Revision Under Article 227 – Review of Family Court Order – Petition to challenge the Family Court's refusal to order medical examination to assess respondent’s potency concerning consummation of marriage. The revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 1]

Representation and Legal Counsel – The petitioner and the respondent were represented by their respective learned counsel. Arguments were heard from both sides. [Para 2]

Factual Background – Petitioner seeks annulment of marriage alleging non-consummation due to respondent's impotency. Also seeks damages/compensation of Rs. 1 crore, return of dowry, and other costs. Respondent denies the existence of the marriage and alleges blackmail. [Para 3-6]

Jurisdictional Issues – The trial court dismissed the petition after concluding that the petitioner had failed to prove the marriage. Raised questions regarding the timing of the petition for medical examination. [Para 7]

Legal Arguments – Petitioner argues that medical examination is within the jurisdiction of the trial court and is essential for determining the truth. Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in Sharda v. Dharmpal. Respondent argues against the relevance of medical examination when marriage itself is denied. [Para 9-10]

Role of Expert Opinion – Petitioner needs to establish not only the existence of the marriage but also grounds for the primary relief sought. Court discusses that evidence can be adduced during the inquiry stage and is subject to appreciation after the trial is concluded. [Para 11]

Constitutional and Legal Precedence – The court cites Supreme Court decision in Sharda v. Dharmpal, asserting that matrimonial courts have the power to order medical tests, and doing so does not violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. [Para 12-13]

Decision – Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the lower court's order. The trial court is directed to proceed with the medical examination of the respondent to assess the potency issue. [Para 14]

Criminal Appeal – Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation – Appellant’s appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Appellant, The New India Assurance Company, challenges the award of compensation granted to respondent No. 1, Shakuntla Devi – Liability of the appellant to pay compensation disputed – Main contention revolves around whether the petitioner, being the occupant of the vehicle, falls within the definition of ‘third party’ as per Section 145 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Issue of whether the insurance policy covers the petitioner as a gratuitous passenger – Rival contentions and case law discussed. [Para 7-23]

Conclusion – The Court examines the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, various decisions, and insurance policies – It holds that an “Act Policy” and a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” stand on different footings – In this case, the Court concludes that the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car is covered under a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” – The Insurance Company’s contention that the policy does not cover the petitioner’s claim as a gratuitous passenger is rejected – The decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is upheld, and the appellant’s appeal is dismissed. [Para 26]  

Bail Application – Second Attempt – Rejection of First Application and RenewalThe petitioner, Ashok @ Mulla Ram, filed a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., after his first application was rejected. The renewal was made possible after the recording of statements from the Investigating Officer and other witnesses. [Para 1-2]

Search and Seizure – Compliance with NDPS Act – Role of Seizing Officer- The counsel for the petitioner argued that the seizing officer was not authorized to conduct the search and seizure under the NDPS Act. The officer was not posted as the Station House Officer (SHO) at the time, which is a requirement under the Act for such actions. [Para 3, 6-7]

Prosecution's Counter-Argument – Recovery of Contraband- The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, emphasizing that the case involves the recovery of 100 bottles of Moncof cough syrup and that the impediments under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable. [Para 4]

Legal Provisions and Compliance – NDPS Act- The court discussed the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act and the necessity for their strict compliance, especially concerning search, seizure, and arrest procedures. [Para 7, 9-10, 17]

Life and Liberty – Constitutional Safeguards- The court highlighted the sanctity of life and personal liberty as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Para 18]

Decision – Grant of Bail - The court, considering the non-compliance with the NDPS Act and the constitutional importance of personal liberty, granted bail to the petitioner. [Para 19-20]

Civil Writ Petition – Compensation for Land Acquisition – Land utilized for road construction – Petitioner approached Court seeking compensation for land used for road construction – Respondents argued implied consent – Hon’ble High Court examined the facts and legal precedents – Rejected the delay and laches argument – Cited Vidya Devi and Sukh Dutt Ratra judgments – Upheld the petitioner’s right to compensation – Referred to State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma – Emphasized the importance of access to roads in hilly areas – Ruled that right to property is a constitutional and human right – Directed respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings and award just compensation – Hoped for expeditious resolution. [Para 12-22]

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Eviction of son from property – Applicability of Section 4(3) – Obligation of children to maintain parents – Need-based maintenance – Quashing of eviction order.

Facts [Para 20-22]: The petitioner and his wife were living with the petitioner’s parents. Allegations were made that the petitioner mistreated his parents and did not properly maintain them. The parents sought maintenance and eviction of the petitioner from the property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Issues:

1. Whether the eviction order passed by the Sub. Divisional Magistrate was sustainable? [Para 31]

2. Whether the petitioner’s obligation to maintain his parents extended to their needs for leading a normal life under Section 4(3) of the Act? [Para 25, 26, 29]

Observations and Decision:

- The court examined the objective of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which aimed to provide need-based maintenance and protect older persons’ rights. [Para 23]

- Section 4(3) of the Act emphasized the obligation of children to maintain their parents, ensuring that they lead a normal life. [Para 25]

- The court observed that the petitioner was living in a room and a shop, while the rest of the house was in possession of the mother and sister. [Para 25]

- The court noted that the Tribunal’s role was to ensure that senior citizens could enjoy their property as per their need, with eviction as a last resort. [Para 29]

- The court quashed the eviction order, stating that it was not in line with the Act’s objective, and directed the petitioner not to inconvenience the mother’s needful living. [Para 32-34]

- The court highlighted the importance of maintaining the family structure and ensuring need-based maintenance. [Para 35]

