Hindu Marriage – Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal against decree – Allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and suppression of husband’s mental illness not proved – No FIR or complaint filed – Evidence produced by wife unreliable and hearsay – Husband made genuine attempts to resume cohabitation which wife refused – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights upheld – No error found in judgment of Family Court [Paras 2–5].

Maintenance and Permanent Alimony – Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Nature and Scope – Interim maintenance under Section 24 can be granted during pendency of proceedings when applicant lacks independent income – Permanent alimony under Section 25 may be granted at the time of decree or subsequently – Right to maintenance available to either spouse but is discretionary – Conduct of parties is relevant consideration after 1976 amendment inserting “conduct of parties and other circumstances of the case” [Paras 7–11].

Discretionary Relief – Fault Principle – No party can take advantage of its own wrong – Maintenance cannot be claimed as of right by a spouse found at fault – However, to prevent destitution or vagrancy, Court may grant limited maintenance even to erring spouse – Quantum of maintenance to be proportionate to basic needs in such cases [Paras 11–12].

Restitution Decree – Effect on Claim for Maintenance – Court cannot direct that decree for restitution of conjugal rights shall have no effect on consideration of maintenance application – Wife, however, may apply separately for maintenance to avoid destitution; relief under Sections 24 and 25 remains discretionary and fact-dependent [Paras 13–14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights dated 27.11.2014 in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014 affirmed – No order directing that decree shall not affect claim for maintenance – Liberty reserved to appellant to apply independently for maintenance as per law [Paras 15–16].

Family Law – Paternity Dispute – DNA Test Sought by Father – Request Denied – Maintenance Proceedings – Presumption of Legitimacy Upheld – Petitioner-husband challenged trial court’s refusal to order DNA testing of minor child during pendency of wife's maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC – Held: No prima facie material produced by petitioner to rebut presumption under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Mere denial of paternity not sufficient – Long delay of over 12 years from divorce and 3 years after maintenance petition remains unexplained – Legal presumption of legitimacy applies [Paras 6, 25–28, 32, 34–35].

Scientific Evidence – DNA Test – Not a Routine Measure – Right to Privacy and Dignity Considered – DNA testing involves serious privacy implications – Court reiterated that DNA tests cannot be ordered merely on suspicion or as a shortcut to prove adultery – Child’s right to identity and dignity must be prioritised – DNA test not the only method to prove infidelity or lack of paternity – Courts must balance scientific tools with constitutional rights [Paras 18–22, 35–36].

Delay – Unexplained Silence of Petitioner – Conduct Impugns Credibility of Claim – Divorce was granted in 2012 and maintenance petition filed in 2021 – DNA test application filed only in 2025 – Court found no reasonable or acceptable explanation for delay – Silence for over a decade suggests ulterior motive to humiliate the respondent and delay maintenance proceedings [Paras 25, 34, 38].

Legal Presumption – Section 116, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Conclusive Proof of Paternity During Marriage – No Proof of Non-Access – Child born during valid marriage attracts statutory presumption of legitimacy – Husband failed to prove non-access during the relevant period – Law discourages unwarranted inquiries into paternity where marriage subsisted [Paras 26–28].

Constitutional Law – Right Against Self-Incrimination – Right to Privacy – Courts Cautioned Against Intrusive Tests Without Justification – Referring to Supreme Court precedents (Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, Smt. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, Aparna Firodia v. Ajinkya Firodia), court reiterated that DNA tests cannot be directed unless strong prima facie case is made – Intrusive procedures like DNA testing impinge upon Article 20(3) and 21 – Such tests cannot be permitted to settle personal scores or as a weapon in matrimonial disputes [Paras 21–23, 29–31, 35–37].

Abuse of Process – DNA Petition Found Frivolous – Filed to Harass and Delay – Court found DNA application to be filed only to prolong proceedings and malign character of wife – Held: No legal justification shown to interfere with trial court order – Revision petition dismissed with observations on misuse of legal process [Paras 32, 38].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – No prima facie case made for DNA testing – No interference warranted with trial court’s well-reasoned order dated 12.06.2025 – No costs awarded – Connected miscellaneous petition also closed [Paras 38–40].

