Family Law - Child Custody – Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Tender Years Doctrine – Appeal by mother challenging Family Court judgment granting sole custody of two minor children to father – Court examined continued relevance of tender years doctrine – Held: Doctrine founded on outdated stereotypes and cannot be applied as a determinative rule in modern custody disputes – Custody must be decided solely on best interests and welfare of children [Paras 36–39, 77(I)].

Child Custody – Parental Alienation – Conduct of Parent – Evidence showed sustained and systematic exclusion of father from children’s lives since 2018 – Repeated relocations across multiple States without court permission – Children exposed to one-sided narrative – Held: Parent cannot deliberately alienate children and thereafter claim custody as primary caregiver – Such conduct militates against welfare of children [Paras 48–53].

Child Custody – Wishes of Child – Limited Evidentiary Weight in Alienation Cases – Son aged about 12 years expressed hostility towards father – Court interacted with children – Held: Wishes of child relevant but not decisive – Where preference appears conditioned by prolonged alienation, it cannot override judicial determination of best interests [Paras 55–56].

Child Custody – Siblings – Joint Upbringing – Two siblings aged about 12 and 6 years – Held: Separation of siblings would be detrimental to emotional stability and holistic development – Welfare lies in unified upbringing under one custodian [Paras 57–58, 77(IV)].

Child Custody – Financial Capacity – Not Sole Criterion – Mother asserted superior earning capacity for first time in appeal – Documents not part of trial court record – Held: Comparative financial capacity is only one factor and cannot outweigh emotional, psychological and developmental welfare – Additional evidence at appellate stage declined under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC [Paras 42–47, 61].

Child Custody – Working Mother – Career Advancement – Allegation that Family Court penalised mother for pursuing career – Held: Judgment does not fault mother for employment – Concern was repeated unexplained relocations adversely impacting children’s stability [Para 71].

Child Custody – Relocation Outside India – Rejected – Mother sought relocation of children abroad – Held: Permitting relocation would effectively deprive father of meaningful physical access – Virtual contact insufficient substitute for parental presence – Children to remain within territorial jurisdiction of Indian courts [Paras 67–70, 77(II)].

Child Custody – Allegations of Sexual Abuse – False and Motivated Pleas – Serious allegations raised belatedly in affidavit of evidence without pleadings or particulars – Held: Allegations appear motivated and in nature of counterblast – Strongly deprecated by Court [Paras 53–54].

Parental Alienation – Psychological Impact on Child – Court relied on national and international jurisprudence – Held: Alienation harms child’s emotional health and right to love and affection of both parents – Courts must actively arrest such tendencies [Paras 56, 62–64].

Contempt of Court – Interim Custody Orders – Disposal of Appeal – Contempt petition alleging violation of interim access orders – Appeal itself finally decided – Held: Not expedient to examine disputed compliance of interim orders once appeal disposed of – Contempt petition closed without adjudication on merits [Paras 72–76].

Decision: Matrimonial Appeal dismissed – Custody of both minor children affirmed in favour of father – Tender Years Doctrine held non-determinative – Relocation application rejected – Children to remain in India – Contempt Petition disposed of without findings – Parties at liberty to seek visitation/access directions from Family Court – No order as to costs [Paras 77–79].

Motor Vehicles Law – Bike Taxis as Transport Vehicles – Sections 2(7), 2(25), 2(47), 41(4), MV Act, 1988; Rule 2, CMV Rules, 1989; Central Government Notification S.O.1248(E) dated 05.11.2004; Central Government Clarification No. RT-11021/34/2023-MVL dated 22.01.2024 – Affirmative Finding – The High Court held that a motorcycle, capable of carrying a rider and a pillion passenger, falls within the definition of 'motorcab' under Section 2(25) and consequently within 'contract carriage' under Section 2(7) of the MV Act when used for hire or reward – The Central Government's 2004 notification explicitly lists motorcycles for hire to carry one pillion passenger as transport vehicles – This position was further clarified by the Central Government in 2024, advising States/UTs to process permit applications for motorcycles as contract carriages – The argument that CMV Rules' vehicle classification excludes motorcycles from carrying passengers for hire was rejected, as classification is based on construction, not commercial use – A previous Division Bench ruling affirming motorcycles as transport vehicles has attained finality – Motorcycles are legally classifiable as transport vehicles and contract carriages under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Paras 46, 49, 50, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 61, 67, 68, 121, 124].

