Family Law – Custody of Minor Children – Split Custody – Welfare of Child Paramount – Preference of Minor Considered – Family Court granted custody of elder daughter to mother and younger son to father – Appellant-mother sought custody of both children to restore sibling bond – Held: Both parents are educated and financially stable; minor son (aged 11) has lived with father and paternal grandmother for 7 years and expressed genuine, independent desire to continue in same environment – No indication of coaching or adverse conditions – Court found no compelling reason to alter settled custody arrangement, especially where change could disrupt child’s emotional equilibrium and academic stability [Paras 1–3, 6–7, 15–17].

Child Custody – Preference of Child – Emotional Bonding and Continuity – Court interacted with both siblings – Son displayed strong attachment to father and grandmother and showed comfort in present routine – Although emotional bond with sister existed, frequent interaction was minimal due to years of separation – Court observed absence of hostility but also absence of shared day-to-day life – Held: Disruption of established bond with current caregiver not warranted solely to reunite siblings [Paras 6–9, 15–16].

Custody Jurisprudence – Allegations Between Parents Not Determinative – Welfare Principle Supersedes Fault-Based Arguments – Appellant cited father’s alleged misconduct, alcohol use, and discriminatory parenting – Family Court found such allegations either unproven or not materially affecting welfare of minor son – Court reiterated settled principle that child custody determination must transcend mutual recriminations between parties and focus only on child’s best interest [Paras 10.4, 13–14, 17].

Visitation Rights – Parental Cooperation Essential – Possibility of Future Modification Not Barred – Court upheld existing arrangement but emphasized that child welfare is dynamic – Directed both parties to maintain cordial interaction and ensure continuity in sibling relationship through visitation – Liberty granted to approach competent court for modification upon substantial change in circumstances [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 18.09.2023 upheld – Custody of minor son to remain with father and minor daughter with mother – Existing visitation rights of mother to continue – No costs [Paras 19–21].

Public Service Commission – Scaling of Marks – Validity of Scaling Formula in Exams with Optional Papers – RPSC adopted scaling method in optional subjects of competitive exam for Forest Services after finding wide subject-wise variation in difficulty index and mean marks – Appellants contended that scaling was not authorized under the 1962 and 2015 Rules and yielded arbitrary and absurd results – Held: Scaling necessary to ensure uniformity and fairness in evaluation when different optional subjects are involved – Expert Committee analyzed statistical data before recommending scaling formula – No arbitrariness or mala fides found in process – Scaling limited only to optional subjects and not applied to compulsory ones [Paras 1–4, 11–13, 31, 36].

Recruitment Rules – Interpretation of “Marks Obtained” – Scaled Marks vs. Raw Marks – Petitioners argued that scaling violated Rule 29 of the 2015 Rules, which prohibits re-evaluation – Court held that “marks obtained” includes scaled marks and scaling is distinct from re-evaluation – Scaling is part of the evaluation process and is not barred by the Rules – Application of scaling found to be within the implied powers of the Commission [Paras 32–34].

Precedent – Consistency of Judicial View – Stare Decisis – Court reaffirmed settled position in Jai Singh, Chandu Parihar, and Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal that scaling in exams involving optional subjects is valid – Rejected appellants’ reliance on Sanjay Singh case, holding it inapplicable since it pertained to exams with only compulsory subjects – Held: No change in facts or law to justify deviation from consistent precedent upholding scaling [Paras 26–28, 37–38].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality and Fairness in Competitive Examinations – Without scaling, candidates choosing difficult subjects would be unfairly disadvantaged – Scaling ensures uniformity across subjects of differing difficulty levels – Held: Use of scaling promotes objectivity, fairness, and does not violate Article 14 – No arbitrariness or unequal treatment established [Paras 29–30, 40].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge upheld – Scaling formula adopted by RPSC found to be fair, rational, and legally sustainable – No costs imposed – Pending applications disposed [Paras 39–41].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Decree of Divorce Granted – Appellant alleged repeated abusive conduct by wife, threats of suicide, denial of physical relationship, and desertion without cause – Family Court dismissed petition citing isolated nature of incidents and unclean hands due to dowry allegations – Held: Cumulative effect of wife’s behaviour including verbal abuse, threats of false criminal charges, and persistent withdrawal from cohabitation amounted to mental cruelty – Appellant's evidence consistent and largely unshaken – Divorce granted under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA [Paras 1, 3, 17, 20, 23–25]