Maintenance – Enhancement under Section 127 CrPC – Permanent Alimony under HMA – Overlapping Jurisdiction – Petitioner-husband challenged enhancement of monthly maintenance to ₹30,000 under Section 127 CrPC despite decree of ₹20,000 permanent alimony under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act – Magistrate enhanced maintenance based solely on affidavit and evidence adduced by wife as husband failed to file affidavit of assets despite repeated opportunities – Held: Proceedings under Section 125/127 CrPC and Section 25 of HMA are distinct but overlapping – Modification/enhancement under CrPC permissible upon change in circumstances – Wife entitled to additional ₹10,000 over permanent alimony based on enhanced income and rising expenses [Paras 13–23].

Delay in Disposal – Retrospective Effect – Judicial Fairness – Enhancement application filed in 2012 disposed only in 2025 – Magistrate made enhancement retrospective from filing date while relying on income details from 2024 – Held: Such retrospective application of enhanced income is incongruent with judicial propriety – Direction modified to make enhancement effective from date of order, not from date of application [Paras 10, 18, 26].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Court reiterated that its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are preserved to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice but must operate within statutory and judicial constraints – Revisions rightly entertained under Sections 397/401 CrPC, with limited interference [Paras 19–20].

Non-Filing of Affidavit of Assets – Adverse Inference – Husband’s non-compliance with court direction to file affidavit of assets led to adverse inference – Trial Court rightly relied on wife’s detailed affidavit – Held: Enhancement justified based on available material – No interference warranted except for date of effect [Paras 14–17, 22].

Decision: Revisions partly allowed – Order dated 20.08.2024 modified – Husband to pay ₹10,000 per month in addition to ₹20,000 permanent alimony awarded in MAT Suit No. 34 of 2015 – Modified amount payable from date of Magistrate's order (20.08.2024) and not from date of application (19.05.2012) – All interim orders stand vacated – Connected applications disposed [Paras 26–29].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Jurisdiction – Plaintiff sought declaration and injunction over multiple properties claimed as residential, commercial, and industrial – Trial Court rejected suit stating the land was agricultural and civil court lacked jurisdiction – Held: Even if some properties are agricultural, rejection of entire plaint unjustified where other reliefs are triable by civil court – Civil court has jurisdiction over non-agricultural and commercial property – Rejection of entire plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC unsustainable [Paras 28–30]

Partial Relief – Mixed Property Nature – Revenue Jurisdiction – Plaintiff pleaded multiple properties including ancestral house, banquet halls, industrial premises, etc., within city limits and used for non-agricultural purposes – Trial court failed to consider that plaintiff can seek relief for properties outside revenue jurisdiction – Held: Trial court erred in rejecting plaint without framing issues or allowing evidence – Suit not wholly barred under Section 206 of U.P. Revenue Code [Paras 28–30]

Pleading Stage – Scope of Order 7 Rule 11 – Triable Issues – Reliefs not time-barred on face of record – Disputed facts such as usage, possession, nature of land require trial – Held: At Order 7 Rule 11 stage, only averments in plaint to be considered – If any relief survives, plaint must proceed to trial – Improper for court to evaluate merits or accept defendants' contentions at preliminary stage [Paras 25–27]

Appeal – Appellate Interference – Grave Procedural Error – Trial court rejected entire suit prematurely without adjudicating nature of properties and without proper application of law – Held: Impugned order perverse and liable to be set aside – Suit restored for trial on merits – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Paras 30–33]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the trial court dated 03.12.2022 set aside – Defendants’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dismissed – O.S. No. 782 of 2021 restored to its original number – Trial court to decide suit on merits within six months – District Judge, Ghaziabad to monitor progress biweekly.