Constitutional Law – Right to Trade and Business – Article 19(1)(g), 19(6), Constitution of India – Legitimate Business – The Court affirmed that operating bike taxis is a legitimate business protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, not being inherently dangerous, illegal, or res extra commercium – Any restrictions must be imposed by a valid law, be in the public interest, and be reasonable under Article 19(6) – A complete prohibition, while potentially falling under "restriction," requires strict scrutiny and substantiation by credible material demonstrating that less drastic measures would be insufficient to achieve the public interest objective – A blanket prohibition on bike taxi services, without a valid law and justification for its reasonableness and public interest, infringes Article 19(1)(g) [Paras 69, 73, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 95, 123, 125, 126].

Motor Vehicles Law – State Government's Power to Control Road Transport and Issue Permits – Sections 66, 67, 73, 74, 80, 96, MV Act, 1988; KODTTA Rules, 2016 – State Cannot Impose Blanket Ban – The MV Act, a Central legislation, occupies the field of motor vehicle regulation, preventing the State from enacting repugnant laws or excluding motorcycles as transport vehicles – While Section 67 empowers the State to control road transport and make schemes, this power is not unbridled and must be exercised by gazette notification, guided by objectives like last-mile connectivity and safety, not for a blanket ban on a class of vehicles – Sections 73, 74, and 80 mandate that Regional Transport Authorities (RTAs) shall not ordinarily refuse contract carriage permit applications and must provide written reasons for any denial, precluding a blanket ban – The KODTTA Rules, defining 'taxi' as 'motorcab', implicitly cover bike taxis, meaning aggregators are entitled to operate bike taxi services under existing licenses, provided vehicle details are furnished – The State's contention of a policy prohibiting bike taxis was rejected due to lack of formal notification and contradictory actions like the Electric Bike Taxi Scheme – The State Government cannot impose a blanket ban on bike taxi services or refuse permits for motorcycles as transport vehicles without a valid, reasoned, and publicly notified policy consistent with the MV Act and constitutional rights [Paras 86, 87, 88, 97, 98, 99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 113, 118, 119, 120, 121, 125, 134, 135, 139, 141, 147].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned order of the Single Judge is set aside – Motorcycle owners are granted liberty to file applications for registration as transport vehicles (yellow board) and for contract carriage permits – The State Government is directed to consider these applications without denying them on the ground that motorcycles cannot be operated as transport vehicles or contract carriages – Pending applications of aggregators are to be considered, and fresh applications are permitted, all to be processed in accordance with law and the Court's observations [Paras 149, 151, 152].

Property Law – Sale of Immovable Property – Execution through Power of Attorney – Burden of Proof – Appellant claimed ownership on basis of sale deed executed by alleged power of attorney holder of original owner – Power of attorney neither produced nor proved – Held: In absence of proof of authority, sale deed cannot confer valid title on purchaser [Paras 9–10, 14–15].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Material Witness – Plaintiff did not enter witness box – Evidence led through special power of attorney holder – Principal to sale transaction and executant of alleged power of attorney not examined – Held: Failure to examine material witnesses creates serious doubt regarding execution and validity of transaction [Paras 8, 14–15].

Power of Attorney – Requirement of Registration – Transfer of Immovable Property of value exceeding ₹100 – Sale claimed through power of attorney – Held: For valid transfer of immovable property, power of attorney authorizing sale must be registered – Unregistered or unproved power of attorney cannot be acted upon [Paras 10, 14].

Civil Suit – Ejectment – Title Not Proved – Plaintiff sought eviction of defendant on basis of alleged ownership – Defendant’s possession claimed to be permissive – Held: When plaintiff fails to establish lawful title, suit for ejectment is not maintainable – Trial Court justified in dismissing suit [Paras 14–16].

First Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings on appreciation of evidence – No perversity or legal error shown – Held: Appellate Court will not interfere with well-reasoned judgment of trial court [Paras 15–16].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 05.01.2002 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Harda in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2001 affirmed – Trial Court record directed to be returned.

