Matrimonial Law - Maintenance to Wife – Refusal Based on Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Decree Not Sufficient by Itself – The Family Court denied maintenance to the wife solely on the ground of her non-compliance with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Held: As per Apex Court precedent, mere existence of such decree is not sufficient to disentitle a wife from maintenance – The husband must further establish that wife left without sufficient reason – Failure to consider this led to legal error in the order [Paras 3–4].

Maintenance to Daughter – Inadequate Reasoning for Quantum – Family Court awarded Rs. 2000/month till 06.05.2024 and Rs. 5000/month thereafter to the minor daughter – Held: Trial Court failed to assign reasons or consider father’s income and lifestyle to justify the quantum – Order suffers illegality on this count – Matter remitted for fresh decision [Para 6].

Conflicting Pleas – Incongruity Between Seeking Restitution and Divorce – Husband had sought divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act while simultaneously citing wife’s refusal to comply with decree of restitution – Held: This contradiction casts doubt on husband’s case and should have been considered in evaluating sufficiency of wife’s cause to live separately [Para 5].

Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside – Interim Maintenance Directed – The impugned order of the Family Court is set aside – Matter remanded for fresh disposal within 3 months – Meanwhile, interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/month each to wife and daughter directed from 01.04.2025, to be adjusted in final award [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Law – Right to Fair Trial – Closure of Cross-Examination Opportunity – Reopening Allowed – The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order dated 19.02.2025 that denied adjournment and closed his right to cross-examine the Investigating Officer (IO), citing absence of senior counsel – The High Court held that fair trial includes the right to adequately cross-examine material prosecution witnesses – It was observed that the accused’s counsel had only sought a single adjournment and that denial at the first opportunity was harsh and improper – Held: The trial court’s order was set aside and the accused was granted one final opportunity to cross-examine the IO, subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- for re-summoning the witness [Paras 5–7].

Civil Law - Coparcenary Rights of Daughter – Applicability of Section 6, Hindu Succession Act – Partition Sought by Daughter – Upheld – The daughter, born before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, sought partition of ancestral property acquired by her father through a registered partition deed dated 04.02.2004 – Held: Since no partition took place between the father and his children before or after the 2005 amendment, the daughter had coparcenary rights by birth and was entitled to a share – The oral partition claimed by defendants was unproven, and absence of father’s testimony weighed against the defense – Section 6(5) did not preclude her claim – Judgment of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld [Paras 17–20, 25–26].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings – Not Interfered – The High Court reiterated the principle that it shall not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on inadmissible evidence – Found that both lower courts had rightly concluded the suit schedule property was ancestral and undivided – No reason to interfere under second appeal jurisdiction [Paras 15–16, 26].

Decision: Second Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, affirming the plaintiff’s right to a share in ancestral property as a coparcener – No substantial question of law was found to merit interference under Section 100 CPC – The concurrent findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and legal principles – The appeal was therefore dismissed [Para 26].
 

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Mental Cruelty – Filing of False Criminal Complaint – Divorce Upheld – The wife filed a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and his family, leading to their arrest and bail – The charges were not proved and they were acquitted – Held: The act of filing such unsubstantiated criminal proceedings caused social stigma and trauma, amounting to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce rightly granted [Paras 13–23, 38].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation – Court’s Finding – The parties were living separately for 29 years with no substantial cohabitation after marriage – Despite the wife’s affidavit expressing willingness to reunite, the Court found reconciliation impossible due to bitterness caused by past conduct – Held: Matrimonial bond was beyond repair – Divorce decree sustained [Paras 15, 39–42].

Standard of Proof – Civil Nature of Proceedings – The Court reiterated that in matrimonial cases, cruelty must be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt – Mental cruelty, being subjective, is inferred from overall conduct and impact – False criminal complaints, even if resulting in acquittal, can suffice for establishing cruelty [Paras 31, 34].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Trial Court’s decree of divorce was upheld – The ground of mental cruelty was proved – Reversal would only prolong hardship – No error in the trial court's judgment [Paras 42–44].