Criminal Writ - Juvenile Justice – Habeas Corpus – Continued Detention of Juvenile – Petitioner detained since 2017 in murder case – Claimed before Trial Court that he was a juvenile on date of offence (DOB: 13.12.2002) – Scholar register and Principal’s statement showed age as 14 years 3 months 19 days at time of offence – Trial Court failed to determine age as per Section 9(2) of JJ Act and instead referred matter to Juvenile Justice Board – Board declared petitioner juvenile vide order dated 15.05.2025 – Held: Board had no jurisdiction under Section 9(2) where claim raised before court – Order of Board is a nullity

Illegal Detention – Habeas Corpus – Judicial Custody – While initial detention may have been legal, subsequent detention becomes illegal after claim of juvenility is raised – Detention in jail violates Section 10(1) of JJ Act which prohibits lodging juvenile in jail – Present detention not supported by valid judicial order under JJ Act – Held: Writ of habeas corpus maintainable despite judicial custody – Detention of juvenile in jail illegal and unconstitutional

Interpretation of JJ Act – Powers under Section 9 – Jurisdictional Error – When juvenility claim is made before a court under Section 9(2), only the court can determine age – Board can act only when person is produced before it under Section 10 or forwarded under Section 9(1) – Referral by Trial Court to Board without age determination is mechanical and without jurisdiction – Order of Board unenforceable

Relief – Writ of Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Detenue lodged in Naini Central Jail since 2017 despite Board’s order and no other pending case – Continued detention beyond three years violates Section 18 of JJ Act – Held: Habeas corpus writ issued – Detenue to be released immediately – Trial Court directed to determine age per Section 9(2) and take further action as per JJ Act

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Habeas corpus issued – Detenue to be released from jail – Trial Court to determine age of detenue and, if found juvenile, proceed under JJ Act – If not juvenile, continue trial in accordance with law.

Civil Law - Telegraph Act – Compensation for Land Damage – Finality of District Judge's Decision – Appeals were filed by farmers challenging judgments passed under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 awarding compensation for damage caused by installation of transmission lines – High Court held that under Section 16(5), such decisions are statutorily final – Consequently, no appeal under Section 96 CPC is maintainable against such judgments or decrees, irrespective of whether the District Court styled the proceedings as ‘Civil Suits’ or passed a ‘decree’ [Paras 10–14, 18].

Civil Procedure – Scope of Appeal under Section 96 CPC – Limitations Imposed by Special Statutes – Court observed that Section 96 CPC is subject to “express provisions” in any other law – Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act being a special provision clearly excludes appellate remedy – Drawing of a decree by the District Judge does not override statutory finality under Telegraph Act [Paras 11–13].

Judicial Guidance – Alternative Remedy under Writ Jurisdiction – In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. Vinod, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1731, Court observed that parties aggrieved by District Court’s decision under Section 16(3) may explore remedies under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution – Supreme Court had urged the Law Commission and Government of India to consider statutory appellate remedy for such cases [Paras 15–17, 19].

Civil Procedure – Return of Plaint/Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction – Court held that since it lacked jurisdiction under Section 96 CPC due to the statutory bar under Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act, the only course was to return the First Appeals under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, and not to dismiss them – Return of appeals ordered with liberty to appellants to approach appropriate forum [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Objection to maintainability sustained – First Appeals returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for want of jurisdiction – Appellants at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy under constitutional jurisdiction as per guidance in Kalpataru judgment.

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 152 BNS – Social Media Post – Allegation of 'Pakistan Zindabad' post by applicant under a foreign national’s post – No material to show active promotion of secession or armed rebellion – Held: Section 152 BNS requires intentional incitement of secession or subversive activity – Mere expression of sentiment, even if offensive, does not fulfill statutory requirements – Bail justified in absence of prima facie intent to endanger sovereignty or unity [Paras 5-8].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech – Standards of Reasonable Interpretation – Apex Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat held that speech must be judged on reasonable person standard – Court emphasizes liberty under Article 19(1)(a) and cautions against overbroad criminalization of speech on social media – Police must act within constitutional limits [Para 9].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – No Criminal History – Long Trial Delay – Applicant in custody since May 2025 with no prior convictions – Court applies principle of presumption of innocence and right to speedy trial under Article 21 – Cites Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and highlights prison overcrowding – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Para 10].

