Pension and Gratuity – Withholding due to Criminal Cases – Petitioner, a former lecturer, sought release of pensionary benefits – Criminal cases pending but no conviction – No departmental proceedings initiated – Held, pendency of criminal cases without conviction is not a ground for withholding pensionary benefits – Cited precedents affirming pension as a right, not bounty – Mandamus issued to release benefits within 12 weeks [Paras 1-17].

Legal Precedent – Right to Pension – Apex Court judgments highlight pension as a property right under Article 300A – D.S. Nakara case underscored pension as deferred salary – Other judgments reinforce that withholding pension/gratuity without statutory provision is impermissible [Paras 9-15].

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Directed respondents to fix the petitioner’s pension considering the 6^th and 7^th pay revisions, and pay the amount of gratuity, leave encashment, and other benefits within 12 weeks from the date of the order [Para 16].

Redemption of Mortgage – Rights of Legal Heirs – Plaintiffs (Appellants) sought redemption of a mortgage bond dated 13.09.1969 and claimed 2/3^rd share of the property as legal heirs of Abdul Rahim – Trial Court decreed suit in favor of plaintiffs recognizing their share – First Appellate Court reversed the decision, questioning the redemption right post-execution of a sale deed – Second Appeal addressed substantial questions of law regarding res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC – High Court held that principles of res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC do not bar the present suit – Redemption right upheld based on finality of earlier suit’s judgment confirming plaintiffs’ 2/3^rd share [Paras 1-22].

Res Judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC – Previous judgment in Title Suit No. 16 of 1974, which confirmed plaintiffs’ 2/3^rd share and right to redemption, attained finality – High Court emphasized that res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC are inapplicable as the cause of action in the present suit (redemption) differs from the earlier declaratory suit [Paras 17-22].

Finality of Earlier Judgment – High Court overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision – Reinstated the Trial Court’s decree favoring the plaintiffs – Confirmed the 2/3^rd share and the right to redeem the mortgaged property, recognizing legal heirs’ rights under Mohammedan Law [Paras 14-16, 20-22].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s decree restored – Plaintiffs entitled to redemption of 2/3^rd share of the suit property.

Constitutional Law – Writ of Mandamus – Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Chief Electoral Officer and the Regional Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation for implementing free bus services for voters and increasing the number of polling booths – Respondents opposed the petition stating such directions would contravene Section 123(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and highlighted that the number of polling booths had already been increased from 160 to 195 – Court held that respondents had duly addressed the petitioner's grievances [Paras 2-6].

Election Law – Free Transport for Voters – Supreme Court of India reviewed the petitioner's plea for free bus services on polling day – Found that provision of such services by the State or Public Transport Corporations would violate the express provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 – Court noted that directions for free bus services could not be issued as it would be deemed a corrupt practice under the Act [Paras 3-4].

Enhancement of Polling Booths – Petition also sought an increase in the number of polling booths for elections – Court noted that respondents had already increased the number of polling booths from 160 to 195 based on voter numbers and Deputy Commissioner’s inputs – Court satisfied that this addressed the petitioner's concerns [Para 5-7].

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Held – The writ petition was dismissed as the respondents had adequately addressed the issues raised by the petitioner through objections and an endorsement, meeting the requirements of the election process as per legal provisions [Para 8].

Section 498A IPC – Cruelty by Husband – Petitioner convicted for subjecting his wife to cruelty demanding additional dowry – Trial court sentenced petitioner to 2 years R.I., reduced to 1 year R.I. on appeal – High Court finds prosecution evidence contradictory and insufficient – Petitioner’s conviction set aside and acquitted [Paras 1-20].

Burden of Proof – Section 498A IPC – Prosecution failed to prove specific instances of cruelty or demand for dowry – High Court emphasized need for precise evidence to establish cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Conviction based on vague allegations without corroborative evidence deemed unsustainable [Paras 14-20].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner’s Examination – High Court criticized lower courts for posing general questions in Section 313 examination – Omnibus questions without detailing specific acts of cruelty insufficient to sustain conviction – Courts must ensure thorough examination to afford fair opportunity to accused [Paras 20-21].

Decision:

Criminal Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC set aside – Petitioner acquitted and discharged from bail bond liabilities [Paras 20-21].

Marriage and Divorce – Desertion – Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition – Appellant claims wife deserted him and was in an adulterous relationship – Trial court dismissed suit finding no evidence of desertion or adultery – Appellant failed to prove allegations with substantive evidence – Desertion requires animus deserendi and absence of reasonable cause – Allegations of dowry demand and ill-treatment beyond pleading – No criminal complaint or substantive evidence provided – Findings of trial court affirmed [Paras 1-16].

Cruelty – Mental and Physical Torture – Appellant alleged mental and physical cruelty – No substantial evidence to support claims – Respondent denied allegations and stated she was sent away by appellant – No proof of continuous and willful conduct constituting cruelty – Trial court’s findings upheld [Paras 6-9].