Civil Law – Review – Scope and limits – Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review sought against dismissal of application for condonation of delay – Held: Review jurisdiction is confined to correction of error apparent on face of record – Reappreciation of facts or rehearing on merits impermissible [Paras 6, 25].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Nearly seven years’ delay in filing appeal – Pendency of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Petitioners contended that time spent in prosecuting Order IX Rule 13 proceedings constitutes sufficient cause – Held: Mere pendency of Order IX Rule 13 application does not automatically justify condonation of delay – Bona fides and due diligence of party must be established – Delay need not be condoned where party adopts dilatory tactics [Paras 17–20].

Ex parte Decree – Concurrent Remedies – Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 96 CPC – Defendant entitled to pursue both remedies – However, lack of diligence in prosecuting either remedy disentitles party to discretionary relief of condonation of delay – Appeal filed only when execution reached final stage – Conduct indicative of absence of bona fides [Paras 12–15, 20].

Equitable Relief – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioners failed to disclose adverse orders passed in execution proceedings and connected writ petition involving co-appellant – Held: Suppression of material facts disentitles petitioners from discretionary relief – Court justified in refusing indulgence [Paras 21–24].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments in N. Mohan v. R. Madhu and Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More relied upon – Held: Decisions are fact-specific – Do not mandate condonation of delay in absence of bona fide conduct – No apparent error in impugned order [Paras 17–19, 25].

Specific Performance – Merits not examined – Review petition dismissed without entering into merits of appeal – Held: When delay is not condoned, appeal cannot be examined on merits [Paras 9, 26].

Decision: Review Petition dismissed – No error apparent on face of record – Order dated 14.06.2024 dismissing application for condonation of delay and consequently RFA No.1016 of 2004 upheld.

Disability Pension – Armed Forces Tribunal – Judicial Review – Medical Board Opinion – Constitutional and Lifestyle Diseases – Union of India challenged a batch of orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to Army and Navy personnel suffering from diseases such as diabetes mellitus, primary hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, leukemia, panic disorder, hearing loss and other ailments – Union of India contended that opinion of Invaliding/Release Medical Board declaring such diseases as constitutional or lifestyle-related is final and binding under Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 and Navy Pension Regulations – Held: Opinion of Medical Board is not sacrosanct and is amenable to judicial scrutiny – Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine whether Medical Board opinion is reasoned, consistent with service records and statutory rules – Mere branding of disease as “constitutional” or “lifestyle” is not sufficient to deny disability pension [Paras 7, 14–18].

Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 – Interpretation – No Restrictive Departure from 1982 Rules – Contention that Rules of 2008 introduced a stricter regime and diluted presumptions in favour of servicemen rejected – Held: Rules of 2008 expand and clarify entitlement and do not curtail benefits available under pre-2008 regime – Provisions relating to causal connection, manifestation of disease and aggravation are to be applied in a liberal and purposive manner – Rule 5 stating that mere manifestation of disease during service does not per se establish attributability does not negate presumption where service conditions show contribution or aggravation [Paras 10–11, 18].

Attributability and Aggravation – Presumption in Favour of Military Personnel – Burden of Proof – Where no disease is noted at the time of entry into service, presumption is that the serviceman was in sound physical condition – Subsequent deterioration in health during service raises presumption of service-related aggravation – Onus lies on employer to establish that disease is wholly unrelated to service – Serviceman not required to prove exact causation of diseases like hypertension or diabetes – Benefit of reasonable doubt must go to the serviceman [Paras 15, 17].

Medical Board – Requirement of Reasons – Transparency and Fairness – Medical Board must record clear, cogent and intelligible reasons while opining on attributability or aggravation – A bald or mechanical opinion that disease is constitutional or not connected with service, without reasons, vitiates denial of disability pension – Absence of reasons renders decision arbitrary and unsustainable – Tribunal and High Court entitled to interfere in such cases [Paras 14, 16].

Service Records – Evidentiary Value – Operational and Stressful Postings – Service records showing long tenure, postings in field/high altitude/operational areas and exposure to stress have substantial evidentiary value – Diseases arising or worsening during or after such service conditions can reasonably be linked to military service – Tribunal justified in relying upon service records and surrounding circumstances to hold aggravation [Paras 2–3, 13–14].

Low Medical Category – Superannuation / Premature Retirement – Entitlement to Disability Pension – Disability pension not confined only to cases of invalidation – Personnel retiring on superannuation, premature retirement or completion of tenure in low medical category are entitled to disability pension if disability is attributable to or aggravated by service and assessed at 20% or more – Regulations 173 (Army, 1961) and 37 (Army, 2008) affirm such entitlement [Paras 2, 12].

