Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Father's Obligation vis-a-vis Mother's Income – Challenge against Family Court order directing father to pay Rs. 6,500/- per month to each of his two minor children – Father contended liability ought to be apportioned mathematically since the mother earns a substantial income of Rs. 93,991/- per month – Held: Mere earning of the mother does not absolve the father of his statutory and moral duty to maintain his minor children. The obligation of a father is independent and continues as long as children are minors. Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not require arithmetical apportionment of liability. The awarded amount is reasonable and proportionate given the rising cost of living and needs of growing children [Paras 17-18].

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Plea of Unemployment – Father claimed total unemployment since 2017 due to multiple litigations – Evidence revealed the father, an MCA graduate with substantial experience, had an offer letter reflecting a monthly CTC of Rs. 92,562/- and take-home salary of Rs. 64,000/- – Held: A bald plea of unemployment cannot be accepted at face value for an able-bodied, qualified, and experienced person. Intentional or voluntary unemployment cannot be used as an excuse to avoid statutory responsibility. Adverse inference rightly drawn against the father for concealing true income [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. – Scope of Interference – Minor children sought enhancement of maintenance amount – Held: Revisional jurisdiction is protective and welfare-oriented but limited in scope. It is not an appellate jurisdiction. Interference is warranted only if the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity. As the maintenance awarded is not shockingly low or manifestly unjust, enhancement cannot be granted merely on re-evaluation of facts [Paras 13, 20].

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Effective Date and Adjustment of Prior Awards – Father challenged the direction to pay maintenance from the date of application and non-adjustment of interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act – Held: Awarding maintenance from the date of application is within the discretion of the court, and it was exercised judiciously. Any amount already paid under parallel proceedings can be adjusted at the stage of execution. Such grounds do not render the impugned order illegal [Para 19].

Decision: Both Criminal Revisions dismissed – The judgment and order of the Family Court dated 16.07.2022 is affirmed – Amounts already paid shall be duly adjusted in accordance with law – Arrears, if any, to be cleared by the revisionist/father within three months from the date of judgment.

Civil Law - Power of Attorney – Sale Deed – Fraud and Collusion – Loan Transaction Disguised as Sale – Plaintiff pleaded that power of attorney and earlier sale agreement were executed only as security for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- – Power agent cancelled earlier agreement and executed sale deed in favour of third defendant without plaintiff’s knowledge – Multiple registered documents executed on the same day – Production of life certificate though plaintiff allegedly present – Suspicious circumstances not satisfactorily explained – Passing of sale consideration not proved – Held: Sale deed dated 04.10.2013 invalid and void [Paras 11–28].

Sale Agreement – Sham and Nominal Transaction – Defendants pleaded borrowing of Rs.5,00,000/- but agreement reflected advance of only Rs.50,000/- – Pleadings and evidence mutually destructive – First defendant not examined – Agreement subsequently cancelled during pendency of suit – Held: Agreement not genuine or enforceable [Paras 21–28, 38].

Evidence – Registered Documents – Presumption and Rebuttal – Registration by itself does not sanctify a transaction – Presumption stands displaced where surrounding circumstances indicate fraud and improbability – Section 92 of the Evidence Act does not bar proof of sham or colourable transactions [Paras 15–26].

Receipt for Consideration – Proof – Undated receipt – Material particulars filled subsequently in ink – Plaintiff’s presence not established – Attesting witness did not speak to passing of consideration – Held: Receipt unreliable and insufficient to prove payment of sale consideration [Paras 24–25].

Possession – Vacant Site – Possession Follows Title – Sale deed having been declared invalid, purchaser cannot claim lawful possession – Plaintiff’s title subsists – Held: Plaintiff deemed to be in possession of suit property [Paras 29–30].

Civil Procedure – Relief Beyond Pleadings – Money Decree – Trial Court granted decree directing plaintiff to repay Rs.5,00,000/- though second defendant neither pleaded nor filed counter-claim – Violates principle of judex ne eat ultra petita partium – Decree granted without court fee – Held: Money decree unsustainable and liable to be set aside [Paras 31–37].

