Writ Law - Disqualification of Elected Representative - Odisha Gram Panchayat Act 1964 - Sections 25(1)(n) and 26(3) - Petitioner assailed the order of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate Sambalpur disqualifying him as Naib Sarpanch - Disqualification was triggered by a complaint from the Sarpanch alleging the Petitioner's illegal participation in tenders for construction of a GPLF Building and Mukhyamantri Sabha Ghar - Enquiry reports by the Block Development Officer confirmed the Petitioner held a C Class Contractor registration valid during his tenure - Petitioner primarily challenged the order on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice alleging non-receipt of the complaint copy and enquiry reports - State filed an affidavit demonstrating that notices were issued to the Petitioner on multiple dates including 01.11.2025 17.12.2025 and 15.01.2026 which were duly acknowledged but not acted upon - Petitioner chose to remain absent on consecutive hearing dates - Held - The Collector independently applied his mind to the materials on record including the reports of the SDPO and DPO - There is no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence - The Petitioner having been afforded repeated opportunities which he chose not to avail is estopped from raising grievances regarding natural justice - Petition dismissed as an abuse of the process of law - [Paras 1-16].

Writ Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Conduct of Petitioner - Petitioner claimed the disqualification order was non est due to procedural irregularities - Court found that the Petitioner was served with notices for hearing on 12.12.2025 and 09.01.2026 but failed to participate or place any material on record to justify his absence - Held - Principles of natural justice cannot be invoked by a party who deliberately chooses to stay away from a lawful proceeding despite notice - Such a conduct precludes the party from later challenging the decision on the ground of denial of opportunity - [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – All interlocutory applications including I.A. No. 12494 of 2026 for stay of election stand dismissed – No costs.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 125 - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 - Section 20(3) - Maintainability for major unmarried daughter - Petitioner father challenged Family Court order awarding interim maintenance of Rs 2000 per month to his major daughter - Contended that under Section 125 CrPC a major daughter is not entitled to maintenance unless she suffers from a disability - Family Court had denied maintenance to the wife on prima facie grounds but granted it to the daughter - High Court observed that a joint application was filed under Section 125 CrPC - Held - Family Court has jurisdiction under both Chapter IX CrPC and Section 20 of the HAM Act - Following Supreme Court precedents it was held that quoting a wrong provision of law does not vitiate the exercise of power if the source of power exists elsewhere in law - Since the Family Court had the jurisdiction to grant maintenance under the HAM Act the order cannot be set aside merely because the application cited Section 125 CrPC - Revision dismissed - [Paras 1-16].

Family Law - Maintenance - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 - Section 20(3) - Criteria for major daughter - Petitioner argued disability is a prerequisite for maintenance for a major child - Court analyzed the statutory framework of Section 20 of the HAM Act - Held - Section 20(3) creates an obligation to maintain an unmarried daughter so long as she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or property - Unlike Section 125 CrPC there is no requirement under Section 20(3) of the HAM Act for the major unmarried daughter to be suffering from any physical or mental disability to be eligible for maintenance - Requirement of the provision fulfilled as daughter showed she was unable to maintain herself - [Paras 10-12].

Procedure - Maintenance Application - Conversion of provision - Technical objections - Petitioner raised technical objection regarding the filing of the application under the wrong statute - Court noted that the application was filed jointly by the wife and major daughter - Held - To remove technical objections the respondents may pray for correction or conversion of the pending application into a joint application under Section 125 CrPC and Section 20(3) of the HAM Act - Mere mentioning of a wrong provision does not come in the way of justice - [Paras 8-15].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Family Court directed to take strict action for recovery of maintenance dues including striking out the defense if arrears are not cleared – Respondents permitted to seek conversion of the application.

