Matrimonial Law – Return of Gold Ornaments – Entrustment and Misappropriation – Wife Established Possession of 82¾ Sovereigns at Time of Marriage – Marriage Photographs and Purchase Estimates Accepted – Locker Opened in Names of Husband and Mother-in-law Prior to Marriage – Failure to Examine Material Witnesses – Probabilised Entrustment and Misappropriation – Respondents Held Liable to Return 72¾ Sovereigns after Reasonable Deduction for Personal Retention [Paras 6–12, 15–16].

Evidence – Family Court – Section 14 Family Courts Act – Relaxation of Strict Rules of Evidence – Bank Statements Bearing Seal of Bank Accepted Despite Objection Under Section 65B Evidence Act – Technical Objections Cannot Defeat Substantive Justice in Family Proceedings [Paras 13–14].

Money Claim – Transfer of Funds from Wife’s Irish Bank Account – Documentary Evidence (Ext.A3, A5, X4) Established Transfer of Rs.10,88,529/- to Mother-in-law – Husband’s Meagre Income Disproved Defence That Funds Originated from Him – Decree for Recovery Upheld [Paras 13–14, 16].

Joint Liability – Involvement of Husband and In-laws – Pleadings and Oral Evidence Established Common Benefit and Participation – No Ground to Interfere with Finding of Liability of Appellants [Para 17].

Interest – Modification – Interest Reduced from 12% to 9% per annum till Date of Decree Considering Prevailing Rates – 6% per annum Thereafter Maintained [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Decree modified – Appellants directed to return 72¾ sovereigns of gold ornaments within one month, failing which value at time of realization recoverable – Decree for Rs.10,88,529/- with interest at 9% p.a. from date of petition till date of decree and 6% p.a. thereafter till realization – Other findings of Family Court confirmed.

Pension – Part-time/Daily Wage Service – Counting Towards Qualifying Service – Petitioner appointed as part-time Sweeper on 01.10.1989 and regularized w.e.f. 10.04.2006 – Retired on 30.06.2023 – Pension denied under Old Pension Scheme on ground of regularization after 01.01.2004 – Held: Initial entry into service prior to cut-off date and continuity of service entitles employee to benefit of Old Pension Scheme – Part-time service followed by regular service liable to be counted for qualifying service – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 5-7].

Old Pension Scheme vs New Pension Scheme – Cut-off Date 01.01.2004 – Respondents relied solely on date of regularization – Held: Issue no longer res integra – Consistent view of Court that part-time/daily wage service preceding regularization must be reckoned for pensionary benefits – Denial of OPS merely on basis of post-2004 regularization illegal [Paras 3, 5].

Regularization – Effect on Pension Rights – Petitioner sought regularization much prior to retirement – Services regularized in terms of Division Bench judgment – Held: Regularization relates back to continuous service rendered – Long and uninterrupted service of 33 years cannot be ignored for pensionary computation [Paras 2-3, 5].

Rule 3.17-A – Work-charged/Contingency Service – Reliance placed on Zile Singh – Held: Service rendered on work charge/part-time basis prior to regularization countable for pension – Technical plea regarding part-time nature rejected where engagement was continuous and not purely contingent [Para 6].

Relief – Impugned order dated 01.08.2025 and memo dated 23.10.2024 set aside – Respondents directed to count entire part-time service for qualifying service and grant benefits under Old Pension Scheme within three months – Any CPF amount received to be refunded/adjusted by petitioner [Para 7].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Direction issued to extend benefit of Old Pension Scheme by counting part-time service towards qualifying service –Compliance within three months.