Court’s Power to Mould Relief – Limits – Court may grant lesser or appropriate relief but cannot grant a relief not prayed for – Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised contrary to pleadings and statutory requirements [Paras 34–36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Declaration that sale deed dated 04.10.2013 is null and void confirmed – Direction of trial court directing plaintiff to pay Rs.5,00,000/- with interest to second defendant set aside – Suit decreed in favour of plaintiff without any relief to defendants – Costs awarded.

Civil Writ - Revenue Records – Mutation Proceedings – Delay and Laches – Exercise of Power after Long Lapse of Time – Revenue authorities entertaining claims after an inordinate delay of 71 years from initial transactions and 26 years from issuance of pattadar pass books held impermissible – Even in absence of prescribed limitation, statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time – Entertaining stale claims unsettles settled rights and violates rule of law [Paras 10–13].

Revenue Authorities – Jurisdiction – Title Disputes – Limits – Where complicated questions of title and possession arise, revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes – Role of revenue authorities confined to maintenance of records – Civil Court alone competent forum for adjudication of title – Joint Collector exceeded jurisdiction by virtually deciding title on basis of administrative report [Paras 3–4, 6, 14–16].

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 – Section 8(2) – Bar of Suits – Scope – Where entries in record of rights deny title, aggrieved party must seek declaration before Civil Court – Revenue remedies not substitute for civil adjudication – Party deliberately bypassing Civil Court cannot seek relief under ROR Act [Paras 14–15].

Mutation Entries – Evidentiary Value – Finality – Long Standing Revenue Records – Revenue entries standing unchallenged for decades carry high evidentiary value – Mutation and pattadar pass books issued after due enquiry cannot be unsettled after prolonged silence – Doctrine of settled rights applies [Paras 9–11].

Suo Motu / Revisional Powers – Reasonable Time – Doctrine of Fair Play – Exercise of revisional or supervisory powers after decades held arbitrary and oppressive – Reliance placed on precedents of Andhra Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court – Administrative action after long delay violates fairness and certainty in land rights [Paras 10–12].

Joint Collector – Impugned Order – Arbitrary and Without Jurisdiction – Order setting aside RDO’s decision and directing alteration of revenue entries based solely on report held illegal – Joint Collector acted beyond statutory authority – Order liable to be quashed [Paras 4, 16].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned Order No. D.Dis.No.3630/2015/D4 dated 19.09.2017 passed by the Joint Collector set aside – No order as to costs – All pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Writ Petition – Parole – Delay and Laches – Maintainability – Petitioner sought quashing of order rejecting parole dated 04.09.2024 and direction for release on parole – Petition filed after lapse of more than one year without any explanation – Held: Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary – A litigant who sleeps over his rights for a considerable period is not entitled to equitable relief – Delay defeats equity – Petition liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone [Paras 5–6].

Parole – Rejection Order – Challenge after Inordinate Delay – Petitioner convicted under POCSO Act and undergoing sentence – Application for parole rejected – No justification furnished for approaching the High Court belatedly – Mere assertion of good conduct in jail and length of custody not sufficient to overcome unexplained delay – Writ Court not obliged to revive a stale cause of action [Paras 2, 5–6].

Article 226 – Discretionary Jurisdiction – Equitable Relief – Though no statutory limitation prescribed for filing writ petition, same must be invoked within a reasonable time – High Court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction where negligence or inaction is attributable to the petitioner – Relief rightly declined [Paras 5–6].

Judicial Precedent – Delay Defeats Equity – Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley reiterated that writ courts should not entertain stale claims – Even fundamental rights claims may be declined if approached belatedly without satisfactory explanation – Principles applied to parole matters as well [Paras 5–6].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Rejection of parole not interfered with on account of unexplained delay of more than one year – Pending miscellaneous applications also dismissed.

