Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Cruelty – False Criminal Complaints – Decree Affirmed – Husband sought divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) HMA alleging mental cruelty – Wife lodged complaint for dowry harassment and alleged second marriage after long lapse of time – All accused acquitted – Held: Lodging false and unsubstantiated criminal complaints and indulging in character assassination amounts to mental cruelty justifying dissolution of marriage [Paras 7, 10–11, 13–15].

Family Law – Mental Cruelty – Character Assassination – Court held that imputations of dowry demand and bigamy without proof caused serious mental agony to husband and his family – Filing of such complaints after reconciliation and birth of children treated as contrived afterthought – Findings of Trial Court upheld [Paras 7, 10–13].

Appreciation of Evidence – Family Court Proceedings – Concurrent Findings – Family Court relied on earlier decree of restitution of conjugal rights, subsequent conduct of wife, criminal proceedings and acquittal – Held: Proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or illegality warranting appellate interference [Paras 7, 9–11, 15].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Subsequent Conduct – Respondent obtained decree for restitution but wife failed to resume cohabitation – Even after compromise and resumption of cohabitation, disputes revived – Subsequent criminal litigation considered relevant conduct for assessing cruelty [Paras 3, 7, 9–10].

Children – Educational and Future Expenses – Undertaking by Husband – Court took judicial notice of school fee receipts and affidavit filed by husband undertaking to bear educational and marriage expenses of daughters – Held: Undertaking binding – Direction issued to strictly comply with same [Paras 12, 14, 16].

Long Separation – Irretrievable Breakdown – Parties living separately for more than a decade – Continuous litigation and acrimony – Though not an independent statutory ground, long separation considered while affirming decree of divorce [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016 in FCHMOP No. 60 of 2015 affirmed – Decree of divorce upheld – Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed – No order as to costs – Respondent directed to strictly abide by undertaking regarding children’s future expenses.

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Competent Authority - Jurisdiction to Award Damages - Execution of Orders - Section 24(2) of the Rent Act - The Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, has jurisdiction not only to order eviction but also to determine and award damages at double the license fee against an overstaying licensee- Such orders are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court, and the transfer of such orders for execution to a Civil Court is permissible-

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24(2) - Execution of Decree - Damages for Overstaying Licensee - The appellant challenged the execution of an order by the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which awarded damages at double the license fee against him for overstaying in licensed premises- The appellant contended that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to award damages, that its order was not a "decree" under CPC, and that execution was barred by limitation- The High Court, affirming the Single Judge's decision, held: The Competent Authority has the power to determine and award damages under Section 24(2) of the Rent Act, which is incidental to its power to evict- Such orders are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court- The legislative intent behind Section 24(4) is to deter overstaying licensees and prevent delays- The appellant's arguments, including those on nullity and limitation, were rejected as dilatory tactics aimed at frustrating the decree holder- The appeal was dismissed with exemplary costs- Paras [2-45]

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 24(2) - Interpretation - Legislative Intent - Held: Section 24(2) of the Rent Act, providing for double damages against an overstaying licensee, is a deterrent provision- The legislative intent is to provide an expeditious remedy to licensors and prevent licensees from exploiting legal delays- An interpretation that would require separate civil suits for damages would undermine this objective- Paras [23, 24, 25, 26]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Execution of Orders - Competent Authority - Held: Orders passed by the Competent Authority under the Rent Act, including those awarding damages, are executable as if they were decrees of a Civil Court- The transfer of such orders for execution to a Civil Court is permissible, and arguments against such transfer based on the inapplicability of CPC provisions are misconceived- Paras [33, 34]

Execution Proceedings - Delay - Abuse of Process - Held: Unreasonable delay in the execution of a decree frustrates the fruits of success for a litigant- Judgment debtors should not abuse the process of the Court to defraud creditors- Raising contradictory pleas and dilatory tactics to delay payment, especially for a modest sum, constitutes an abuse of process- Paras [6, 42, 43]

Limitation - Execution of Orders - Held: The argument that execution proceedings were barred by limitation was rejected, as the appellant appeared to be indulging in speculative litigation to create hurdles- The Court found no facts to support the application of a limitation bar in this case- Paras [40]

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- - Directions issued for compliance report and discharge of bank guarantees - Paras [45, 49, 51].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is circumscribed by the averments in the plaint alone. The Court cannot embark upon a fact-finding exercise, look at the defense, or rely on external material at this stage. The Single Judge erred in recording a factual finding that the ancestor (Horam) never constituted a Joint Hindu Family (JHF) and that the property was self-acquired, which are matters for trial. [Paras 21-25].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Held: A plaint cannot be rejected in part. Where the plaintiff asserted possession over a portion of the suit property and sought a permanent injunction, the rejection of the plaint without examining this prayer independently was contrary to settled legal principles. [Para 33].

