Maintenance – Enhancement under Section 127 CrPC – Permanent Alimony under HMA – Overlapping Jurisdiction – Petitioner-husband challenged enhancement of monthly maintenance to ₹30,000 under Section 127 CrPC despite decree of ₹20,000 permanent alimony under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act – Magistrate enhanced maintenance based solely on affidavit and evidence adduced by wife as husband failed to file affidavit of assets despite repeated opportunities – Held: Proceedings under Section 125/127 CrPC and Section 25 of HMA are distinct but overlapping – Modification/enhancement under CrPC permissible upon change in circumstances – Wife entitled to additional ₹10,000 over permanent alimony based on enhanced income and rising expenses [Paras 13–23].

Delay in Disposal – Retrospective Effect – Judicial Fairness – Enhancement application filed in 2012 disposed only in 2025 – Magistrate made enhancement retrospective from filing date while relying on income details from 2024 – Held: Such retrospective application of enhanced income is incongruent with judicial propriety – Direction modified to make enhancement effective from date of order, not from date of application [Paras 10, 18, 26].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Court reiterated that its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are preserved to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice but must operate within statutory and judicial constraints – Revisions rightly entertained under Sections 397/401 CrPC, with limited interference [Paras 19–20].

Non-Filing of Affidavit of Assets – Adverse Inference – Husband’s non-compliance with court direction to file affidavit of assets led to adverse inference – Trial Court rightly relied on wife’s detailed affidavit – Held: Enhancement justified based on available material – No interference warranted except for date of effect [Paras 14–17, 22].

Decision: Revisions partly allowed – Order dated 20.08.2024 modified – Husband to pay ₹10,000 per month in addition to ₹20,000 permanent alimony awarded in MAT Suit No. 34 of 2015 – Modified amount payable from date of Magistrate's order (20.08.2024) and not from date of application (19.05.2012) – All interim orders stand vacated – Connected applications disposed [Paras 26–29].

Civil Law - Telegraph Act – Compensation for Land Damage – Finality of District Judge's Decision – Appeals were filed by farmers challenging judgments passed under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 awarding compensation for damage caused by installation of transmission lines – High Court held that under Section 16(5), such decisions are statutorily final – Consequently, no appeal under Section 96 CPC is maintainable against such judgments or decrees, irrespective of whether the District Court styled the proceedings as ‘Civil Suits’ or passed a ‘decree’ [Paras 10–14, 18].

Civil Procedure – Scope of Appeal under Section 96 CPC – Limitations Imposed by Special Statutes – Court observed that Section 96 CPC is subject to “express provisions” in any other law – Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act being a special provision clearly excludes appellate remedy – Drawing of a decree by the District Judge does not override statutory finality under Telegraph Act [Paras 11–13].

Judicial Guidance – Alternative Remedy under Writ Jurisdiction – In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. Vinod, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1731, Court observed that parties aggrieved by District Court’s decision under Section 16(3) may explore remedies under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution – Supreme Court had urged the Law Commission and Government of India to consider statutory appellate remedy for such cases [Paras 15–17, 19].

Civil Procedure – Return of Plaint/Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction – Court held that since it lacked jurisdiction under Section 96 CPC due to the statutory bar under Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act, the only course was to return the First Appeals under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, and not to dismiss them – Return of appeals ordered with liberty to appellants to approach appropriate forum [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Objection to maintainability sustained – First Appeals returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for want of jurisdiction – Appellants at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy under constitutional jurisdiction as per guidance in Kalpataru judgment.

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence Act – Maintenance and Alternative Accommodation – Quantum Justified – Petitioner/husband challenged concurrent orders granting ₹2,500 per month as maintenance and ₹500 as rent for alternate accommodation to the wife under Sections 18 and 19 of the Domestic Violence Act – Trial Court found wife to be unemployed and dependent – Maintenance deducted from husband’s army salary until retirement, later discontinued – Husband failed to disclose his pension or produce evidence of wife’s alleged independent income – Held: Orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court are reasoned, justified, and supported by material on record – Maintenance amount reasonable considering husband’s earning capacity and wife’s needs [Paras 6, 11–18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC do not extend to reappreciation of evidence unless perversity or illegality is demonstrated – No such infirmity found in concurrent findings of lower Courts – Held: No grounds to interfere in well-reasoned orders passed below [Paras 9–10, 19].