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – State challenged acquittal of accused for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 187 MV Act – Reiterating settled law, High Court held that interference with acquittal is permissible only if findings are perverse, based on misreading or non-consideration of material evidence, or if only one conclusion of guilt is possible – If two reasonable views are possible, acquittal must be upheld [Paras 12–14].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – Contradictory Ocular Evidence – Prosecution relied primarily on testimonies of injured motorcyclist (PW1) and pillion rider (PW2) – Their statements regarding place and manner of accident were inconsistent inter se and contradicted the site plan – Held: Such contradictions materially affect credibility and fail to establish negligence beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 15–17].

Evidence – Site Plan and Mechanical Inspection – Prevailing Over Inconsistent Oral Testimony – PW1 and PW2 claimed accident occurred on unmetalled portion of road – Site plan showed point of impact on metalled portion – PW2 stated motorcycle hit rear of bus, whereas mechanical report showed damage to bus headlight – Held: Documentary and scientific evidence did not support prosecution version [Paras 17–18].

Witness Testimony – Non-Eyewitness – PW6, who took injured to hospital, admitted accident did not occur in his presence – Held: His testimony could not corroborate prosecution case regarding negligence [Para 19].

Presumption of Innocence – Reinforced After Acquittal – Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence found to be reasonable and plausible – High Court declined to substitute its own view merely because an alternative view was possible – Reinforced presumption of innocence after acquittal respected [Paras 20–21].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 12.06.2014 affirmed – Accused directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC / Section 481 BNSS – Records ordered to be returned – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law – Closure of Evidence – Repeated Opportunities – Justification – Family Court closed the petitioner’s right to lead evidence after granting multiple opportunities spanning several dates – Petitioner failed to produce any witness despite directions to do so on self-responsibility – Held: Courts are not required to wait indefinitely for a party to lead evidence – Non-production despite repeated opportunities is a conscious act and consequences must follow [Paras 3–4, 8].

Maintenance Dispute – False Plea as Ground for Adjournment – Petitioner sought adjournment on the ground of non-payment of maintenance – Record revealed that entire arrears of maintenance amounting to ₹16,80,000/- had already been paid and regular payments were being made – Held: Plea of non-payment of maintenance raised for seeking adjournment was palpably false and could not justify repeated defaults in leading evidence [Paras 5–7].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope and Limitations – High Court reiterated that jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and corrective in nature – Interference warranted only in cases of grave dereliction of duty, perversity, miscarriage of justice or violation of fundamental principles of law – Reappreciation of evidence or substitution of conclusions impermissible – No such ground made out in the present case [Paras 9–10].

Family Court Proceedings – Procedural Discipline – Closure of evidence upheld where party showed continued laxity and failed to comply with procedural directions – Trial Court’s order found neither arbitrary nor perverse – Procedural discipline essential to ensure expeditious disposal of matrimonial disputes [Paras 8–10].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Order dated 24.04.2024 closing the petitioner’s right to lead evidence affirmed – Parties directed to appear before the Trial Court on 16.01.2026 – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Seniority – Challenge after Long Delay – Acquiescence and Laches – Petitioner challenged seniority list of Senior Assistants issued in 1995 by filing representation only in 2006 and writ petition in 2008, shortly before retirement – Seniority list had been duly circulated and acted upon for promotions – Held: Challenge raised after more than a decade is barred by delay, laches and acquiescence – Settled seniority cannot be unsettled at the fag end of service [Paras 5, 5(i), 5(ii), 5(iv)].

Service Law – Seniority Lists – Reopening of Settled Position – Impermissibility – Seniority list remained unchallenged for over 10–14 years – Petitioner had accepted the position and earned promotion to Superintendent Grade-II based on same seniority – Held: Fence-sitters cannot be permitted to reopen settled seniority causing administrative chaos – Reliance placed on Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and allied Supreme Court precedents [Paras 5(iv), 5(vii)].

Delay and Laches – Representation – No Fresh Cause of Action – Mere filing of representation after long lapse of time does not revive a stale or dead claim – Rejection of representation does not furnish fresh cause of action – Held: Limitation and laches must be examined from original cause of action i.e. issuance of seniority list in 1995 [Paras 5(v), 5(viii)].