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant to be released on personal bond and two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure trial participation – Breach of conditions to lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 10-12].

Criminal Law – POCSO – Acquittal – Conviction of appellant under Section 8 of POCSO Act based solely on testimony of victim – High Court finds victim admitted to being tutored by her mother and others – Multiple contradictions in statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. – Independent witnesses (PW4, PW5, PW9) did not support prosecution case – Medical report showing injury on appellant never produced despite victim claiming to have bitten him – Held: Conviction on uncorroborated, doubtful testimony unsafe [Paras 9–10, 14, 33–34, 45–47, 56–60].

Evidence – Contradictory Testimonies – PW2 (grandfather), PW6 (grandmother), and PW8 (mother) gave inconsistent accounts of who first received the victim’s disclosure – PW2 and PW3 (Panchayat member) gave irreconcilable timelines regarding events after the incident – Held: Contradictions in foundational facts cast doubt on prosecution’s credibility [Paras 35–36, 41–44, 48–53].

Criminal Procedure – Delay in FIR – FIR lodged after more than 24 hours – No explanation provided – Delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate – Combined with attempts at local settlement, suggests afterthought – Held: Unexplained delay undermines spontaneity of FIR and weakens prosecution case [Paras 12–13, 36–39, 63–64].

Evidence Act – Adverse Inference – Prosecution withheld medical report of appellant despite victim alleging physical struggle – Held: Withholding best available evidence invites adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act – Prosecution case further weakened [Paras 58–60].

Child Witness – Coaching – Victim admitted she was coached by her mother and relatives before giving deposition – Tutored testimony found unreliable and unsafe to rely upon without independent corroboration – Held: Conviction cannot rest on coached statement [Paras 9–10, 33–34].

Presumption – Section 29 POCSO Act – Rebuttable presumption – Court held presumption under Section 29 arises only after foundational facts are established – Contradictions and inconsistencies in prosecution’s evidence meant presumption could not operate – Held: Prosecution failed to meet threshold to invoke presumption [Paras 24–27, 29–31].

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Violation – Appellant’s examination conducted in vague, compound questions – No opportunity to respond distinctly to each incriminating circumstance – Held: Violates right under Section 313 – Prejudiced defence – Conviction vitiated [Paras 65–67].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant to execute bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. for six months [Paras 68–72].

Juvenile Justice – Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Petitioner No. 1, arrested for murder under Section 302 IPC, was in judicial custody since 2017 – During trial in 2024, he raised a claim of juvenility and produced a scholar register showing his date of birth as 13.12.2002 – The trial court failed to determine his age as required under Section 9(2) of JJ Act and mechanically forwarded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board – The Board declared him juvenile on 15.05.2025 – Held: Since the claim was raised before the trial court, only the court was competent to determine age – Board’s order was without jurisdiction and a nullity – Petitioner’s continued detention in jail thereafter was illegal

Juvenile Justice – Detention in Jail – Prohibition under JJ Act – Under Section 10(1) of the Act, a child in conflict with law cannot be placed in police lock-up or jail – Even during age inquiry, such person must be kept in a place of safety – Petitioner’s detention in Naini Central Jail after raising juvenility claim was contrary to statutory mandate – Held: Present custody illegal

Habeas Corpus – Judicial Custody – Maintainability – Although habeas corpus is generally not maintainable against judicial remand, an exception arises where the detention is shown to be patently illegal or without jurisdiction – In present case, remand was mechanically passed without determination of age – Held: Writ of habeas corpus maintainable

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Juvenile in conflict with law can be detained for maximum three years under JJ Act – Petitioner had been in jail for over 8 years – Continued detention violative of Article 21 – Illegal and unconstitutional

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Writ of habeas corpus issued – Superintendent, Naini Central Jail, Prayagraj directed to release Petitioner No. 1 immediately – Commissioner of Police to produce Petitioner before trial court – Trial court directed to determine age under Section 9(2) JJ Act – If found juvenile, he to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for further action – If not, trial to proceed as per law