Presumption of Capacity to Earn – Retired Army Personnel – Appellant-husband, aged 38 and ex-army personnel, presumed to be physically fit and employable – Argument of low pension unsupported by documents – Courts below rightly drew adverse inference for non-production of income details – Held: Capable of maintaining wife; statutory obligation continues despite retirement [Para 17].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case dismissed – Judgment dated 10.04.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2011 and order dated 21.09.2011 in D.V.C. No. 16 of 2010 upheld – Interim orders vacated and pending applications disposed.

Section 21(c), 23(c), 27(A), 28, 29, 30, 35, 54 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act – Bail – Section 37 – Rejection – Applicant alleged to be part of international drug trafficking syndicate – Co-accused arrested with 1970 grams of cocaine – Though confessional statements under Section 67 NDPS Act are inadmissible, prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including WhatsApp chats, forensic analysis, call logs (117 calls), and bank transactions – Applicant linked to operations via logistical support, communication with foreign national ‘Mr. Morris’, and financial trail through wife’s bank account – Held: Prima facie material establishes Applicant’s role in smuggling network – Reasonable grounds to believe Applicant is not guilty not made out – Long incarceration alone not a ground for bail in commercial quantity offences – Section 37 bar not overcome [Paras 8–12].

Decision: Bail application rejected – Court finds sufficient prima facie evidence to deny relief under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Observations to not affect merits at trial [Paras 13–14].

Civil Writ - SARFAESI – Classification of MSME Account as NPA – RBI Guidelines – Petitioners, an MSME unit, challenged classification of loan as NPA without following RBI circulars dated 29.05.2015, 21.07.2016 and 17.03.2016 – Alleged denial of mandatory restructuring process under RBI framework – Held: No evidence that petitioners raised the issue of MSME protection before issuance of Section 13(2) notice or in reply – Prima facie, contention of lessee operations by third party supported by bank – Ext.P10 framework not mandatorily applicable absent revival potential – Writ jurisdiction not invoked in such disputed facts [Paras 7–9, 11]

Banking Law – Interest Hike – Usurious Charges – Petitioners alleged arbitrary hike of interest from 10% to 18.15% and imposition of penal interest for SMA classifications – Contended that interest manipulation violated Central Bank of India v. Ravindra ratio – Held: Issue requires adjudication on evidence – Not fit for determination under Article 226 at threshold stage [Paras 2.1, 4.3]

Maintainability – Alternate Remedy – DRT Jurisdiction – Petitioners argued that writ is maintainable as challenge pertains to jurisdictional illegality in NPA classification – Held: Since bank has already acted under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act, and no prima facie illegality shown in NPA classification or denial of MSME framework, petitioner relegated to DRT under Section 17 SARFAESI Act – Writ dismissed with liberty [Paras 10–11]

CERSAI – Challenge to Mortgage Registration – Petitioners alleged absence of valid CERSAI registration under Section 26D SARFAESI Act – Bank produced documents showing registration of security interest – Held: No cause to interfere in writ jurisdiction on this ground [Para 2.4]

Disputed Facts – Lease to Third Party – Petitioners denied leasing operations to third party; bank relied on site visit photos and claimed unit was non-operational – Held: Disputed factual matrix regarding actual operations and eligibility under MSME revival framework not suitable for resolution under Article 226 – Left open for appropriate forum [Paras 9–11]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioners at liberty to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act – No opinion expressed on merits.

Hindu Marriage – Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal against decree – Allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and suppression of husband’s mental illness not proved – No FIR or complaint filed – Evidence produced by wife unreliable and hearsay – Husband made genuine attempts to resume cohabitation which wife refused – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights upheld – No error found in judgment of Family Court [Paras 2–5].

Maintenance and Permanent Alimony – Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Nature and Scope – Interim maintenance under Section 24 can be granted during pendency of proceedings when applicant lacks independent income – Permanent alimony under Section 25 may be granted at the time of decree or subsequently – Right to maintenance available to either spouse but is discretionary – Conduct of parties is relevant consideration after 1976 amendment inserting “conduct of parties and other circumstances of the case” [Paras 7–11].

Discretionary Relief – Fault Principle – No party can take advantage of its own wrong – Maintenance cannot be claimed as of right by a spouse found at fault – However, to prevent destitution or vagrancy, Court may grant limited maintenance even to erring spouse – Quantum of maintenance to be proportionate to basic needs in such cases [Paras 11–12].

