Substitution of Legal Representatives – Hindu Marriage Act – Appeal against Family Court’s order allowing substitution of deceased husband’s parents as legal representatives in a petition under Section 11 – Appellant contends proceedings abated upon husband's death – Family Court held Order 22 of CPC applicable, allowing substitution – High Court affirms applicability of Order 22 in Family Court proceedings [Paras 1-32].
Interpretation of "Either Party" – Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act – Discussion on whether parents of deceased petitioner can continue proceedings – High Court relies on precedent to support broader interpretation of “either party” to include legal representatives due to impact on property rights – Garima Singh v. Pratima Singh and Maharani Kusumkumari cases cited [Paras 19-31].
Beneficial Construction – Judicial approach to interpreting statutes – High Court emphasizes beneficial construction to uphold rights under social welfare legislation – Ensures property rights and socio-legal status are protected even after death of a party [Paras 22-27].
Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Substitution of deceased husband’s parents as legal representatives is valid – Petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act to proceed with substituted parties – No illegality in Family Court’s order [Paras 32-33].
 

Writ - Criminal Law – Offence under Section 304(A) IPC for Causing Death by Negligence – Petition for Return of Seized Driving License – The petitioner, K. Perumal, drove a bus involved in a fatal accident, resulting in the registration of a case under Section 304(A) IPC. The second respondent police seized the petitioner's driving license and handed it to the first respondent, the Regional Transport Officer. Despite approaching the first respondent for the return of his license, no action was taken, prompting the present writ petition [Paras 1-3].

Motor Vehicles Act – Licensing Authority’s Power to Revoke or Suspend License – Court’s Previous Ruling Referenced – The petitioner cited a previous order of the court in W.P(MD) No. 2111 of 2021, which addressed a similar issue. The court reviewed the provisions of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which allow the licensing authority to disqualify or revoke a driving license, provided that the holder is given an opportunity to be heard, and reasons are recorded in writing. In the present case, the license was seized without following these statutory procedures [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – The court directed the first respondent to return the driving license to the petitioner forthwith. The order emphasized the requirement for due process under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the seizure of the license without proper notice and opportunity to be heard was unlawful. The ruling aligns with the principles established in previous judgments, ensuring the protection of procedural rights of individuals involved in road traffic incidents [Para 7].

Non-delivery of Possession – Petitioner not provided possession of flat despite full payment – Respondent offered inadequate temporary solutions and refunds without interest – Court highlighted plight of petitioner who invested life savings and faced severe accommodation issues – Writ petition allowed with direction for full refund with interest and compensation for mental agony [Paras 1-23].

Contempt of Court – Alleged non-compliance with Court's earlier order for monthly compensation to petitioner – Respondent complied with orders by paying monthly sums and attempting to provide suitable alternate accommodations – Contempt petition dismissed due to respondent's compliance and efforts [CONT.CAS(C) 1294/2023 & CM APPL. 3311/2024, Paras 1-6].

Judicial Notice – Court noted exponential rise in property prices, deeming respondent's offer to refund only principal amount as inadequate – Emphasized duty of State-run enterprises to act fairly, granting additional compensation for mental agony [Para 18, 22].

Parole – Grant of Parole – Petitioner sought two weeks parole for daughter’s marriage – Prior similar petition withdrawn – Speaking order revealed parole jumping and subsequent arrest – Petition dismissed due to lack of merit and concealment of material facts [Paras 1-8].

Concealment of Facts – Petition dismissed for non-disclosure – Speaking order not presented to the court – Petitioner attempted to mislead court by changing date of marriage in fresh petition – Court condemned petitioner’s conduct [Paras 4-7].

Judicial Process – Maintenance of Judicial Integrity – Emphasis on transparency and full disclosure in petitions – Fresh petition on same cause of action deemed not maintainable – Conduct of petitioner deemed deprecable, avoiding exemplary costs due to incarceration [Paras 5-9].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No costs imposed considering petitioner’s imprisonment [Para 9].
 

Civil Law – Orders for delisting trucks by Ex-Servicemen Corporation – Challenge in Himachal Pradesh High Court against delisting orders due to concealment of re-employment – Common judgment passed for multiple writ petitions - Orders for delisting trucks – Chairman-cum-Managing Director of HP Ex-Servicemen Corporation delisted trucks owned by petitioners – Concealment of re-employment by petitioners at the time of truck attachment – Court upheld the orders based on compliance with Division Bench ruling in Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh [Paras 2-5].

Re-employment and Truck Attachment – Division Bench ruling in Baldev Singh (supra) dictates non-attachment of trucks if ex-serviceman is re-employed – If re-employed after attachment, the truck must be surrendered – Apex Court upheld this ruling [Para 3].