Family Law – Clean Hands Doctrine – Section 23(1)(a) HMA – Appellant denied relief by Family Court on ground of unclean hands due to dowry harassment allegations – Held: Allegations by wife were belated and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence – FIR and other proceedings initiated only after divorce petition – No credible material to show petitioner’s conduct constituted matrimonial offence – Principle of clean hands wrongly invoked – Not a bar to relief [Paras 18, 21–22]

Family Law – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Allegation of Sexual Misconduct by In-Law – Wife alleged attempted molestation by father-in-law – Parties living separately since 2020 – No child from marriage – Held: Allegation strikes at core of family trust and makes restoration of marital harmony impossible – Relationship has broken down irreparably – Compelling parties to continue in such marriage serves no legal or societal purpose – Divorce granted [Paras 23–25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 20/03/2025 of Family Court set aside – Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Registry directed to draw up decree sheet – No orders as to costs.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Partition Suit – Cause of Action Disclosed – Appellant sought partition of ancestral and joint family properties – Trial court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC citing prior consent decree, limitation, and lack of co-ownership – Held: Plaint discloses cause of action – Questions of limitation, title, and effect of prior consent decree are mixed questions of fact and law requiring trial – Plaint cannot be rejected at threshold [Paras 13–16, 20, 25–27]

Civil Procedure – Consent Decree – Misrepresentation – Order XXIII Rule 3 – Bar under Rule 3A – Plaintiff claimed signatures on compromise were obtained by misrepresentation – Presence not recorded in decree – Plaintiff not recorded as party to earlier suit – Held: Whether plaintiff was party to decree or her rights extinguished by it is a triable issue – Bar under Rule 3A CPC applies only to parties to compromise decree – Not adjudicable at preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 17, 21–22]

Limitation – Accrual of Cause of Action – Consent Decree and Subsequent Denial – Plaintiff claimed her rights were denied after mother’s death and refusal by brother to partition properties unless she relinquished claim over other property – Held: Accrual of cause of action is a disputed factual issue – Cannot be conclusively decided at Order VII Rule 11 stage – Limitation defence to be adjudicated during trial [Paras 21, 25]

Family Law – Coparcenary Property – Hindu Joint Family – Plaintiff's Right to Partition – Plaintiff, daughter, claimed right in ancestral and coparcenary property – Father supported her claim – Held: Whether HUF exists and plaintiff is entitled to share are triable issues – Mere absence of detail about HUF or co-ownership in title documents is not ground for rejecting plaint – Rejection of suit at threshold unwarranted [Paras 19–20]

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope limited to plaint and annexed documents – Validity of consent decree, extent of partition rights, and alleged misrepresentation must be adjudicated at trial – Court cannot reject plaint based on defence pleadings or external documents – Rejection set aside and suit restored [Paras 13, 17, 26–29]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 07/05/2024 set aside – Plaintiff’s suit for partition (CS(OS) 90/2017) restored to original number – Parties directed to appear before Roster Bench on 02/12/2025.

