of the NDPS Act - Long Incarceration Before Trial Conclusion – Grant of Bail Justified – The petitioner faced prolonged incarceration exceeding 2 years 10 months on allegation of recovery of 2.6 kg opium – Court noted the trial’s slow progress with only 5 out of 13 witnesses examined after charges framed – Citing improbability of carrying contraband in transparent polythene in plain sight, Court found continued detention unjustified – Bail granted considering marginal excess of recovery over commercial quantity and inordinate trial delay [Paras 1-4].

Right to Personal Liberty – Presumption of Innocence and Humanitarian Bail Approach – Court relied on Supreme Court’s ruling in Dataram v. State of U.P. (2018) affirming bail as a rule and custody as exception – Prolonged detention infringes Article 21 guaranteeing personal liberty and dignity – Held: Bail appropriate when trial remains incomplete and custody period is excessive [Para 4].

Right to Speedy Trial – Constitutional Safeguard – Citing Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980), Court reiterated that accused must not suffer indefinite pre-conviction incarceration, particularly when trial shows no sign of early completion – Held: Liberty cannot be curtailed due to systemic delay [Para 4].

Final Decision – Bail Granted – Petition allowed and petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on execution of requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – Court clarified no expression on merits of the case [Para 4].

Criminal Law - NDPS - Forfeiture of Property – Dismissal of Appeal Due to Procedural Defect – Remedy Restored – The petitioners challenged the order of Appellate Tribunal dismissing their appeal under Section 68(O) NDPS Act on grounds of non-removal of defects, where petitioner No.2 could not file a signed affidavit due to incarceration – The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits, especially since the defect was beyond the petitioner’s control – Held: Administrative dismissal of appeal set aside; petitioners permitted to cure defect and revive appeal, which shall be decided on merits [Paras 6-11].

Access to Justice – Procedural Defects Not to Override Substantive Rights – Fair Adjudication Mandated – The Court observed that inability to comply with procedural requirements due to genuine difficulties, such as custodial status of a petitioner, cannot be a ground to deny substantive adjudication – Directions issued to enable attestation of affidavit through jail authorities and facilitate revival of appeal before the Tribunal [Paras 7-10].

Fair Procedure – Duty of Tribunal to Accommodate Practical Difficulties – Appeal Revived – The Court emphasized the responsibility of appellate authorities to avoid hyper-technical dismissals, particularly when the defect arose from circumstances beyond the litigant’s control – Directed the Tribunal to adjudicate appeal afresh on merits without being influenced by prior dismissal [Paras 9-11].

Decision of the Court – Administrative Dismissal Set Aside – The writ petition was allowed by setting aside the dismissal order dated 07.01.2025 of the Appellate Tribunal; petitioners granted liberty to cure defects and revive appeal within stipulated period – Directions issued to Jail Superintendent for facilitating affidavit attestation [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offence – Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA – Bail Denied – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail contending false implication in ECIR case regarding cryptocurrency fraud – ED objected highlighting petitioner’s alleged mastermind role in running Ponzi scheme under fake crypto “Emollient Coin” – Allegations included laundering ₹6.05 crores, evasion of investigation, and cheating thousands of innocent investors – Held: Considering petitioner’s non-cooperation, abscondence, gravity of economic offence, custodial interrogation essential, discretionary relief of anticipatory bail declined [Paras 1-19].

Pre-Arrest Bail – Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA – Twin Conditions – Reiterated – The Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail in PMLA cases is circumscribed by twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA – Satisfaction of non-guilt and likelihood of non-repetition of offence mandatory – Petitioner failed to establish compliance with twin conditions – Held: No merit in plea for extraordinary bail in economic offences impacting large investor base [Paras 15-17].

Principles for Grant of Pre-Arrest Bail – Guidelines from Apex Court – Reviewed – Court discussed and applied guiding factors from judgments Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), focusing on gravity of accusation, risk of absconding, non-cooperation in investigation, and societal impact – Held: Petitioner’s conduct of evasion, non-compliance with summons, and gravity of alleged scam justified rejection of bail [Paras 7-10].