Hindu Law – Coparcenary – Burden of Proof at Threshold Stage – Held: The Single Judge’s requirement for the plaintiff to produce documents showing contribution to reconstruction or to file affidavits regarding employment at the Order VII Rule 11 stage amounted to an impermissible appreciation of evidence. Issues regarding blending of property and existence of a JHF nucleus require trial. [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Impugned Judgment set aside. Suit restored to original number. [Para 34].

Civil Procedure – Appellate Powers – Remand of Case – Order 41 Rules 23, 23-A & 25 CPC – Scope – Appellate court justified in remanding the matter when trial court failed to frame an essential issue going to the root of the case – In suit for specific performance of agricultural land, issue whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist and whether permission of competent authority was required is material – District Judge rightly exercised discretion under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC to direct framing of additional issues and recording of evidence thereon – Such remand does not amount to allowing parties to fill lacunae but ensures fair adjudication [Paras 28–35].

Specific Performance – Agricultural Land – Bar on Sale to Non-Agriculturist – Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 – Whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist is a foundational issue affecting enforceability of the agreement of sale – Failure of trial court to frame this issue vitiates adjudication – Appellate court within jurisdiction to remand for trial on that point [Paras 28, 35].

Evidence – Admissibility – Unregistered and Insufficiently Stamped Agreement of Sale – Once document admitted in evidence without objection, admissibility cannot be reopened at appellate stage – However, appellate court justified in directing trial court to examine validity where document is central to the dispute and objection arises from statutory bar – Direction to examine admissibility under Maharashtra Stamp Act held not unwarranted but ancillary [Para 32].

Appellate Practice – Duty of First Appellate Court – While reversing trial court’s decree, appellate court must assign reasons and deal with trial court’s findings – However, where remand is ordered to avoid prejudicing fresh adjudication, omission to record findings is justified – Order of remand not routine but valid when essential factual issues remain untried [Paras 22, 31].

Remand – Conditions and Limitations – Supreme Court precedents in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179, Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa (2021) 11 SCC 277, and J. Balaji Singh v. Diwakar Cole (2017) 14 SCC 207 explained – Remand permissible only where trial court omitted to try essential issue and evidence is needed – In present case, remand appropriate to decide plaintiff’s status as agriculturist – Appellant compensated by costs of ₹15,000/- for delay caused by respondents’ inaction [Paras 24, 33–36].

Direction – Respondents to pay costs of ₹15,000/- to appellant within fifteen days and before framing of additional issues by the trial court – Trial court to proceed in accordance with directions of the District Judge and decide additional issues independently and expeditiously [Para 36].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Order of remand by District Judge, Nagpur dated 02.09.2022, upheld – Respondents directed to pay ₹15,000/- to appellant within fifteen days – Trial Court to frame additional issues regarding (i) plaintiff’s status as agriculturist, (ii) validity of agreement under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, and decide suit afresh uninfluenced by prior findings.

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Attempt to Murder – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Appeal Against Acquittal Dismissed – Complainant and wife allegedly assaulted by accused using knife and iron pipes – Injuries confirmed by medical officer but contradictions in witness accounts regarding time, identity, mode of assault, and absence of key eyewitness (son) examined – Prosecution witnesses failed to identify accused properly in FIR – Evidence of independent eyewitness Kantibhai found unreliable due to prior connection with complainant – Doctor’s evidence contradicted claim of indoor treatment and severity of injuries – Investigating Officer admitted no seizure of clothes or FSL report of weapons – No proof of caste identity or use of caste-based slurs – Held: Serious inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and investigative gaps justify trial court's acquittal – No perversity in trial court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9–11]