Criminal Law – Illegal Detention – Chapter Proceedings under Section 107 CrPC – Executive Magistrate’s Jurisdiction – Executive Magistrate passed order remanding petitioner to judicial custody in Chapter Case under Section 107 – Held: Magistrate had no authority under CrPC to remand person to custody in such proceedings – Detention for 7 days was unlawful and violated petitioner’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Compensation of ₹1,00,000 awarded to petitioner – State given liberty to recover from erring officer [Paras 10–13, 18]

Judicial Accountability – Misuse of Power – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act – Executive Magistrate claimed immunity under Section 3 of Judges (Protection) Act for remanding petitioner – Held: Power exercised under Section 107 CrPC is executive in nature – Act of Magistrate not judicial or quasi-judicial – Protection under Section 3 not applicable – Respondent No. 3 personally liable for excess of jurisdiction [Paras 15–16]

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Illegal detention by public authority – Petitioner detained without show cause notice or lawful order – Held: Violation of Article 21 – Compensation a necessary public remedy for infringement of fundamental right – State directed to pay and recover from officer responsible [Paras 13–14, 17–18]

Constitutional Law – Compensation for Violation of Fundamental Rights – Petition under Article 226 maintainable – Petitioner entitled to monetary compensation for illegal arrest and unauthorized detention in breach of statutory safeguards – Compensation awarded despite absence of malice – Focus is on consequences of rights violation, not intention [Paras 14, 17]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed –

(a) State of Maharashtra directed to pay ₹1,00,000 to petitioner within 4 weeks.

(b) Liberty granted to State to recover said amount from respondent no. 3 (Tahsildar).

(c) Rule made absolute.

Civil Law – Substitution – Delay Condonation – No Requirement That Delay Application Must Precede or Accompany Substitution Application – Application for substitution of deceased defendant filed belatedly – Separate delay condonation application filed later – Trial court condoned delay and allowed substitution – Held: Formal delay application not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown and Court is satisfied – Delay condonation under Section 5 Limitation Act permissible even if filed subsequently – No legal bar to consider both applications together [Paras 12–13, 16]

Civil Procedure – Abatement of Suit – No Separate Application to Set Aside Abatement Required If Relief Is Implicit – Suit abated under Article 120 of Limitation Act after expiry of 90 days from date of death of defendant – Plaintiff did not file separate application to set aside abatement – Held: Substitution application containing prayer for bringing legal representatives on record can be treated as implied request to set aside abatement – Technical plea rejected – Courts should adopt liberal and justice-oriented approach [Paras 17–20]

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Sufficiency of Cause – Discretion of Court – Court satisfied with explanation that Power of Attorney holder was out of station – Delay not deliberate or mala fide – Held: Court rightly exercised discretion under Section 5 Limitation Act – Delay condonation proper [Paras 23, 25]

Civil Procedure – Revision under Section 115 CPC – Limited Scope – Non-speaking or unreasoned order not by itself a ground for interference – Unless failure of justice or irreparable injury shown, revisional interference unwarranted – Trial court order allowing substitution and amendment upheld [Paras 21–22]

Civil Procedure – Liberal Construction in Substitution Matters – Order XXII Rule 10A CPC – Obligation on counsel to inform Court of death – Intention of legislature is to ensure substitution matters are not defeated by procedural delay – Courts must adopt realistic and equitable approach [Para 24]

Decision: Revision dismissed – Order dated 12.12.2024 of trial court upheld – Delay condonation and substitution application valid – No separate application to set aside abatement required – No costs.

Motor Accident Compensation – Just Compensation – Enhancement in Absence of Cross Appeal – Deceased, a self-employed photographer aged 45 years, died in accident involving APSRTC bus – Tribunal awarded Rs.19,97,000/- without granting future prospects or applying correct multiplier – High Court held: Even in absence of appeal by claimants, Courts are duty-bound to award “just compensation” under Section 168 of the MV Act – Following Pranay Sethi, Sarala Verma, and Ramla, compensation enhanced to Rs.26,80,000/- with 7.5% interest [Paras 13–20].

Negligence – Evidence and Burden of Proof – APSRTC contended accident was due to deceased’s negligence – Driver examined as RW-1 failed to rebut evidence – Eye-witness (PW-2) and police records (FIR, charge sheet) confirmed negligence of bus driver – Tribunal and High Court held accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by APSRTC driver [Paras 10–11].