Service Law – Knowledge of Wrong – Plea of Subsequent Discovery Rejected – Plea that petitioner came to know of alleged illegality only in 2005 held misconceived – Petitioner had knowledge of seniority placement since 1995 and had accepted promotions based on it – Held: Plea is an afterthought to overcome delay and laches [Para 5(iii)].

Military Service Benefit – Seniority on Re-employment – Delay in Challenge – Allegation that private respondent was wrongly granted benefit of approved military service for seniority – Held: Even if such plea is assumed, it ought to have been raised when seniority list was issued – Instructions of 1983 cannot retrospectively negate rights flowing from statutory Rules of 1972 – Belated challenge not maintainable [Para 7].

Judicial Review – Discretion under Article 226 – Self-Imposed Restraint – Writ court will decline interference where unexplained delay, negligence and acquiescence are established – Equity disfavors unsettling crystallized rights of third parties in service matters [Paras 5(ix), 5(x)].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Rejection order dated 21.11.2007 upheld – Challenge to seniority list of 1995 rejected on ground of delay, laches and acquiescence – Parties to bear own costs [Para 8].

Senior Citizens Act vs. PWDV Act – Right to Shared Household – Interim Protection – Petitioner-daughter-in-law challenged eviction order passed under Rule 22 of Delhi Rules, 2009 under Senior Citizens Act – Cited S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner where Supreme Court held that rights of women under PWDV Act must be harmoniously construed with Senior Citizens Act – Held: Prima facie case made out that petitioner's rights under PWDV Act not adequately considered by the authorities [Paras 1–2, 4].

Domestic Violence Act – Interim Protection – Petitioner already granted interim protection in DV proceedings on 18.08.2022, restraining respondents from interfering with her possession in shared household – Magistrate had found mutual instigation but declined to oust her – Held: Existing DV order supports prima facie right to reside – Impugned orders fail to consider its impact [Paras 3–4].

Constitutional Law – Harmonious Construction – Both PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act are special legislations enacted for vulnerable groups – Supreme Court in S. Vanitha (2021) 15 SCC 730 held that residence rights under PWDV Act cannot be nullified by summary eviction under Senior Citizens Act – Held: Both statutes must be read in harmony to uphold justice and social welfare goals [Para 2].

Interim Relief – Possession Protection – Considering the pending appeal and subsisting interim protection, Court directed parties to maintain status quo regarding title and possession of property – Held: Interim protection warranted in interest of justice pending reply from respondents [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Notice issued – Status quo regarding title and possession to be maintained – Matter to be listed on 03/02/2026 for further hearing [Paras 5–8].

Family Law - Legal Guardianship – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Comatose Patient – Petitioner-wife sought appointment as guardian of her husband who has been in vegetative state since February 2025 due to intracranial haemorrhage – Medical Board confirmed 100% disability and vegetative state – SDM's inquiry verified personal, financial, and familial details – Held: In absence of statutory framework under RPWD Act or Mental Healthcare Act, High Court can invoke parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 to protect the welfare of a person incapable of decision-making [Paras 1–13, 16–19, 22].

Guardianship – Consent of Legal Heirs – Respondents No. 2 and 3 (children of the petitioner and the comatose person) filed affidavits of no objection and appeared virtually to support petition – SDM report confirmed no conflict of interest or adverse circumstances – Held: Petitioner-wife found suitable and eligible for appointment as guardian [Paras 14–15, 17–18].

Property Management – Court Authorization – Court authorized petitioner to manage all movable and immovable assets of comatose husband, including bank accounts, mutual funds, insurance, and residential properties – Direction issued to use assets towards medical and daily expenses of the patient – Held: Court empowered to issue such directions in absence of legislation, guided by best interest and wishes of incapacitated person [Para 22].

Decision: Petition allowed – Prof. Alka Acharya appointed as legal guardian of Mr. Salam Khan – Authorized to manage all movable and immovable assets of the comatose patient for his care and benefit – Petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 22–23].