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Appellate Court in Acquittal Appeals – Principles Restated – Appellate Court can reappreciate evidence but must exercise caution and respect double presumption of innocence – Acquittal can be reversed only when judgment suffers from perversity, misreading of evidence or leads to manifest miscarriage of justice – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasonable one based on evidence – No interference warranted [Paras 7–8]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.11.1999 in Atrocity Case No. 89 of 1996 confirmed – Bail bonds cancelled – Record and proceedings to be returned to Trial Court

Muslim Law – Remarriage with Divorced Husband – Halala – Respondent claimed to have remarried petitioner after prior divorce – Evidence revealed existence of intervening marriage with another man, but no proof of its dissolution was provided – Under Muslim law, remarriage with divorced husband is void unless intervening marriage is consummated and lawfully dissolved (Nikah Halala) – Held: In absence of legal dissolution of intervening marriage, alleged remarriage with petitioner is void and hit by doctrine of Halala – Respondent disqualified from claiming maintenance as wife [Paras 7–10, 14–15]

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Presumption of Marriage – Long Cohabitation – Respondent relied on continuous cohabitation to claim presumption of valid marriage – Held: Presumption of marriage based on cohabitation arises only where no legal impediment exists – Since respondent’s prior marriage with another man was not proved to be dissolved, she remained legally married and could not validly remarry petitioner – No legal status as ‘wife’ – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be granted [Paras 13–15]

Burden of Proof – Remarriage – When marriage is denied, burden lies on party asserting it – Respondent failed to prove essential elements of Nikah including presence of witnesses and performance by authorised Khatib – Neither mosque register nor witnesses examined – Evidence held insufficient to establish valid Muslim marriage [Paras 11–12]

Procedure – Summary Nature of Section 125 Proceedings – Evidence Requirement – Court held that despite the summary nature of Section 125 CrPC, basic legal prerequisites for spousal status must be established – Maintenance claim under Section 125 cannot succeed in absence of legal proof of marital status [Para 16]

Remand – Opportunity to Adduce Evidence – Considering impact of maintenance order on marital status, court remanded case for fresh decision – Held: Family Court to allow both parties to adduce further evidence on dissolution of intervening marriage and validity of alleged remarriage – Maintenance order set aside [Para 16]

Decision: Impugned maintenance order set aside – Case remanded to Family Court, Malappuram for fresh disposal – Parties to be given opportunity to adduce further evidence – To be decided within three months.

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability Before High Court – Concurrent jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court – Applicant directly approached High Court without first applying before Sessions Court – Applicant not residing within jurisdiction of Sessions Court where FIR lodged – Held: Petition maintainable under Clause 26(B) of Full Bench decision in Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. [Paras 2–4]

Freedom of Speech – Social Media Posts – Applicant’s tweets following Pahalgam terror attack criticized Government’s response and Prime Minister’s political rally – FIR alleged tweets incited communal disharmony and defamed the nation – Applicant argued protection under Article 19(1)(a) – Held: Freedom of expression subject to reasonable restrictions – Tweets posted during a sensitive national crisis and widely circulated internationally, including in Pakistan – Cannot claim blanket protection under Article 19(1)(a) [Paras 5–10, 17–18]

Criminal Law – Sedition-like Offences under New Law – Applicant charged under Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (replacing repealed Section 124A IPC) – Held: Prima facie assessment of charges not permissible at bail stage – Supreme Court has granted liberty to raise all defences at stage of framing of charge – High Court bound by Article 141 not to interfere [Paras 7–10, 20]

Judicial Discipline – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Orders – Applicant’s SLP challenging rejection of writ petition dismissed by Supreme Court with liberty to raise issues at appropriate stage – Held: High Court bound by Supreme Court’s direction and cannot pre-emptively assess merits of FIR or charges [Paras 11–12, 20]

Investigation – Non-Cooperation by Applicant – Despite specific directions by High Court and opportunity given by Investigating Officer, applicant failed to appear and evaded investigation – Police reports indicated frequent change of residence – Held: Applicant’s conduct shows lack of bona fides and disentitles her to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail [Paras 13, 19]

Decision: Anticipatory bail application rejected – Court held it is not a fit case for granting relief under Section 482 BNSS – Applicant at liberty to apply for discharge or raise objections at the stage of framing of charge, as directed by Supreme Court [Para 21]

