Family Law – Divorce – Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Cruelty and Desertion – Divorce Decree Upheld – The appellant-wife challenged the Family Court’s decision granting divorce to the husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion while dismissing her petition for restitution of conjugal rights – The High Court held that the wife failed to substantiate her claims of harassment and cruelty while evidence established her own conduct amounted to cruelty and desertion – Held: The Family Court rightly appreciated evidence; decree of divorce maintained [Paras 1-17].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – No Proof of Withdrawal by Husband – Petition Dismissed – The appellant’s claim for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed for lack of evidence showing that the husband withdrew from her society without reasonable excuse – Held: Appellant’s own conduct negated bona fide intention to resume cohabitation; restitution not warranted [Paras 9-11].

Cruelty Defined – Conduct Amounting to Mental Cruelty – Applicability of Roopa Soni Judgment – The Court followed Supreme Court’s precedent in Roopa Soni v. Kamal Narayan Soni (2023) 16 SCC 715 to hold that cruelty includes humiliation, false allegations, and denial of companionship, especially given the social context – Held: Appellant’s behavior with husband, his family, and refusal of cohabitation amounted to cruelty [Paras 14-15].

Maintenance – Fresh Claim Rejected – No Plea in Trial Court – The appellant for the first time in appeal sought ₹1,00,000/- per month as maintenance without raising it in the original proceedings – Held: Fresh claim of maintenance impermissible at appellate stage; remedy lies before appropriate forum [Para 18].

Breakdown of Marriage – Irretrievable Breakdown Recognised – Parties Living Separately for Over a Decade – The Court noted irreparable breakdown of marriage with separation for more than 10 years and pending litigation since 2015 – Held: No purpose in continuing dead marriage; decree of divorce upheld [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Divorce Confirmed – Maintenance Prayer Rejected – The High Court upheld the Family Court’s decree of divorce and dismissed the wife’s appeal along with her fresh prayer for maintenance [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110, 190, 296(b) of the BNS - Advocate Assaulted for Professional Duty – Bail Rejected – Petitioners, political leaders, sought anticipatory bail after allegedly attacking a lawyer who had drafted a complaint against them – Court found motive established from documentary evidence and confirmed grievous injuries to the complainant – Held: Granting bail would impair custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon – Bail application dismissed [Paras 1–12].

Custodial Interrogation – Supreme Court Precedent – Pre-arrest Protection Dilutes Investigation – Relying on Supreme Court judgment in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail may hinder effective interrogation – Held: Bail at pre-investigation stage can insulate accused and reduce interrogation to a ritual – Therefore, custodial interrogation justified [Para 10].

Rule of Law – Attack on Advocates Threatens Judicial Access – Grave Concern – Court observed that assaulting a lawyer for drafting a legal complaint undermines the justice system and the right of citizens to access legal remedies – Held: Such conduct cannot be condoned as it erodes rule of law – Petitioners not entitled to anticipatory bail [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court directed no protection under Section 482 of BNSS – Petitioners to be available for custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon of offence – Seriousness of charges and professional nature of enmity considered decisive.

Arms Act Conviction – Doubtful Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioner was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act based on recovery of .315 bore pistol and live cartridge – Court noted unexplained delay in sending the weapon for ballistic testing, non-submission of recovered cartridge for expert opinion, and armourer’s report failing to mention examination of firing pin – Held: Prosecution failed to establish working condition of firearm beyond reasonable doubt—Conviction and sentence quashed, petitioner acquitted [Paras 1-23].

Unexplained Delay in Sending Weapon for Examination – Material Lapse – The Court found that the pistol recovered on 02.11.2002 was sent to the armourer only on 15.01.2003 without satisfactory explanation—Such unexplained delay undermines prosecution’s case—Held: Delay in examination creates doubt on integrity of recovered weapon [Paras 16, 20].

Lack of Testing of Cartridge – Omission Deemed Fatal – Court observed that recovered live cartridge was not sent for examination, following the Supreme Court ruling in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1993 CrLJ 183)—Held: Failure to test cartridge coupled with delay in weapon examination renders prosecution case untrustworthy [Paras 19-20].

Deficiency in Armourer’s Report – Absence of Firing Pin Verification – Armourer’s report lacked basis of conclusion on working condition and omitted firing pin verification—Court relied on Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, CRR-861-2008 (decided 17.03.2025), and held prosecution evidence defective—Held: Essential elements of ‘working firearm’ not established [Paras 21-22].

Final Decision – Revision Allowed – Trial Court and Appellate Court judgments set aside—Petitioner acquitted of charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act—Petitioner’s conviction and sentence quashed [Para 23].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Sections 351(2), 79, 3(5), 70 of the BNS - Serious Allegations of Sexual Offence – Bail Granted – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of gang rape, assault, and robbery arising from alleged retaliation after employment termination – The Court observed substantial contradictions in the complainant’s successive statements, unexplained delay in lodging FIR, absence of medical evidence, and conflicting Call Detail Records (CDRs) – Held: Prima facie inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-19].