Assessment of Income – Self-Employed Deceased – Documentary evidence insufficient to prove income of Rs.40,000/- – Tribunal rightly disbelieved income certificate (Ex.A5) – Income reasonably assessed at Rs.18,000/- per month – High Court upheld income computation but modified multiplier and added conventional heads [Paras 11–14].

Multiplier – Error in Tribunal’s Application – Tribunal applied multiplier of 13 though deceased was aged 45 – High Court corrected error and applied multiplier of 14 as per Sarala Verma – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 15–16].

Interest Rate – Award of Interest – Tribunal granted 6% per annum – High Court modified and awarded 7.5% per annum in line with consistent judicial practice [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award modified – Compensation enhanced from Rs.19,97,000/- to Rs.26,80,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum – Appellant (APSRTC) directed to deposit enhanced amount within two months – No order as to costs – All pending IAs closed [Paras 20–21].

Partition Suit – Maintainability of Revision – Article 227 – Order Accepting Partition Commissioner’s Report – Held: A revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order accepting the Partition Commissioner’s Report if the final decree is yet to be passed – The order accepting the Commissioner’s Report, without drawing up of final decree, does not constitute a decree under Section 2(2) CPC and is not independently appealable under Section 96 or Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC – Once final decree is passed working out rights of parties, it becomes appealable – Held: Interlocutory order accepting Commissioner’s Report can be challenged under Article 227 to prevent denial of remedy where appeal does not lie [Paras 1, 4, 8, 22, 24, 30]

Civil Procedure – Partition Decree – Distinction Between Preliminary and Final Decree – Reiterated that a preliminary decree declares rights of co-sharers, while a final decree works out those rights through metes and bounds division – Until final decree is passed, rights are not conclusively determined, and execution cannot proceed – Court must follow Order 26 Rule 14(3) CPC before passing a final decree [Paras 11–16, 22–23]

Appellate and Revisional Jurisdiction – Challenge to Acceptance of Commission Report – Reiterated: No appeal lies from an order merely accepting Commissioner’s Report unless it culminates in a final decree – Party aggrieved may challenge such order under Article 227 – Section 105 CPC permits challenge in appeal from final decree if no separate appeal lies earlier – Prior decisions in Sanat Kumar Dey and Papy George do not preclude Article 227 remedy [Paras 24, 26–30]

Decision: Application under Article 227 held maintainable – Civil Revision Applications to be de-tagged and heard on merits by appropriate bench – Issue of substantive challenge to Commissioner’s Report to be considered upon further hearing [Paras 30–32]

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Conspiracy and Murder – Rejection – Appellants accused of providing finance and dangerous weapons to co-accused for eliminating the deceased (Santhosh Kumar @ Kanuma) – Charged under BNS, Arms Act, and SC/ST Act – Trial court rejected bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS – High Court affirmed the rejection, noting that providing logistics and finance for murder is as grave as direct involvement – Held: Prima facie materials exist to attract the commission of the alleged offence; bail rejected due to the heinous nature of the crime and likelihood of witness tampering [Paras 1-8].

Criminal Conspiracy – Role of Accused – Financial Aid and Weapon Supply – Charge sheet (Column 17) detailed the specific roles of the accused in a conspiracy to murder the deceased due to prior enmity – Appellants (Accused 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20) allegedly provided funds and weapons (long knives/machhu) – Court observed that the materials prima facie establish participation in the conspiracy – The role of funding and arming the perpetrators is grave and disentitles the accused to bail [Paras 6-7, 14].

Bail Jurisprudence – Parity Principle – Non-Applicability – Co-ordinate Bench had granted bail to Accused No. 17 and Accused No. 15 in separate petitions – Appellants sought release on grounds of parity – Court held that despite the release of co-accused, the specific roles of the present appellants in facilitating the crime warranted detention – Parity cannot be the sole ground when prima facie material points to involvement in a heinous offence punishable with death or life imprisonment [Para 8].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere confirmed – Bail rejected.