POCSO Act – Age of Victim – Secondary Evidence – Inadmissible – Fatal Error by Trial Court – Acquittal – Prosecution relied on xerox copies of Birth Certificate (Ex.P.3) and Transfer Certificate (Ex.P.4) to prove victim's age as 16 years – Victim (PW1) categorically admitted originals were available – No justification offered for non-production of originals – Held: Secondary evidence is inadmissible unless non-production of primary evidence is accounted for within specific exceptions – Relying on Tharammel Peethambaran and Another vs. T. Ushakrishnan and Another, 2026 CC OnLine 169 – Trial Court's failure to reject Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 was a fatal error – On discarding these documents, the foundational fact of victim's age stands unproved and the prosecution case falls to the ground – Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted [Paras 13-15]

POCSO Act – Misuse – Consensual Adolescent Relationships – "Romeo-Juliet Clause" – Directions for Awareness – Both appellant and victim were minors (accused 17 years, victim 16 years) at the time of occurrence – Court observed that POCSO cases filed at the behest of girls' families objecting to romantic involvement with young boys have become commonplace, resulting in prolonged incarceration of boys – Relying on State of U.P. vs. Anurudha and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40, wherein the Supreme Court directed the Law Department, Government of India to consider introduction of a "Romeo-Juliet clause" exempting genuine adolescent relationships – Held: Wide publicity of Section 43 of POCSO Act is essential to curb misuse arising from lack of awareness of the Act's stringent provisions [Paras 17-21]

Directions to Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu – Section 43 POCSO Act – Court issued directions to the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to: (A) take immediate steps to comply with Section 43 of the POCSO Act to create awareness among general public, children and parents; (B) conduct awareness camps in Government Schools and Colleges; (C) consider similar camps in Private Schools and Colleges; (D) file a Status Report on measures undertaken – Matter posted on 03.06.2026 for compliance [Para 22]

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.06.2025 in Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2020 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Directions issued to Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu for POCSO awareness measures.

Criminal Law – Protest Complaint – Refer Report – Duty of Magistrate – When Police File Final Report Terming Complaint False and Protest Complaint is Filed, Magistrate Must Consider Refer Report and Materials Collected – Order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. Should Reflect Application of Mind and Brief Reasons for Disagreeing with Investigating Officer – Non-Consideration Vitiates Cognizance Order [Paras 6–8].

Cognizance – Section 406 IPC – Non-Speaking Order – Magistrate Took Case on File Without Indicating Whether Refer Report and FSL Report Were Considered – Failure to Disclose Reason for Disagreeing with Investigating Officer’s Findings – Legal Infirmity – Matter Liable to be Remanded [Paras 6–8].

Forgery Allegation – FSL Report – Where Allegation of Forgery Found Unsupported by Forensic Science Laboratory Report, Magistrate Must Address Impact of Same While Proceeding for Criminal Breach of Trust – Silence on Material Evidence Reflects Lack of Proper Application of Mind [Para 8].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. – Desirability of Recording Reasons – Though Detailed Judgment Not Required at Summoning Stage, Order Must Indicate Consideration of Relevant Materials and Reasons for Rejecting Police Final Report – Reliance Placed on Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran, 2009 (1) KHC 801 [Para 7].

Remand – Proper Course – Order Taking Cognizance Set Aside – Magistrate Directed to Reconsider Protest Complaint Afresh in Light of Refer Report and FSL Report and Pass Reasoned Order Indicating Agreement or Disagreement with Investigating Officer [Operative Directions (i)–(iv)].

Decision: Criminal M.C. disposed of – Order dated 27.12.2017 taking complaint on file and issuing summons set aside – Matter remanded to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur for fresh consideration – Magistrate directed to consider refer report, relevant records and FSL report and pass reasoned order reflecting brief reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with investigating officer.

Civil Procedure Code – Summary Suit – Leave to Defend – Conditional Leave – Trial Court dismissed application for leave to defend in money recovery suit filed under Order XXXVII CPC – Revision filed under Article 227 – Discrepancy in amount allegedly transferred – Absence of prima facie proof regarding agreement to pay 24% interest – Defence of payment towards interior design work and plea regarding dishonoured cheques – Held: Defendants raised triable issues warranting grant of leave – However, in absence of supporting documents, conditional leave granted subject to deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- within four weeks – Impugned order set aside [Paras 7–11].