Delay and Contradictions – Adverse Impact on Prosecution Credibility – The Court noted unexplained delay in FIR registration, absence of rape allegations in initial versions, refusal to undergo medical examination, and contradictory narratives about the involvement of the petitioner – Held: Such contradictions diminish reliability of prosecution case, especially at pre-trial stage [Paras 12-13].

Right to Liberty – Presumption of Innocence Prevails – Gravity Not Sole Criterion – While acknowledging seriousness of allegations, the Court reiterated the principle of personal liberty and presumption of innocence until proven guilty – Custodial interrogation found unnecessary in absence of flight risk or tampering concerns – Held: Bail should not be denied merely due to gravity of offence without cogent reasons [Paras 11, 14].

Civil Dispute Colouring Criminal Allegations – Motive Found in Ongoing Property Dispute – The Court noted existence of a civil property dispute between petitioner’s family and complainant’s family, influencing timing and content of criminal allegations – Held: Civil dispute forming backdrop strengthens petitioner’s defence of false implication [Paras 17-18].

Conditions Imposed – Monitoring of Conduct – Petitioner directed to furnish personal bond, refrain from contacting complainant or tampering with evidence, and remain available for investigation – Held: Liberty granted subject to strict adherence to conditions, with liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation upon breach [Para 19].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – The Court allowed anticipatory bail with protective conditions, clarified observations are limited to bail adjudication and will not prejudice trial [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Law - Murder  – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302 IPC – Conviction and Death Sentence Set Aside – The appellants were sentenced to death by trial court on the basis of circumstantial evidence including alleged last seen theory, recovery of bloodstained articles, and statement of one accused under Section 164 CrPC – Held: Prosecution failed to establish a complete, credible, and unbroken chain of circumstances – Absence of proof regarding last seen, strained relations between victim and accused, and unproven recoveries led to acquittal [Paras 1-64].

Confession – Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Not Amounting to Confession – The purported confession of Sanjoy Biswas implicated only disposal of body and not murder – Held: Such partial disclosure, untested by cross-examination, cannot be treated as confession under law – Cannot form basis of conviction without corroborative evidence [Paras 58-59].

Last Seen Theory – Not Proved – Section 302 IPC – Alleged matrimonial discord between deceased and husband was insufficient to establish last seen theory – Prosecution failed to produce direct evidence or reliable witness placing accused near the crime scene at material time – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 53-56].

Recovery of Incriminating Articles – Section 27 Evidence Act – Unreliable and Procedurally Deficient – Alleged recovery of bloodstained articles not established in law due to omission in Section 313 CrPC examination and absence of corroboration – Evidence inadmissible to sustain conviction [Paras 57-59].

Death Penalty – ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine Not Attracted – Death sentence not sustainable in absence of compelling, direct or legally admissible evidence – Court reaffirms principle that capital punishment cannot be based on weak circumstantial evidence [Paras 60-61].

Decision – Conviction and Death Sentence Reversed – Accused Acquitted – Conviction and sentence of death set aside – Appellants Surajit Deb, Lipika Poddar, and Sanjoy Biswas acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case [Paras 60-64].

Revenue Law - Natural Justice – Non-speaking Order and Violation of Audi Alteram Partem – Order Quashed – Petitioners challenged order cancelling mutation entry sanctioned in 1963 – The Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) allowed appeal reversing concurrent findings of subordinate authorities without assigning reasons and without considering petitioners’ submissions – Supreme Court reiterated that non-speaking orders violate natural justice and are unsustainable – Held: Such arbitrary exercise of quasi-judicial powers is liable to be quashed [Paras 1-14].

Reasoned Decision – Mandatory Requirement for Quasi-Judicial Authorities – The Court held that a quasi-judicial authority is duty-bound to record reasons showing proper application of mind, especially while overturning well-reasoned subordinate decisions – Absence of reasons amounts to miscarriage of justice and violates transparency, fairness, and accountability in adjudication [Paras 12-14, 15-17].

Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing – Short Notice Violates Fair Procedure – The Court found that petitioners, residing at Kopargaon, received notice on 11/08/2014 for hearing scheduled on 12/08/2014 at Mumbai – Such short notice was held unreasonable and violative of natural justice, particularly in a matter involving challenge to mutation entry after 40 years [Paras 14-15].

Remand of Proceedings – Fair Adjudication Directed – In view of multiple violations of natural justice, the Court refrained from examining merits and remanded the matter back to the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) for fresh consideration by granting proper opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order within three months [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – The impugned order dated 27/08/2014 set aside – Matter remanded for fresh decision with direction for expeditious disposal within three months while ensuring compliance with natural justice [Paras 20-22].

Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Right of Residence – Interplay with Domestic Violence Act – Tribunal’s order upheld – Petitioners (daughter-in-law and relatives) challenged Maintenance Tribunal’s order under Senior Citizens Act permitting 2nd respondent (mother-in-law) to reside on first floor of same building occupied by petitioners on ground floor – Petitioners relied on Apex Court decision in Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner to contend right to shared household under PWDV Act cannot be defeated – Held: Vanitha does not bar invocation of Senior Citizens Act where no prejudice is caused to protection order under PWDV Act – Separate entrances and floors ensured no interference with petitioners’ rights – Tribunal’s order sustained [Paras 8].

Maintainability – Daughter-in-law within definition of “children” – Purposive interpretation applied – Petitioners contended proceedings under Senior Citizens Act not maintainable against daughter-in-law – Court held that purposive interpretation of “children” in Section 2(a) includes daughter-in-law when in possession of property and relief sought is for senior citizen’s residence – Refusal would defeat object of Act to provide speedy remedy – Telangana High Court’s decision in Deepika H. followed [Paras 9-12].

Apprehension of Harassment – Not a ground to deny senior citizen residence in own property – Petitioners argued past incidents of harassment justify denial of residence – Court noted 2nd respondent’s undertaking to reside only on first floor with separate access – Petitioners free to seek remedies under Section 31 PWDV Act or alternate accommodation under Section 19(f) if protection order violated – Mere apprehension insufficient [Paras 13].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Ext.P10 order of Maintenance Tribunal permitting 2nd respondent’s residence on first floor upheld [Final Para]

Civil Law – Property Purchased After Attachment – Sale Held Void – The appellant challenged the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court which dismissed his claim to exclude a property purchased after attachment from court auction – The appellant purchased Item No.2 of the schedule property under a registered sale deed after attachment was effected in the original suit proceedings – Both courts below held the sale void to the extent of 1/3rd share belonging to the judgment debtor’s husband – Held: Attachment prior to sale prevails, and subsequent sale is void – Second appeal dismissed confirming lower courts' concurrent findings [Paras 1-4, 16-22].

Attachment Before Judgment – Sale During Attachment – Legal Effect – Attachment was ordered before judgment and made absolute prior to sale of the property – Appellant being closely related to the judgment debtor, purchased the property despite knowing of the subsisting attachment – Held: Sale executed after attachment is void against decree-holder; the court emphasized that such transactions intended to defeat creditors' rights cannot be protected [Paras 16-18].

Substantial Questions of Law – Scope of Second Appeal – High Court's Jurisdiction – The High Court reiterated that in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, interference is limited to substantial questions of law and does not extend to reappreciation of evidence or interfering with concurrent factual findings – Held: Findings of both courts were based on proper evaluation of evidence and applicable law, thus warranting no interference [Paras 14-15, 21].

Family Property – Pious Obligation of Children – Debt for Family Necessity – The appellant argued that children of the judgment debtor had rights over the attached property – The Court held that debt was contracted by the mother for family necessity, thus binding upon the children under the doctrine of pious obligation, and the sale could not negate the execution proceedings – Sale deed to the extent of judgment debtor’s husband’s share deemed void [Paras 19-20].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No Costs – The Court upheld the decisions of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and dismissed the second appeal, observing no perversity or legal error in concurrent findings – No order as to costs [Para 22].

Second Regular Bail – Sections 307, 324, 323, 506, and 34 of the IPC - Extended Custody and Near Completion of Trial – Bail Granted – The petitioner, accused of attempted murder in a familial dispute, sought bail after over three years in custody – The Court found the prosecution evidence nearly concluded, with only one witness left, reducing risk of tampering – Held: Prolonged pre-trial detention unjustified when evidentiary phase nearly complete; bail granted with conditions [Paras 3, 6-8].

Fair Trial Rights – Right to Defence – Bail Facilitates Defence Preparation – The Court emphasized the accused’s right to fair trial includes proper preparation of defence, which is hampered by extended custody – Held: Bail necessary to ensure robust defence in adversarial criminal proceedings [Para 6].

Second Bail Petition Maintainable – Change of Circumstances – The earlier bail plea was withdrawn; present plea justified by extended incarceration and completion of prosecution evidence – Held: Second bail petition maintainable on changed circumstances; Court followed principles laid in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana [Para 7].

No Criminal Antecedents – Age Consideration – Accused aged 69 years with no past criminal record – Held: Advanced age and absence of prior offences weigh in favour of bail [Paras 3, 6].

Conditions Imposed – Safeguards Against Misuse – Bail subject to strict conditions: no tampering of evidence, no absence from trial, no re-offending, surrender of passport, and mandatory mobile number registration with investigating agency [Para 8].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition Allowed – The Court allowed the petition, granted regular bail with standard and additional safeguards; State/complainant granted liberty to seek cancellation upon any violation [Paras 8-10].