Final Judgment – Dismissal of petitions – Held – Petitions dismissed based on adherence to previous court directions – Ex-Servicemen Corporation to allow petitioners to ply trucks until new names from waiting list are finalized – Petitioners have no right to ply trucks once new names are finalized [Paras 5-6].

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence – Monthly Allowance and Rented Accommodation – Petition under Article 227 challenging trial court and appellate court orders – Contention of insufficient monthly allowance and non-provision of rented accommodation – Execution proceedings initiated – Initial order directed payment of Rs. 5,000 per month for rent and provision of rented accommodation – Coordinate Bench set aside the Rs. 5,000 rent order – Petition for enhancement of rent dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Article 227 – Judicial Superintendence – High Court's supervisory role – Reaffirmed lower courts' findings – No illegality in trial and appellate court orders regarding compensation and maintenance – Emphasized on proper assessment of financial positions and circumstances [Paras 8-11].

Relief Sought – Petition Dismissed – Held – No ground for setting aside impugned orders or enhancing rent amount – Directed executing court to ensure provision of rented accommodation as per trial court’s order without delay [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Directed executing court to ensure rented accommodation for petitioner without further delay.

Quashing of Proceedings – SC/ST Act and IPC – Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under IPC and SC/ST Act – High Court found the complaint to be rooted in a civil land dispute rather than genuine allegations of caste-based atrocities – Emphasized principles from Priyanka Srivastava and Bhajan Lal cases regarding misuse of criminal law for settling civil disputes [Paras 2-24]​​.

Affidavit Support – Legal Requirement – Reiterated necessity of affidavits supporting applications under Section 156(3) CrPC to prevent misuse – Complaint not supported by affidavit, thus contravening established legal norms [Paras 5-10]​​.

Civil Dispute – Abuse of Criminal Law – Complaint indicated a civil dispute over land and alleged fraudulent activities – Court observed that criminal proceedings were initiated with ulterior motives to harass petitioners – Distinguished between genuine criminal offences and civil disputes disguised as criminal cases [Paras 6, 7, 9, 14]​​.

Decision – Quashing Allowed – Held – Quashed the order of cognizance dated 03.09.2013 and all consequential proceedings in Special Case No. 140 of 2014 – Emphasized that legal principles guiding quashing of frivolous criminal proceedings should be adhered to [Paras 15-16]​​.

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Possession and Injunction – Appeal against the reversal of a trial court’s decree granting permanent injunction in favor of the appellant – Trial court decreed that the appellant had established possession over the disputed property – Appellate court reversed the decision, excluding key evidence (an unregistered lease deed) – High Court held the unregistered lease deed to be admissible under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, citing long possession and acceptance of rent by the State – Reversal by the appellate court deemed unjustified – Decree of the trial court restored [Paras 1-32].

Admissibility of Evidence – Unregistered Lease Deed – Appellant’s possession since 1938 under an unregistered lease deed – High Court found the lease deed admissible despite lack of registration, due to the age of the document and continuous possession under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act – Established legal principles allowing oral leases and possession to confer tenancy rights in agricultural lands – Supported by precedents and statutory interpretations [Paras 16-21].

Injunction – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Plaintiff seeking to restrain the State from dispossessing him from the suit property – Trial court found continuous possession and payment of rent by the appellant – High Court confirmed the trial court’s decree for permanent injunction, emphasizing the importance of protecting lawful possession against state interference [Paras 24-26, 31-33].

Land Tenure and Tenancy Rights – Recognition of Tenancy – Continuous possession and rent payment acknowledged by the State – High Court upheld the appellant’s tenancy rights, recognizing the legal effects of continuous and peaceful possession even without formal documentation – Government’s acceptance of rent as critical evidence of tenancy [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the first appellate court set aside – Judgment and decree of the trial court restored, confirming the appellant’s right to permanent injunction.
 

Constitutional Law – Protection of Life and Liberty – Live-in Relationship – The petitioners, Harpreet Kaur and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection of their life and liberty, as they feared harm from relatives unhappy with their live-in relationship. The court acknowledged the petitioners' right to protection irrespective of societal views on their relationship​​.

Protection for Live-in Couples – Judicial Precedents – The court referred to several precedents where protection was granted to couples in live-in relationships, including Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana, Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, and Amandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, noting that individuals in such relationships are entitled to equal protection under the law​​.

Assessment of Threat Perception – The court directed respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners' representation dated 01.05.2024, assess the threat perception, and take appropriate action in accordance with the law. The decision emphasized that protection should be provided based on the perceived threat to life and liberty​​.

Legal Right to Choose Partner – The judgment reaffirmed that every adult has the right to live with a partner of their choice, and protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that the legality of the relationship is not a primary concern when addressing threats to life and liberty​​.

Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners' representation and take appropriate action based on the threat perception. The court also clarified that this order does not prevent the State or any aggrieved person from initiating appropriate legal proceedings against the petitioners if warranted by their actions​​.