Scope of Interference under Article 226 – High Court will interfere with Tribunal’s orders only if findings are perverse, based on irrelevant material or ignore vital evidence – No perversity or legal infirmity found in Tribunal’s reasoning – Tribunal applied settled principles and beneficial interpretation of pension laws correctly [Paras 18–19].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed – Orders of Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension upheld – Interim orders vacated.

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Conviction Confirmed – Prosecution established motive, preparation, recovery of the dead body, and medical/scientific evidence forming a complete chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused for the murder of a 3.5-year-old child – The accused harbored hatred towards the child's mother and grandmother for scolding him over his misconduct and stealing habits – This motive was consistently proved by multiple prosecution witnesses (PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, PW11, PW15) – The Court found the motive for committing murder duly proved by the prosecution [Paras 56-66, 68].

Criminal Law – Preparation to Commit Murder – Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Proved – Accused's preparation for the murder was established by evidence of purchasing Clonazepam 0.5 mg tablets from a medical shop (PW9) based on a prescription – The seizure of these tablets (MO3) from the accused's suitcase, as documented in the mahazar (Ex.P22), was supported by panch witnesses (PW7, PW8) and the medical shop owner (PW9) – The Court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved the accused's preparation for the offence [Paras 69-71].

Criminal Law – Discovery of Fact – Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Applicable – The dead body of the child was recovered at the instance of the accused from an isolated stream, a fact disclosed in his voluntary statement (Ex.P46(a)) – This recovery was corroborated by panch witness (PW3) and the Investigating Officer (PW21) – The location of recovery was an isolated area, surrounded by trees, not visible from the Mutt, and not an open public space as contended by the defense – The Court held that the conditions for applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act were fulfilled, and the recovery evidence was trustworthy [Paras 72-81, 84-85, 91].

Criminal Law – Medical and Scientific Evidence – Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Cause of Death Established – Medical Officer (PW14) conducted the post-mortem and concluded death was due to Clonazepam poisoning and asphyxia from drowning, based on chemical analysis report (Ex.P38) – Scientific Officer (PW18, FSL) confirmed Clonazepam in the deceased child's body (organs) and in the seized sambar – Deputy Director (PW19, FSL) found diatoms in the child's organs, indicating drowning while unconscious – The Court found the medical and scientific evidence consistent and conclusive, establishing the homicidal nature of death [Paras 25, 29-30, 45-48, 52-54, 75-78, 86-89].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping – Section 364, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Conviction Not Confirmed – The Trial Court did not convict the accused for kidnapping due to insufficient material evidence in this regard – The High Court upheld this finding, stating there was no ground to interfere [Para 94].

Criminal Law – Sentence – Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Modification of Sentence – The Trial Court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment until natural death – The High Court, relying on Apex Court precedents, held that Sessions Courts are not competent to impose life imprisonment without remission or until natural death, as this power is reserved for Constitutional Courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) – The sentence was modified from life imprisonment until natural death to simple life imprisonment [Paras 96-98].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Conviction under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified from life imprisonment until natural death to life imprisonment – Conviction under Section 364 IPC not confirmed [Paras 94, 99].

Service Law – Assistant Teacher – Appointment Obtained by Fraud – Cancellation After 15 Years of Service – Petitioner appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2010 and continued in service for nearly 15 years – Appointment cancelled by District Basic Education Officer on verification of records and STF enquiry finding educational and domicile certificates forged and belonging to another person – Held: Length of service does not sanctify an appointment obtained by fraud – Fraud vitiates everything [Paras 2–5].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Fraudulent Appointment – Plea of violation of principles of natural justice rejected – Where appointment is secured on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, no detailed enquiry or opportunity of hearing is required – Beneficiary of fraud cannot invoke protections of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 [Paras 5, 7].

Judicial Review – Alternative Remedy – Writ Maintainability – Though alternative remedy of appeal was available, writ petition not pressed on that ground at final stage – Court held that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar where plea of denial of opportunity of hearing is raised – Nevertheless, on merits, no interference warranted [Paras 6–7].