Judicial Service Examination – Answer Key Dispute – Preliminary Examination – Petitioner secured 58 marks against qualifying mark of 60 – Objected to final key answers to Questions 86 and 98 – Court held Question 98 answer inconsistent as options A and C were accepted, but B (a part of C) was disallowed – Held: Denial of mark for option B unsustainable – Petitioner entitled to 1 mark [Paras 2(iii), 13, 17]

Vicarious Liability – Section 34 IPC – Misapplication in Answer Key – Question 86 asked which section reflects vicarious liability – Final answer was Section 34 IPC – Court held Section 34 deals with common intention and not vicarious liability – Based on Supreme Court ruling in Vasanth alias Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 337 – Held: Answer to Question 86 is incorrect – Petitioner entitled to 1 additional mark [Paras 2(v), 14, 17]

Examination Law – Judicial Review of Answer Keys – Though courts usually refrain from evaluating correctness of answers in academic matters, Court held that where questions involve legal reasoning and do not require expert academic insight, interference is permissible – Respondent’s reliance on Ran Vijay Singh, Vikesh Kumar Gupta, and Dr. Praveen Kumar I. Kusubi distinguished as those involved subjective or expert-based evaluations – Held: Legal interpretation of IPC provisions falls within court’s domain [Paras 11–12, 14]

Delay in Filing Objection – Procedural Fairness – Petitioner’s objection to Question 86 raised after prescribed deadline – Court held that delay of less than 48 hours cannot defeat right to fair evaluation – Time limit not statutory – Petitioner’s right to challenge incorrect answer key upheld despite procedural lapse [Para 14]

Relief – Grace Marks Awarded – Court awarded 2 grace marks for two disputed questions – Held: Petitioner to be treated as qualified for main examination – Respondent directed to allow petitioner to pay fees and appear for main written exam on 06.12.2025 and 07.12.2025 – Relief limited to petitioner alone to avoid disturbance of overall selection process [Paras 15, 17]

Decision: Petition allowed – Two marks awarded to petitioner – Respondent directed to permit him to appear for main written examination.

Matrimonial Law - Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Proof and Appreciation of Evidence – Husband sought divorce alleging abnormal and violent behaviour of wife due to alleged psychiatric illness suppressed prior to marriage – Allegations of schizophrenia and violent conduct during honeymoon and matrimonial life – Held: Husband failed to prove that wife was suffering from psychiatric illness prior to marriage – No independent witnesses or documentary evidence adduced – Medical evidence only showed treatment for sleeplessness, restlessness and low mood during pregnancy – Family Court erred in presuming pre-marital mental illness – However, sustained matrimonial discord and conduct amounted to mental cruelty [Paras 11–15, 23–30].

Matrimonial Disputes – False or Failed Criminal Proceedings – Impact on Cruelty – Wife lodged complaints under Section 498-A IPC, DV Act and maintenance proceedings – Husband arrested, remanded, bail rejected and Look Out Circular issued – Criminal case ended in acquittal and no appeal preferred – Held: Repeated criminal litigation and its consequences constituted mental cruelty to husband – Relevant factor while granting divorce [Paras 16, 22, 25–27].

Evidence – Failure to Corroborate Serious Allegations – Allegations of physical violence, threats of suicide and assault on elderly relative not supported by testimony of parents, neighbours or independent witnesses – Mediator also not examined – Court held that uncorroborated serious allegations cannot be accepted mechanically [Paras 13–14, 18–21].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Relevance – Though irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground for divorce – Court entitled to consider prolonged separation, failed mediation and absence of possibility of reunion as relevant circumstances – Parties living separately since 2012 – Mediation failed – No scope of reconciliation [Paras 32–35].

Maintenance – Minor Child – Enhancement by Appellate Court – Family Court awarded ₹10,00,000/- towards maintenance of minor daughter – Appellate Court found amount inadequate considering child’s age, education, future marriage and financial capacity of father – Respondent had already paid ₹17,00,000/- earlier – Held: Ends of justice require enhancement – Directed payment of ₹80,00,000/- as full and final settlement towards maintenance and alimony for child by deposit in FDR – Wife not entitled to permanent alimony as she is gainfully employed [Paras 36–37].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Decree of divorce confirmed – Maintenance for minor child enhanced to ₹80,00,000/- payable within three months – Failure to comply to entitle appellant and child to take legal steps – All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.