Criminal Law - DNA Testing in Rape Case – Quashing of Sessions Court Order – Mandatory DNA Sampling Upheld – The petitioner, prosecutrix, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge which had set aside the Magistrate’s order permitting DNA sampling of Respondent No.2 in a case registered under Section 376 IPC. The Delhi High Court held that the Sessions Court had erroneously applied the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act despite clear evidence of separation between the prosecutrix and her husband. It was concluded that in cases involving allegations of rape, DNA examination under Section 53A Cr.P.C. is mandatory and indispensable for a fair investigation. The Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court and directed Respondent No.2 to provide his blood sample for DNA testing within fifteen days. The Court also permitted use of reasonable force if the accused declined or resisted [Paras 1-99].

Collection of DNA Sample – Section 53A Cr.P.C. – DNA Testing is a Mandatory Step in Rape Investigation – The Court reaffirmed the legal position that in cases of sexual assault, DNA sampling is mandatory under Section 53A Cr.P.C. The rationale is to ensure comprehensive investigation and facilitate accurate determination of guilt or innocence. The order of the Magistrate allowing DNA testing was found to be correct and aligned with the statutory mandate of fair investigation [Paras 53-57, 86-88].

Presumption of Legitimacy under Section 112 Evidence Act – Not Applicable in Criminal Investigation – The Court held that the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is meant for matrimonial disputes and cannot be allowed to interfere in criminal proceedings. In the present case, since the prosecutrix and her husband were separated without access to each other, the presumption was inapplicable. The Court held that modern scientific tools like DNA testing must prevail over presumptions to ascertain truth in criminal cases [Paras 60-93].

Scientific Evidence Prevails – Importance of Truth in Criminal Justice – The Court emphasized that in criminal justice, truth is paramount and DNA testing is a near-perfect scientific tool to determine paternity and establish facts in sexual assault cases. Courts must prefer conclusive scientific evidence over legal fictions or presumptions where justice demands it [Paras 64-71, 85-87].

Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Principles of Matrimonial Law Not Applicable – The Court distinguished between civil and criminal cases, observing that while certain presumptions may apply in matrimonial disputes, they cannot limit the investigative powers of the police in criminal proceedings. The right to fair investigation in rape cases includes recourse to scientific methods like DNA testing irrespective of matrimonial presumptions [Paras 83-89].

Direction for Compliance – ASJ Order Set Aside – Blood Sample to be Collected – The Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and directed Respondent No.2 to present himself for DNA sampling within fifteen days. The Investigating Officer was authorized to use reasonable force if Respondent No.2 failed to cooperate. The petition was allowed, ensuring proper application of legal provisions to aid investigation [Paras 98-99].

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].

Criminal Law - Section 94, 438(2) BNSS - Interlocutory Orders – Revisional Jurisdiction Barred under BNSS – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought to set aside the trial court’s order summoning the Investigating Officer (IO) for a report regarding CCTV footage preservation – The High Court held that the impugned order was purely interlocutory in nature, not amounting to any substantive direction, and thus, barred from challenge under Section 438(2) of BNSS – Held: Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised against interlocutory orders, nor can inherent powers be invoked to bypass this bar [Paras 1-4].

No Interference Where Application Pending – Premature Challenge – The petitioner further sought directions for CCTV footage preservation which was already the subject matter of the pending application before the trial court – Held: There is no occasion to interfere when the lower court has already seized of the matter; petition deemed premature and infructuous [Paras 5].

Frivolous Petition – Costs Imposed – Abuse of Court’s Time – The Court found the petition not only meritless but frivolous, filed without any justification for interference at the interlocutory stage – Held: Petition dismissed with costs of ₹20,000 payable to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week [Paras 6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed with Costs – Directions Issued – The High Court dismissed the petition at the threshold, refused to intervene in the interlocutory proceedings, and imposed exemplary costs, directing communication of the order to the Jail Superintendent for apprising the petitioner [Paras 6].

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].

Civil Law  – Eviction Suit – Challenge to Registered Will – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiffs 2 to 4 (second wife and her daughters) claimed ownership through a registered holograph Will executed by the original plaintiff (father) – Trial Court decreed eviction against the first defendant (son through first wife) and First Appellate Court upheld the Will’s validity – Second Appeal dismissed holding that the Will was duly proved through attesting witnesses and no suspicious circumstances existed – Findings of both Courts held to be legal and valid – No substantial question of law arose for consideration [Paras 1, 12, 33, 45-47].