Precedents – Fraudulent Appointments – Consistent View of High Court – Reliance placed on earlier decisions holding that appointments obtained by fraud are void ab initio and can be cancelled without departmental enquiry – Fraud unravels all acts and confers no enforceable right [Para 5].

Public Employment – Education System – Systemic Fraud – Court expressed serious concern over large-scale appointments of Assistant Teachers on forged certificates with collusion or connivance of officials – Such illegal appointments undermine purity of education system and prejudice students’ interest, which is paramount [Paras 8–9].

Directions – State-wide Scrutiny – Mandamus Issued – Principal Secretary, Basic Education directed to conduct comprehensive and time-bound scrutiny of appointments of Assistant Teachers across the State – Action to include cancellation of fraudulent appointments, recovery of salary wherever permissible, and disciplinary/penal action against erring officials – Exercise to be completed preferably within six months [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Cancellation order upheld – Mandatory directions issued to State authorities for State-wide verification and action against fraudulent appointments – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order for immediate compliance [Paras 7, 10–12].

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Bail – Section 43D(5) – Statutory Embargo – Appeal under Section 21(4) NIA Act against rejection of bail – Accused alleged to be member of proscribed terrorist organisation Islamic State – Involvement in radicalisation, conspiracy, reconnaissance, arson and terror funding through cryptocurrency – Held: When Court finds reasonable grounds for believing that accusations are prima facie true, statutory bar under Section 43D(5) squarely applies – Bail cannot be granted [Paras 9–11].

Terrorist Activities – Prima Facie Case – Evidentiary Material at Bail Stage – Material on record including voluntary statement, seizure of mobile phone, digital evidence, FSL report and cryptocurrency transactions considered – Images of sensitive locations, arson-related material and news clippings recovered – Evidence showing receipt and transfer of terror funds through crypto wallets – Held: Cumulative material establishes prima facie involvement in terrorist activities and conspiracy – Trial Court justified in rejecting bail [Paras 3–5, 9–11].

Criminal Conspiracy and Support to Terrorist Organisation – Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 & 40 UAPA – Appellant alleged to have facilitated terror funding, shared crypto wallet details, converted funds into cash and assisted co-accused – Participation in reconnaissance and arson held to be acts furthering objectives of terrorist organisation – Contentions that ingredients of Section 15 UAPA not made out rejected – Prima facie satisfaction sufficient at bail stage [Paras 6, 9–11].

Bail Jurisdiction – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate Court to examine whether Trial Court’s view is perverse or ignores material on record – Trial Court discussed evidence in detail and recorded reasons for prima facie satisfaction – No ground made out for interference with bail rejection order [Paras 11–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents – Arrest and Procedural Safeguards – Reliance placed on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement – Held: Observations regarding procedural safeguards do not dilute statutory bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA in presence of prima facie material – Bail rightly declined [Para 12].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Order dated 20.05.2025 rejecting bail upheld – Appellant not entitled to enlargement on bail.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Interim Compensation – Section 143-A – Trial court directed accused to pay 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation – Accused denied issuance of cheque, denied signature and existence of bank account – Held: Power under Section 143-A is discretionary and can be exercised only upon prima facie satisfaction of ingredients of Section 138 NI Act [Paras 16–18].

Cheque Dishonour – Prima Facie Case – Burden of Proof – Though statutory presumption arises once execution of cheque is admitted – In present case accused specifically denied issuance and signature on cheque – Bank Manager (PW2) testified that cheque account belonged to a third person and not to accused – Defence found prima facie plausible – Interim compensation not warranted at this stage [Paras 22–25].

Evidence – Bank Testimony – Account Not of Accused – PW2, Branch Manager of concerned bank, stated that cheque account was in name of another individual – Supports defence that accused had no account in concerned bank – Serious disputed questions of fact requiring full trial – Grant of interim compensation held imprudent [Paras 23–25].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – While revisional powers are limited – Interference permissible where trial court fails to properly apply statutory parameters under Section 143-A – Impugned order granting interim compensation set aside as not based on correct prima facie evaluation [Paras 20, 25–26].

Criminal Proceedings – Expeditious Trial – Cheque bounce case pending since 2021 – Trial court requested to endeavour to complete trial expeditiously considering pendency and nature of dispute [Para 27].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 26/09/2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari directing payment of interim compensation of 20% of cheque amount quashed and set aside – Trial to proceed on merits expeditiously [Paras 26–28].