Criminal Law – Regular Bail - Foreign National – Allegation of Illegal Entry – Confession to Police – Accused arrested on suspicion of being a Bangladeshi national without valid documents—Prosecution relied on alleged oral confession—Held: Confession before police inadmissible; prosecution case based only on alleged statement unsupported by valid documentary proof [Paras 2–5].

Constitutional Law – Violation of Articles 21 and 22 – Delayed Production Before Magistrate – Applicant arrested at 12:30 PM on 28.01.2025 and produced before Magistrate at 4:30 PM on 29.01.2025—Held: Custody beyond 24 hours without remand order violates Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC—Arrest prima facie vitiated; Court has duty to intervene [Paras 5.1–7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Supreme Court Precedents – Duty of Court to Enforce Fundamental Rights – Court followed Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240—Held: When fundamental rights are breached, bail must be granted irrespective of whether the plea was raised during remand—Division Bench ruling in Karan Ratan Rokade not applicable due to factual differences [Paras 5.3–6].

Proof of Nationality – Existence of Indian Identity Documents – Applicant relied on Aadhar, PAN, Ration Card, Voter ID, marriage certificate, and Gram Panchayat certificate to show long-term residence in India—Held: Documents raise triable issue; bail appropriate as prosecution must prove case during trial [Paras 5, 9].

Decision – Bail granted – Applicant to be released on ₹5,000 P.R. bond with two sureties – Provisional cash bail allowed – Conditions imposed including regular court attendance, no tampering with evidence, and restriction on travel outside Maharashtra – Order limited to bail, not merits [Paras 10–12].

Civil Law – Injunction - Personality and Publicity Rights – Unauthorized Use of Celebrity Name – Interim Injunction Upheld – Respondent No.1, a well-known filmmaker and media personality, sought to restrain the Appellant from using his name “Karan Johar” in the title and promotional content of a film without consent – The Court found prima facie that the Appellant's use of the name in the film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” was intended to exploit the goodwill and brand value of Respondent No.1 – Held: Use of the name violated personality rights, publicity rights, and the right to privacy of the Respondent No.1 – Interim injunction rightly granted [Paras 1, 5, 13, 16-19].

Celebrity Status – Protection of Brand Identity – Distinction from Generic Use – The Court distinguished the present case from other films like “Karan Arjun”, holding that “Karan Johar” is a unique identifier for the Respondent No.1 – The film’s juxtaposition of “Karan” and “Johar” with “Director” made a direct reference to the Respondent – Held: Respondent’s name forms part of his brand identity which enjoys legal protection [Paras 13-14, 19].

CBFC Certification – No Bar to Enforcement of Personality Rights – Appellant’s argument that CBFC certification precludes court from granting injunction was rejected – Held: CBFC certification does not consider infringement of personal rights including publicity and personality rights – Legal remedies under common law and torts remain enforceable irrespective of CBFC clearance [Paras 23-25].

Disclaimers – Inadequacy in Protecting Personality Rights – Appellant’s reliance on disclaimers in posters and film content disassociating the movie from Respondent No.1 was rejected – Held: Disclaimers are insufficient where the overall title and presentation exploit the celebrity’s identity and create confusion in public perception [Para 26].

Appeal Dismissed – No Interference with Discretion of Single Judge – The Division Bench declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge, holding that the findings were based on settled legal principles and justified by material on record – Appeal dismissed with disposal of pending interim applications [Paras 29-31].
 

 Service Law - Termination of Employee – Transfer Order and Non-Compliance – Justification Required – The employee challenged his transfer and did not join at the transferred location, leading to termination – Tribunal held the termination illegal for lack of inquiry – Held: Non-compliance with the transfer order cannot justify dismissal without conducting a domestic inquiry – Tribunal’s order sustained [Paras 2-7, 15-19].

Industrial Dispute – Domestic Inquiry Requirement – Employer Must Prove Misconduct – The appellant company failed to conduct or rely on any domestic inquiry before termination – Tribunal rightly held that stigmatic termination without opportunity violates natural justice – Held: Termination was rightly declared invalid due to absence of inquiry [Paras 10-12, 18].