Testamentary Law – Holograph Will – Greater Presumption of Authenticity – Will written in testator’s own handwriting carries higher presumption of genuineness – Held: Execution of holograph Will (Ex-A8) registered at Sub-Registrar’s Office at Madurai stands proved through credible testimony of two attesting witnesses – Will was written by the testator (a retired Sheristadar) in a sound state of mind – Registration at a place other than his residence does not create suspicion – No infirmity in Will’s execution [Paras 29-33, 38].

Suspicious Circumstances – Mere Disinheritance Not Sufficient – Legal Heirs Omitted from Will – Not Suspicious Per Se – Appellant argued that exclusion of eight children born through first wife renders Will suspicious – Held: Mere exclusion of natural heirs is not sufficient to invalidate a Will – Proven strained relationships, adversarial litigation history, and cohabitation with second wife and her daughters explained the exclusion – No valid suspicion arose – Courts correctly relied on Supreme Court precedents [Paras 34-37].

Evidence Law – Section 68, Indian Evidence Act – Attesting Witnesses Credible – Witnesses Not Beneficiaries – Held: Testimony of attesting witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 was consistent and credible – Both affirmed execution in testator’s presence – Witnesses were not beneficiaries under the Will – No contradiction or bias established – Proof requirements under Sections 63 of Succession Act and 68 of Evidence Act duly met [Paras 31-33, 40].

Judicial Findings – No Perversity – Concurrent Findings Based on Evidence – Held: Both lower Courts analyzed oral and documentary evidence and concluded validity of Will – No perversity or illegality found in such concurrent findings – Second Appeal does not warrant interference under Section 100 CPC [Paras 45-47].

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]

Writ Petition – Challenge to Acquisition by Subsequent Purchaser – Bar of Locus Standi – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged e-auction notification and sought declaration over property acquired under 1971 final notification – Court held that the petitioner, being a purchaser 25 years post-acquisition, has no right to question acquisition proceedings – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents barring subsequent purchasers from assailing acquisition – Held: Petitioner lacks locus standi, writ petition dismissed [Paras 10-14].

Acquisition Proceedings – Long Delay in Challenge – 53-Year Delay Rendered Claim Stale – The Court noted that the acquisition notification was issued in 1971 and the petitioner approached court only in 2023 after a gap of 53 years – Such inordinate delay disentitles equitable relief – Held: Petition hopelessly delayed and legally untenable [Paras 14-16].

Possession and Title – Absence of Documentary Proof – No Substantiation of Ownership – The petitioner failed to demonstrate possession of site no. 828 in Sy.No.54/1 or proof of exclusion from acquisition – Court held no credible evidence to establish title or exclusion of land from acquisition – Held: Petitioner's claim unsustainable on facts and law [Paras 9-15].

Supreme Court Precedents – Binding Nature on High Court – Division Bench and Coordinate Bench Judgments Overridden – Court clarified that precedents of the Supreme Court govern the issue, overriding High Court decisions cited by petitioner – Held: Supreme Court judgments conclusively bar post-notification purchasers from challenging acquisition [Para 15].

Decision of the Case – Petition Dismissed with Dissolution of Interim Order – The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit – Interim orders stood dissolved and connected applications disposed of [Para 16].

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].

Bail Appeal – Group Assault – Sections 118, 117 of BNS and SC/ST Act – Bail Granted – The appellant challenged rejection of bail under multiple sections of BNS, 2023 and SC/ST Act alleging injuries inflicted during an altercation – The High Court observed no specific role was initially attributed to the appellant and the parties had since entered into a compromise – The appellant had undergone over five months of incarceration, the investigation was complete, and the trial was yet to commence – Held: Considering the compromise, prolonged custody, and absence of adjudication on merits at the pre-trial stage, the appellant was granted regular bail, subject to conditions [Paras 3-8].

SC/ST Act – Accused Himself Belonging to Scheduled Caste – Prima Facie Non-Applicability – The appellant contended being from a Scheduled Caste himself, hence, provisions of SC/ST Act were not applicable – The Court noted this contention without deciding on merits, considering it was a bail stage and such issues would be decided during trial [Paras 3, 7].

Compromise Between Parties – Impact on Bail – Role in Assault Disputed – The complainant affirmed compromise and settlement of disputes arising from misunderstanding – The Court held that though the allegations were serious, the settlement weighed in favour of granting bail – Held: Settlement between parties is a valid consideration in bail proceedings, especially where custodial trial would be prolonged [Paras 4-8].

Custodial Detention – Right to Liberty – Prolonged Detention Without Trial – The Court emphasised the principle of liberty where the appellant had been in custody since 28.01.2025 with no substantial trial progress – Held: Further pre-trial incarceration not justified, bail granted [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Bail Granted – The appeal was allowed and appellant ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial court – Court clarified that non-furnishing of bail bonds within one week would exclude further custody counting in the present case [Paras 8-9].