Adultery – Allegation and Evidence – Appellant’s claim of wife’s adultery with co-respondent – Trial court found no proof of adultery – Appellant conceded ground of adultery during appeal – Court found no evidence to support claims – Findings of trial court affirmed [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – No interference with trial court’s judgment – Appellant failed to prove grounds of divorce – Allegations of desertion, cruelty, and adultery not substantiated with evidence – Judgment and decree of trial court affirmed [Paras 13-16].

Criminal Procedure – Restoration of Complaint – Petitioners challenged restoration of complaint dismissed for non-appearance of the respondent – High Court ruled that once a complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution, the trial court becomes functus officio and cannot restore the complaint – No provision in Cr.P.C. allows such restoration – Reference made to Supreme Court’s decision in A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur – Orders of restoration and summoning set aside [Paras 1-19].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court has inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and to ensure justice – Subordinate courts do not possess such inherent powers – Orders restoring dismissed complaints by trial courts without jurisdiction are nullities – Inherent powers do not extend to such restorations by trial courts [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Orders dated 13.08.2019 and 16.04.2022 set aside – Restoration and summoning deemed without jurisdiction – Liberty granted to respondent to seek appropriate remedy under law [Paras 19-20].

Customs Law – Burden of Proof – Seizure of Gold and Currency – Voluntariness of Statements – Section 123 of Customs Act – Appeal by Revenue challenging CESTAT order which reversed confiscation of gold and Indian currency from respondent – Tribunal held the seized gold to be made from old jewellery and not smuggled – Tribunal accepted respondent’s retraction of statements made under Section 108 of Customs Act – Supreme Court’s principles on burden of proof and voluntariness of retracted statements examined – High Court reinstates adjudicating authority’s order, confirming confiscation and penalties, as respondent failed to prove lawful acquisition of seized gold and currency – Tribunal’s findings held to be perverse and contrary to Section 123. [Paras 1-27]

Statements under Section 108 of Customs Act – Retraction and Evidentiary Value – Analysis – Tribunal erred in dismissing respondent’s initial statements as involuntary without proper examination of retraction timing and consistency – Statements recorded in vernacular by respondent were voluntary – Reliance on Vinod Solanki’s case regarding the examination of retractions – Held, Tribunal’s acceptance of retraction without thorough scrutiny flawed. [Paras 17, 21-25]

Decision – Confiscation and Penalty – Upheld -  Restoration of Adjudicating Authority’s Order – High Court allows Revenue’s appeal – Sets aside Tribunal’s order – Restores the adjudicating authority’s order of confiscation and penalties – Confirms substantial questions of law in favor of Revenue – Respondent’s claim of gold sourced from old jewellery deemed unsubstantiated. [Para 27]

Income Tax Law – Appeal against ITAT order – Submission of Audit Report – High Court dismisses Revenue's appeal challenging ITAT's decision to allow assessee's exemption under Section 11 of Income Tax Act despite late filing of audit report in Form 10B – Tribunal's reliance on CBDT Circulars clarifying deadlines for returns accepted – No substantial question of law found.

Exemption Eligibility – Filing Deadline – CBDT Circulars F. No.173/193/2019-ITA-I and Circular No. 8 of 2021 provided extensions for filing belated and revised returns – Tribunal's application of Circulars upheld by High Court – Held: Assessee entitled to exemption despite late filing as Tribunal's decision aligned with CBDT guidelines .

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Appeal by Revenue dismissed – Tribunal's decision to treat return as filed within time affirmed – Stay application also dismissed – High Court concurs with Tribunal's interpretation of CBDT Circulars and concludes no substantial question of law arises for consideration .

Maintenance – Revision of Maintenance Order – Petitioner challenged the Family Court’s order to pay Rs. 30,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife – Contention included existing maintenance obligations totaling Rs. 22,000 per month and his deteriorating health and income capacity – High Court modified the maintenance to Rs. 15,000 per month – Emphasized the need to consider all existing maintenance orders and petitioner’s age and health [Paras 1-17].

Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance – Assessment – Court noted the Family Court’s failure to consider existing maintenance orders from other proceedings – Highlighted guidelines from Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. 2021 (2) SCC 324 on maintenance assessment – Directed consolidation of all maintenance amounts to ensure fair evaluation of petitioner’s obligations [Paras 3, 16].

Age and Health Considerations – Maintenance – Court acknowledged the petitioner’s age (over 70 years) and health issues – Reduced maintenance amount in light of his diminished income capacity – Reinforced the need to balance the petitioner’s financial ability with the dependent’s needs [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Revision allowed in part – Family Court’s order modified to reduce maintenance to Rs. 15,000 per month – Directed adjustment of amounts already paid – Ensured compliance with principles of fair maintenance assessment [Paras 15-17].