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.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Protection under Section 197 CrPC – Custodial Violence Alleged – Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector, sought quashing of complaint citing absence of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Complaint alleged illegal detention, physical assault, custodial abuse, and humiliation of complainant and her brother by police inside the police station – Held: Acts of custodial violence are wholly unrelated to discharge of official duties – No reasonable nexus between impugned acts and official duty – Hence, protection under Section 197 CrPC not attracted – Complaint not barred for want of sanction [Paras 12–23]

Official Duty – Scope of Section 197 CrPC – Reasonable Connection Test – Law reiterated that for the protection under Section 197 CrPC to apply, the act must be reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty – Mere fact that the accused is a public servant is not sufficient – Assault, custodial beating, or abuse inside lock-up fall outside the ambit of official functions – No protection when police officer exceeds authority and commits abuse without lawful justification [Paras 14–22]

Judicial Precedent – Custodial Violence – Supreme Court Rulings – Reiterated that custodial violence is unconstitutional and not protected by Section 197 CrPC – Cited: P.P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty (2000) 8 SCC 131 – D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 – Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2016) 12 SCC 87 – Dr. S.M. Mansoori v. Surekha Parmar 2023 SCC OnLine SC 436 – Held: Protection under Section 197 does not extend to illegal acts of torture or abuse inside police station [Paras 16–20]

Magistrate's Power – Cognizance and Recall – Magistrate has no power to recall summoning order under Section 204 CrPC – No review jurisdiction under CrPC – Relief, if any, lies under Section 482 CrPC – Findings upheld in light of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal AIR 2004 SC 4674 and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC 4711 [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Complaint against petitioner not barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Trial to proceed as per law.

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.

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.

Injunction – Matrimonial Dispute – Void Marriage – Appellate court reversed trial court order and granted temporary injunction restraining petitioner from representing herself as respondent’s wife – Marriage between petitioner and respondent held void under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as respondent’s first marriage was subsisting – ‘Daan Patra’ and ‘Shapath Patra’ relied on by petitioner were found irrelevant in law and insufficient to confer spousal status – Held: Appellate court rightly granted injunction to protect respondent’s legal marital status – No interference called for under Article 227 [Paras 5–7]

Misrepresentation – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioner alleged deception, abuse, and fraud by respondent – Cited Supreme Court rulings in Dalpat Kumar and Wander Ltd. – Held: Petitioner failed to establish any prima facie legal right due to the subsistence of respondent’s earlier marriage – No relief can be granted to a party not approaching the court with clean hands – Appellate court's findings upheld [Paras 4–6]

Article 227 – Judicial Review – Interference under supervisory jurisdiction not warranted where appellate court has exercised lawful discretion and committed no jurisdictional error – Petition dismissed [Para 7]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Injunction granted by appellate court upheld – Petitioner has no enforceable legal right to claim status of respondent’s wife.

Easement of Necessity – Access Road – Plaintiffs sought declaration of easement of necessity and permanent injunction for a 10-feet wide road across defendant’s land (marked PQRS) – Trial Court found existence of necessity but held 10 feet width excessive – Decreed 3 feet wide pathway and granted injunction – First Appellate Court upheld the decree – High Court held that plaintiffs, being agriculturists, required access wide enough for bullock cart and transport of produce – Held: Easement of necessity granted with 6 feet width instead of 3 feet – Judgment and decree of lower courts modified accordingly [Paras 1–12].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court and First Appellate Court modified to grant plaintiffs easementary right over a 6 feet wide pathway – Rest of the decree remains undisturbed.

Civil Law - Partition – Joint Family Property – Claim by Daughters – Dismissal of Suit – Plaintiffs (daughters) sought 1/7th share in ancestral and purchased properties claiming fraudulent alienation by brother (Defendant No.1) – Courts below found that partition of ancestral property had occurred in 1966 via registered deed – Plaintiffs failed to challenge partition or subsequent settlement/consolidation records despite knowledge – Held: No co-parcenary or joint ownership subsisted – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 5–10, 17–18].

Hindu Succession Act – Section 6 – Reopening of Partition – Not Permissible – Partition occurred prior to 20.12.2004 – Plaintiffs relied on amended Section 6 to seek reopening – Held: Explanation to Section 6 bars reopening of partitions effected before 2005 amendment – Appeal court correctly held that plaintiffs’ claim not maintainable on this ground [Paras 10, 22].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Article 59 – Plaintiffs alleged cause of action arose in 2013 when brother threatened to sell property – However, settlement and consolidation records were finalized in 1977 and 1982 and never challenged – No specific plea or proof of date of knowledge of RORs – Held: Vague assertion of threat in 2013 insufficient – Suit barred by limitation under Articles 59 and 110 of Limitation Act [Paras 18, 22].

Civil Procedure – Non-joinder of Parties – Legal Heirs of Other Branch Not Necessary – Defendants argued that non-joinder of successors of common ancestor’s second son rendered suit defective – Held: Plaintiffs confined claim to properties allotted to their own father’s branch – No relief sought against other branch – Non-joinder not fatal [Para 17].

Civil Courts’ Jurisdiction – Bar under Consolidation and OEA Laws – Validity of Settlement and OEA Proceedings – Plaintiffs sought to invalidate RORs and settlements finalized decades earlier – Held: Section 59 of OCH & PFL Act and bar under OEA Act applicable – None of the exceptions laid down in Gulzar Khan v. Commissioner of Consolidation, 1993 (II) OLR 194, attracted – Civil court has no jurisdiction to re-open finalized consolidation or OEA decisions [Paras 18, 21, 22].

Sale Deed – Challenge to Alienation by Co-sharer – Defendant No.1 sold Schedule-B land to Defendant No.3 in 2012 – Plaintiffs sought cancellation alleging lack of consent – Held: Defendant No.1 had exclusive title as per RORs and earlier partition – Sale valid – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 19–20, 22].

Criminal Law – Murder – Identification of Accused – Acquittal – Appellant Bhola convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly firing at deceased Rakesh Kumar during a late-night assault – FIR did not name Bhola – Appellant identified after two-month delay in test identification parade – Held: Test identification not reliable due to unexplained delay and prior acquaintance between witnesses and accused – Conviction based solely on such identification is unsafe – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 14–29]

Evidence Law – Delay in Test Identification Parade – Appellant arrested 36 days after incident – TIP held two months post-arrest without explanation – Witnesses familiar with accused from nearby village – No corroborating evidence or motive established – Held: Delay vitiates credibility of TIP, making it insufficient for conviction [Paras 18–23, 26–27]

Criminal Trial – Acquittal of Co-accused – No Specific Allegations – Other co-accused named in FIR and against whom motive was alleged were acquitted – Appellant not named, no motive proved – Held: Conviction of appellant alone without consistent or independent proof unsustainable – Trial court erred in relying on doubtful testimony and inconclusive identification [Paras 7–11, 14–16, 28]

Precedent – Supreme Court Guidance – Applied ratio of Harinath v. State of U.P., (1988) 1 SCC 14 – Held: Identification of accused known to witnesses, residing in nearby village, after significant delay, without explaining such delay, renders TIP unreliable – Applied in acquitting appellant [Paras 24, 28]

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant Bhola under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted by extending benefit of doubt – Bail bond cancelled – Sureties discharged [Paras 30–31]