Economic Offences – Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Bail Refused – Petitioner was allegedly central in managing the fraudulent company and responsible for laundering large proceeds of crime – Held: In view of large-scale victimization and evasion, custodial interrogation warranted to ensure thorough and fair investigation [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – High Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail, holding custodial interrogation necessary and no ground made out to exercise discretion in favour of petitioner – Application dismissed without prejudice to further remedies under law [Para 20].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Limitation, Validity of Agreement, and Admissibility of Evidence – Second Appeal Dismissed – Defendants filed second appeal challenging concurrent decrees granting specific performance of an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff – The High Court held that the Trial Court and Appellate Court correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence including Ex.A.15 agreement of sale, corroborative revenue records, and oral testimony establishing due execution and possession – The Court further held the suit was within limitation since no time was fixed for performance and cause of action arose upon refusal in 2011 – No substantial question of law was found warranting interference under Section 100 CPC – The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 1-30].

Limitation – Specific Performance Suit Within Limitation – Article 54 of the Limitation Act – Agreement of sale dated 22.04.2002 contained no time for performance – Plaintiff issued legal notice demanding execution of sale deed on 30.05.2011 after first notice of refusal dated 16.03.2011 – Suit filed on 27.07.2011 within limitation period – Both courts correctly applied Article 54 holding limitation started from refusal of performance – High Court upheld the finding and rejected limitation argument of appellants [Paras 13, 25-27].

Validity of Agreement of Sale – Execution and Consideration Proved – Defendants denied execution of agreement – Plaintiff established execution through oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, corroborated by mutation of name in revenue records and acknowledgment of possession – High Court upheld concurrent findings that Ex.A.15 was genuine, supported by consideration and validly executed by defendants after receiving ₹70,000 – Possession confirmed by revenue records and Village Revenue Officer’s testimony [Paras 19-24].

Admissibility of Agreement – Stamp Duty Paid – Document Admissible – Defendants objected to admissibility of Ex.A.15 on ground of inadequate stamp duty – Held: Stamp duty and penalty were duly paid as evidenced by Ex.A.1 challan before the District Registrar – High Court affirmed admissibility of Ex.A.15 and rejected appellants' contention regarding inadmissibility [Paras 19-20].

Possession – Possession Delivered to Plaintiff and Confirmed by Revenue Records – Plaintiff proved continuous possession from 2002 supported by mutation entries, issuance of pattadar passbook, and corroborative oral evidence – Defendants admitted in cross-examination that they did not challenge revenue records – High Court agreed with lower courts' finding on possession supporting decree for specific performance [Paras 22-24].

Second Appeal Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings Not Interfered – High Court reiterated principles under Section 100 CPC that interference is not warranted unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence – As lower courts' findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence, second appeal was dismissed [Paras 15-16, 28-30].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Decree for specific performance upheld – Suit not barred by limitation – Agreement of sale validly executed with possession delivered – No substantial question of law found – No costs awarded – Pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed [Para 30].

Devaswom Tender Conditions – Sub-letting and Encroachment by Kuthaka Holder – Breach of Tender Terms – Disciplinary Directions Issued - The Court considered suo motu proceedings initiated based on a report of unauthorised sub-letting and excess land occupation by the 7th respondent (kuthaka holder) in Stall No.113 at Pamba Manappuram – The 7th respondent failed to disclose co-partnership at the time of tender and sub-let portions of the stall to third parties, which was a clear violation of tender guidelines – Held: The respondent's action is in breach of tender terms, and the Devaswom Board is directed to take further disciplinary action beyond mere recovery of excess rent, including cancellation or blacklisting if warranted [Paras 16-19].

Public Auction Regulation – Mandatory Personal Conduct of Business – Court reiterated that kuthaka holders must personally operate the stall and are barred from re-auctioning or sub-leasing as per general guidelines framed in Sreekumar V. v. TDB – Held: Violation of these conditions undermines transparency and fairness in temple property management—stringent enforcement ordered [Paras 11-13].

Devaswom Board Duties – Duty to Enforce Tender Terms – Court observed that Travancore Devaswom Board officials failed in timely action against violation – Directions issued to enforce periodic inspection of stalls, to prevent unauthorised encroachments and sub-letting, and to proceed against violators strictly in terms of guidelines and circulars [Paras 19-20].

Income Tax Compliance – Tender Participants’ Financial Disclosure Mandatory – The Court noted lack of initial disclosure regarding partnership and inadequate financial compliance disclosures – Non-disclosure deemed material violation of tender process [Paras 17].

Decision – Directions Issued – Travancore Devaswom Board directed to take appropriate legal action against the 7th respondent within two months for breach of tender conditions, ensure regular monitoring of stalls, and maintain transparency in tendering process – Suo Motu proceedings disposed accordingly [Para 20].