Restitution Decree – Effect on Claim for Maintenance – Court cannot direct that decree for restitution of conjugal rights shall have no effect on consideration of maintenance application – Wife, however, may apply separately for maintenance to avoid destitution; relief under Sections 24 and 25 remains discretionary and fact-dependent [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights dated 27.11.2014 in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014 affirmed – No order directing that decree shall not affect claim for maintenance – Liberty reserved to appellant to apply independently for maintenance as per law [Paras 15–16].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Jurisdiction – Plaintiff sought declaration and injunction over multiple properties claimed as residential, commercial, and industrial – Trial Court rejected suit stating the land was agricultural and civil court lacked jurisdiction – Held: Even if some properties are agricultural, rejection of entire plaint unjustified where other reliefs are triable by civil court – Civil court has jurisdiction over non-agricultural and commercial property – Rejection of entire plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC unsustainable [Paras 28–30]

Partial Relief – Mixed Property Nature – Revenue Jurisdiction – Plaintiff pleaded multiple properties including ancestral house, banquet halls, industrial premises, etc., within city limits and used for non-agricultural purposes – Trial court failed to consider that plaintiff can seek relief for properties outside revenue jurisdiction – Held: Trial court erred in rejecting plaint without framing issues or allowing evidence – Suit not wholly barred under Section 206 of U.P. Revenue Code [Paras 28–30]

Pleading Stage – Scope of Order 7 Rule 11 – Triable Issues – Reliefs not time-barred on face of record – Disputed facts such as usage, possession, nature of land require trial – Held: At Order 7 Rule 11 stage, only averments in plaint to be considered – If any relief survives, plaint must proceed to trial – Improper for court to evaluate merits or accept defendants' contentions at preliminary stage [Paras 25–27]

Appeal – Appellate Interference – Grave Procedural Error – Trial court rejected entire suit prematurely without adjudicating nature of properties and without proper application of law – Held: Impugned order perverse and liable to be set aside – Suit restored for trial on merits – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Paras 30–33]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the trial court dated 03.12.2022 set aside – Defendants’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dismissed – O.S. No. 782 of 2021 restored to its original number – Trial court to decide suit on merits within six months – District Judge, Ghaziabad to monitor progress biweekly.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Maintainability – Plaintiff sought declaration of ownership of two properties in different districts, including one in Noida and one in Auraiya – Trial court rejected suit citing lack of jurisdiction over Auraiya property and failure to challenge lease deed – Held: Under Section 17 CPC, suit maintainable where part of property is within court's jurisdiction and cause of action is common – Rejection of plaint unsustainable [Paras 21–24, 40]

Benami Transactions – Rebuttable Presumption – Property Registered in Wife’s Name – Plaintiff claimed properties were purchased by him from his own funds but registered in wife’s name under emotional pressure – Held: Burden lies on person alleging benami – Whether property falls under fiduciary or spouse exception is triable issue – Cannot be decided at Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stage – Rejection of plaint not permissible [Paras 30–39]

Cause of Action – Common Transactions – Single Cause of Action – Plaintiff’s claim of emotional coercion, marital relationship, and fiduciary capacity formed common basis for claims over both properties – Trial court erred in treating them as separate causes – Suit held maintainable for both properties under single cause of action [Paras 24–26]

Relief of Cancellation – Necessity – Plaintiff did not seek cancellation of lease deed or sale deeds but only declaratory relief – Trial court held this omission fatal – Held: Whether cancellation required depends on outcome of trial and plaintiff’s success in proving ownership – Not a ground for rejection of plaint at threshold [Paras 28–29, 39]

Fiduciary Relationship – Exception to Benami Bar – Plaintiff produced power-of-attorney mentioning him as husband of defendant – Claimed continued possession and expenditure on properties – Held: Nature of relationship and intention behind transactions requires full trial – Exception under Section 4(3)(b) of Benami Act plausible – Suit not barred at this stage [Paras 25–27, 34–38]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Trial court's order dated 04.05.2022 rejecting plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC set aside – Suit restored to original number – Trial court directed to dispose of the suit within six months.

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 152 BNS – Social Media Post – Allegation of 'Pakistan Zindabad' post by applicant under a foreign national’s post – No material to show active promotion of secession or armed rebellion – Held: Section 152 BNS requires intentional incitement of secession or subversive activity – Mere expression of sentiment, even if offensive, does not fulfill statutory requirements – Bail justified in absence of prima facie intent to endanger sovereignty or unity [Paras 5-8].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech – Standards of Reasonable Interpretation – Apex Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat held that speech must be judged on reasonable person standard – Court emphasizes liberty under Article 19(1)(a) and cautions against overbroad criminalization of speech on social media – Police must act within constitutional limits [Para 9].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – No Criminal History – Long Trial Delay – Applicant in custody since May 2025 with no prior convictions – Court applies principle of presumption of innocence and right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Cites Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and highlights prison overcrowding – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Para 10].

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant to be released on personal bond and two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure trial participation – Breach of conditions to lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 10-12].