Decision: The impugned eviction order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed not to inconvenience the mother’s living. The court emphasized the significance of need-based maintenance and protection of older persons’ rights. [Para 32-34]

Civil Appeal – Property Dispute – Ownership and Possession – Appellants challenged the judgment of the First Appellate Court upholding the Trial Court’s decree of possession and mandatory injunction – Suit property was claimed by the Respondent, who provided documents to establish his title – Appellants alleged forgery and lack of proof for the documents – Admissibility of photocopies of documents as evidence – Objection of mode of proof not raised at Trial Court – Plea of adverse possession not raised in written statement – Admissibility and proof of documents – Conclusiveness of concurrent fact findings – First Appellate Court’s conclusion upheld by this Court. [Para 1]

Evidence – Mode of Proof – Objection to admissibility of documents on ground of mode of proof – Objection not raised at Trial Court – Appellants not entitled to raise such objection at first appeal – Supreme Court precedent on objections to mode of proof – Objection should be raised when evidence is tendered – Failure to raise objection results in waiver of objection – Plea of mode of proof not maintainable in first appeal. [Paras 8-9]

Property Dispute – Adverse Possession – Appellants raised plea of adverse possession in first appeal – Adverse possession not pleaded in written statement – Inconsistent pleas of co-ownership and adverse possession – Supreme Court’s requirement to prove clear and continuous possession along with animus possidendi – Burden of proof on person claiming adverse possession – Appellants precluded from raising plea of adverse possession in these circumstances. [Paras 10-11]

Conclusion: No substantial question of law raised in the appeal – First Appellate Court’s judgment upheld – Appeal dismissed – Pending application(s) disposed of. [Para 12]

Criminal Appeal – Unauthorized Absence – Departmental inquiry against petitioner for unauthorized absence during COVID-19 pandemic – Challenge to penalty imposed for absence – Doctrine of proportionality applicable to quantum of punishment – Special circumstances of pandemic and quarantine need to be considered – Penalty set aside, remanded to Disciplinary Authority for re-evaluation. [Para 20]

Doctrine of Proportionality – Imposition of penalty in departmental proceedings – Quantum of punishment to be reasonable and proportionate to the misconduct – Factors to consider include measure, magnitude, degree of misconduct, and all relevant circumstances – Penalty must not be grossly in excess of allegations – Doctrine applied in remanding matter for re-evaluation of penalty. [Para 17, 18]

Unauthorized Absence – Absence from duty without permission – Special circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic – Employee initially placed under quarantine after authorized rest – Penalty imposed for subsequent absence on medical grounds – Penalties in such cases to be assessed with consideration for compelling circumstances – Penalty set aside, matter remanded. [Para 15, 16]

Principles of Natural Justice – Application in departmental proceedings – Scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters – Limited intervention allowed in cases of violation of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity, or disproportionate punishment – Disciplinary proceedings to be conducted fairly and based on evidence – Intervention on grounds of proportionality. [Para 12]

Unauthorized absence during pandemic requires sympathetic consideration – Penalty imposed disproportionate to circumstances – Matter remanded to Disciplinary Authority for re-evaluation of penalty – Doctrine of proportionality applied in setting aside penalty. [Para 19, 20]

Cheque Bounce Case – Examination of Handwriting Expert – Disputed Signatures – Permission to examine handwriting expert denied – Complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Accused denied signatures on the cheque from the beginning – Petitioner sought permission for comparison of accused’s signatures on the cheque with specimen signatures – Application dismissed by trial court – Petitioner’s claim that expert’s signatures were taken after summons from court instead of in court – Coordinate Benches’ decisions cited – Principle that complainant must lead evidence on disputed signatures at appropriate stage – Petition for examination of expert as rebuttal evidence at defense stage not allowed – Report of experts not binding on court – Petition dismissed. [Para 1-10]

Civil Appeal – Annulment of Marriage – Appellant seeks annulment of marriage on grounds of fraud under Section 12(1)© of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Allegations of force and fraud as to nature of the ceremony or material facts concerning the respondent – Appellant’s demand of dowry and failure to complete VISA formalities after marriage – Alleged misrepresentation about dowry and intent to relocate to New Zealand – Respondent claims fraud in obtaining consent for marriage – Whether allegations constitute grounds for annulment under Section 12(1)©. [Para 1]

Interpretation of “Fraud” – Hindu Marriage Act – Distinction between “fraud” under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and “fraud” under Section 12(1)© of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Fraud must relate to material facts or circumstances concerning the respondent – Not every misrepresentation or concealment constitutes fraud – Material fact should be of a nature likely to interfere with marital life – Analysis of materiality of alleged fraud. [Para 26-29]

Limitation – Petition for Annulment – Section 12(2)(a) of the Act of 1955 – Limitation period for filing annulment petition – Alleged fraud known to respondent since marriage, but petition filed after 25 months – Whether petition filed within limitation period – Interpretation of “force ceased to operate” and “fraud had been discovered” – Application of limitation principles in the context of the case. [Para 34-37]

Procedural Application – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Maintainability of application at final argument stage – Scope of application – Consideration of averments in the petition only – Distinction between the Hindu Marriage Act and the Indian Contract Act regarding fraud – Evaluation of cause of action and materiality of facts – Application of principles from relevant case laws. [Para 16-23]

Conclusion – Allegations of fraud and force fail to establish a cause of action under Section 12(1)© of the Act of 1955 – Petition for annulment of marriage rejected – Limitation aspect considered and dismissed – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Appeal allowed, pending applications disposed of. [Para 40-42]