Judicial Review – Limited Interference in Industrial Awards – No Perversity – The Single Judge declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s award, finding no legal infirmity – Appeal court reiterated settled law that appellate courts cannot reassess sufficiency of evidence – Held: No perversity or illegality in Tribunal’s findings – Writ Appeal dismissed [Paras 17, 19-20].

Equity and Statutory Compliance – Failure to Justify Termination – The appellant company did not utilize its right to justify termination by leading evidence before the Tribunal – Held: The company's inaction disentitles it from relief – procedural safeguards under Section 2A ID Act must be observed [Paras 11, 15-16].

Final Decision – Writ Appeal Dismissed – Tribunal’s Order Upheld – The Court upheld the Tribunal’s directive to reinstate the employee without back wages and dismissed the company’s writ appeal – No costs imposed [Para 20].

Tenancy Law - Thika Tenancy – Interpretation of Documentary Evidence – Declaration of Thika Tenancy Upheld – The plaintiffs claimed rights as thika tenants over a property comprising 21 rooms based on tenancy of their predecessor Khalil Choudhury – Defendants claimed ownership by purchase deeds and will – Trial Court dismissed suit holding Khalil was not a thika tenant – First Appellate Court reversed the finding, holding Khalil’s name appeared in rent receipts and his possession of 8 rooms indicated tenancy – Held: Appellate Court’s view reasonable, supported by documents and not perverse – Declaration of thika tenancy affirmed [Paras 6, 16–18, 23].

Ownership vs. Tenancy Rights – Simultaneous Vesting Not Permissible – Appellants contended that claim of thika tenancy and ownership could not coexist – Held: Even if ownership by purchase was assumed, in absence of surrender, the thika tenancy rights of Khalil subsist under new landlord – Rights are independent and subsisting unless relinquished [Para 22].

Jurisdiction – Civil Court Competence – Thika Tenancy Disputes Prior to 2010 Amendment – Objection to jurisdiction raised citing amendment to 2001 Act – Held: Since suit filed in 1978, prior to 2010 amendment, civil court was competent to decide thika tenancy rights – Amendment not retrospective – Jurisdiction upheld [Paras 25–26].

Inheritance under Mohammedan Law – Rights of Grandchildren – Respondents claimed ownership under inheritance as residuary heirs – Appellants contested bequest under will to grandchildren – Held: Issue not determinative since suit confined to thika tenancy rights – However, noted that under Sunni Law, grandchildren through predeceased daughter not direct heirs; will cannot operate beyond 1/3rd share without consent [Paras 13–14, 24].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Interference with First Appellate Court’s Finding – Appellate Court found Khalil to be thika tenant based on documents and admissions – High Court held such finding was not perverse nor based on inadmissible evidence – Interference not warranted in second appeal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 27–29].

Matrimonial Law - Territorial Jurisdiction – Determination under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC Dismissed – Appellant claimed parties last resided in Faridabad, Haryana; Respondent claimed last matrimonial residence in Anand Parbat, New Delhi – Divorce petition filed in Delhi based on residence at Anand Parbat – Court found jurisdiction properly vested with Family Court, Tis Hazari, based on averments in the petition and lack of jurisdictional objection in prior restitution petition – Held: Divorce petition was rightly filed at Delhi; Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was rightly dismissed [Paras 5–19].

Pleading Standards – Consideration of Jurisdiction at Pleading Stage – Divorce petition’s averments taken as true at preliminary stage – Jurisdiction examined based on plaint only, not defence – Held: Return of plaint not warranted where jurisdiction properly claimed in pleadings [Paras 13–16].

Equitable Clarification – Opportunity to Raise Jurisdiction Later – Dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC does not preclude raising territorial jurisdiction objection during trial – Held: Right to contest jurisdiction at later stage preserved [Para 20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Family Court had territorial jurisdiction based on last matrimonial residence in Delhi – No infirmity found in impugned order – Appeal and pending applications dismissed as meritless [Paras 19–21].