Summary Suit – Proprietary Concern – Legal Status – Amount transferred to account of “I Shines”, a proprietary concern of first petitioner – Contention that payment was not made to petitioner in individual capacity – Held: Proprietary concern not a separate legal entity distinct from its proprietor – Transfer to proprietary concern amounts to payment to proprietor [Para 7].

Dishonoured Cheques – Allegation of Theft – Petitioners contended that cheques were stolen – No police complaint or contemporaneous action taken – Holder of blank cheque entitled to fill up blanks – Whether protection extends to alleged stolen cheque to be decided at trial – Defence found doubtful at this stage [Para 8].

Interest Claim – 24% per Annum – No prima facie material produced to establish contractual stipulation for such rate – Claim of interest raises triable issue requiring evidence [Para 9].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Order dismissing leave to defend set aside – Conditional leave granted subject to deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- within four weeks – Failing deposit, application for leave to defend to stand automatically dismissed – No costs – Connected CMP closed.

Dacoity – Appreciation of Evidence – Failure to Prove Occurrence Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Trial Court presumed factum of dacoity without proper analysis – Material lapses in investigation including non-seizure of empty cartridges despite alleged firing by both sides, non-recovery of broken lock, and failure to verify alleged possession of Rs.6,000/- – No recovery of looted articles – Held: Prosecution failed to establish foundational fact of dacoity beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 16-18, 26].

Identification – Co-villagers – Inconsistencies – Witnesses gave contradictory versions regarding number of dacoits, covering of faces, weapons carried and injuries caused – Medical evidence did not corroborate allegation of knife injury – Site plan did not support position from where accused allegedly identified – Identification in torch light doubtful – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 21-25].

Interested Witnesses – Village Enmity – Possibility of False Implication – All witnesses related or interested – Prior complaint and village rivalry including Pradhani election dispute on record – Accused residents of same village with no criminal antecedents – Improbable that villagers would commit dacoity barefaced in same village – Prosecution version not free from doubt [Paras 21, 25-26].

Appellate Interference – Benefit of Doubt – Where prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and material infirmities exist in appreciation of evidence, appellate court justified in reversing conviction – Reliance placed on Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu v. State of M.P. [Para 27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 29.08.1983 under Sections 395 and 397 IPC set aside – Surviving appellants acquitted – Appeal already abated qua deceased appellants.

Criminal Law – Proclamation Proceedings – Non-compliance of Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner declared proclaimed person without strict adherence to mandatory statutory requirements – Record did not reflect proper public reading of proclamation nor recording of judicial satisfaction regarding absconding or concealment – Mechanical exercise of jurisdiction vitiates proclamation – Impugned order set aside [Paras 5-8].

Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Nature – Before issuance of proclamation Court must record satisfaction that accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant cannot be executed – Requirements under Section 82(2) including public reading, affixation at residence and court-house are conjunctive and mandatory – Any deviation renders proceedings nullity – Reliance placed on Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319 [Paras 6-7].

Absconding – Foundational Requirement – Mere non-appearance does not ipso facto establish absconding – Where material indicated petitioner had gone abroad for higher studies and such fact was within knowledge of Court – Satisfaction regarding willful evasion not properly recorded – Jurisdictional precondition absent [Paras 8-8.1].

Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Proclamation having serious civil and criminal consequences cannot be sustained when passed in violation of due process – High Court justified in exercising inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Consequential proceedings also quashed [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 09.12.2024 declaring petitioner as proclaimed person and all consequential proceedings quashed – Pending applications disposed of.

Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – Section 2(vi) – Pension under Non-Contributory Superannuation Trust – Whether “Wages” – Employees resigned after completing qualifying years of service – Filed Form-N under Rule 31 claiming pension – Authority held pension payable under trust deed amounts to wages – Single Judge affirmed – Held: Any definite sum payable on fulfilment of employment conditions constitutes wages – Exclusion under Section 2(vi)(3) applies to employer’s contribution to fund, not pension payable from accumulated fund – Pension under trust scheme falls within inclusive definition of wages – Appeals dismissed [Paras 12–18, 22–24].

Jurisdiction – Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 – Competent Authority – Challenge to assumption of jurisdiction – Special statutory forum created for recovery of wages – If subject matter falls within statutory definition of wages, authority has jurisdiction – Civil Court jurisdiction impliedly barred to that extent – No jurisdictional error or erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by Referee – Writ Court rightly declined interference [Paras 15–17, 22–23].

Pension – Effect of Resignation – Superannuation Trust Deed – Eligibility based on completion of 5/10/15/20 years of continuous service – No clause restricting benefit to only superannuated employees – No forfeiture clause upon resignation – Respondents completed qualifying service before resignation – Held: Resignation after crystallization of eligibility does not defeat vested pension rights – Pension treated as earned remuneration and legal right [Paras 11, 19–20].

Definition of Wages – Judicial Interpretation – Scope extends beyond express contractual stipulations – Includes remuneration payable under contract, law, award or instrument upon fulfilment of service obligations – Termination by resignation or superannuation immaterial once entitlement accrues – Pension under trust deed covered within broad interpretation of “wages” [Paras 12–14, 17–18].

Non-Contributory Pension Fund – Legal Character – Employer-funded trust not a discretionary bounty – Once scheme framed and eligibility satisfied, benefit becomes enforceable obligation – Non-contribution by employee affects funding mechanism only – Employer cannot deny disbursement arbitrarily – Pension protected as earned benefit under principles of fairness and administrative law [Para 21].

Maintainability – Form-N Application – Status as “Person Employed” – Eligibility accrues on completion of qualifying service – It is immaterial whether employee continues in service on date of application – Right crystallized upon fulfilment of service slabs under trust deed – Application under Rule 31 maintainable [Para 13, 22].

Decision: MAT 682 of 2025, MAT 683 of 2025, MAT 684 of 2025 and MAT 685 of 2025 dismissed – Judgment dated 11.04.2025 in WPA 1617 of 2025 affirmed – Order dated 18.11.2024 passed by competent authority under West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 upheld – Connected applications (CAN 1 of 2025) disposed of.

Hindu Law – Joint Family Property – Blending – Property purchased by grandfather in 1966 – After his death, property partitioned between his sons and allotted to first defendant – Sale proceeds of property standing in name of first defendant’s wife (mother of plaintiff and second defendant) utilised for demolition and reconstruction of suit property – Parties residing jointly under one roof with common kitchen – Held: Conduct of parties and utilisation of common funds indicate intention to treat property as joint family property – First defendant blended his separate property with joint family property – Plaintiff entitled to 1/3rd share [Paras 18–25].

Benami – Property in Name of Wife – Presumption – Property at Mangadu purchased in name of wife under registered sale deed – Recitals in power of attorney admitted that wife purchased property out of her own income – Held: In absence of contrary proof, statutory presumption under Section 3 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act applies – Plea that husband alone funded purchase rejected – Trial Court erred in casting burden on plaintiff [Paras 19, 21, 24].

Partition – Devolution under Section 8 Hindu Succession Act – Though property devolved on first defendant as separate property after partition with his brother – Subsequent conduct in utilising shares of sons from sale proceeds for reconstruction amounts to waiver of exclusive right and treatment as joint family property – Intention gathered from conduct and surrounding circumstances [Paras 17–23].

Settlement Deed – Validity – First defendant executed settlement deed dated 10.02.2016 in favour of second defendant – Held: Since property held to be joint family property, settlement not binding on plaintiff’s 1/3rd share – Settlement deed valid only to extent of remaining 2/3rd share – Plaintiff entitled to preliminary decree for partition [Para 26].

Appreciation of Evidence – Trial Court Error – Trial Court wrongly placed burden on plaintiff despite admissions by first defendant regarding utilisation of Rs.35,75,000/- from sale proceeds for construction – Failure to properly consider documentary recitals and statutory presumption – Judgment set aside [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 28.03.2022 set aside – Preliminary decree passed dividing suit property into three equal shares – Plaintiff allotted 1/3rd share – Settlement deed not binding on plaintiff’s share – No order as to costs – Connected CMP closed.