Criminal Law - Bigamy with concealment - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 495 - Appellant married respondent in 1984 under Hindu rites unaware of his prior marriage to one Manabi Roy in 1983 under the Special Marriage Act - Respondent was later dismissed from police service following departmental proceedings for bigamy - Trial Court acquitted respondent citing failure to prove first marriage via registry officials and failure to examine the second priest for the second marriage - High Court found the findings preposterous and de hors the evidence - High Court noted that the marriage certificate was exhibited and no suggestion was made by the defence challenging the first marriage during cross-examination - Held - ingredients of Section 495 IPC involving second marriage during subsistence of first and active concealment were proven beyond reasonable doubt - acquittal reversed and respondent convicted - [Paras 1-32].

Evidence Law - Proof of Public Documents - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 63 and 65 - Marriage Certificate - Trial Court refused to accept the marriage certificate between respondent and first wife because officials from the registry were not examined - High Court held that production of a copy of the Certificate of Marriage under the Special Marriage Act is sufficient proof of a previous marriage especially when the fact was corroborated by the respondent's dismissal from service for bigamy and lack of challenge in cross-examination - Held - Trial Court laid unnecessary and excessive emphasis on the requirement of oral proof for an exhibited document - [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Procedure - Limitation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 468 - Delay in filing complaint - Complaint filed in 1990 for marriage contracted in 1984 and discovered in 1985-86 - Trial Court held the delay to be fatal - High Court clarified that an offence under Section 495 IPC provides for imprisonment up to ten years and therefore attracts no period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC - Held - delay in filing a complaint does not extinguish or dilute the offence - [Para 20].

Family Law - Hindu Marriage - Presumption of validity - Proof of rites - Trial Court held the second marriage unproved as the priest who conducted ceremonies on the second day was not summoned - High Court held that once witnesses depose to the performance of Hindu rites and the wife is accepted into the matrimonial home as a lawful daughter-in-law a presumption of a valid marriage follows - Held - insisting on the production of every priest involved stretches the degree of proof beyond rational and legal limits - [Paras 21-23].

Evidence Law - Scope of Deposition - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 200 - Omissions in complaint - Trial Court found depositions of witnesses to be wider than the initial complaint - High Court held the object of examination is to enable witnesses to depose as freely and widely as possible - Held - there is always scope for bringing in new facts during oral examination which cannot be suspected merely for being absent in the formal complaint - [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of acquittal set aside – Respondent convicted under Section 495 IPC – Sentenced to three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid to the appellant as compensation – In default of fine further simple imprisonment of one year – Respondent directed to be taken into custody forthwith.

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Scope of interference with concurrent findings - Appellant challenged the judgment and decree which directed the removal of an illegal compound wall and bathroom encroaching upon a 10-foot area of a 20-foot-wide public road - Plaintiff proved the road reservation via a sanctioned layout plan from the Taluka Development Officer and a map prepared by the Revenue Talati - Appellant contended the findings were perverse and based on unauthorized measurements - High Court observed that power under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law and concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless shown to be grossly erroneous or contrary to settled principles - Held - No perversity found in the reasoning of the courts below - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-21].

Evidence Law - Presumption of Official Acts - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114 - Authority of Revenue Officer - Map prepared by Talati-cum-Mantri at Exhibit 63 - Defendants argued that the Talati had no authority to measure non-agricultural plots and failed to provide written notice - High Court noted that PW-3 acted in his official capacity upon an application for removal of encroachment - Under Section 114 the law permits the court to presume that official acts are regularly performed - No rebuttal evidence or material was produced by defendants to suggest mala fides - Held - Finding of encroachment based on the official map is justified - [Paras 13-15].

Civil Law - Framing and Decision on Issues - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XIV Rule 2 - Order XX Rule 5 and Order VIII Rule 6A - Failure to answer specific issues - Appellant argued that the Trial Court committed a serious error by not answering issues regarding the plaintiff's residence and breach of allotment conditions - High Court observed that the Trial Court supplied detailed reasons for not deliberating on those issues - These issues involved facts raised in the written statement that sought affirmative relief without a formal counterclaim or payment of ad-valorem court fees - Court is precluded from granting relief on unpleaded grounds or expanding the scope of the suit beyond the lis defined in the pleadings - Held - No illegality in the Trial Court's refusal to decide extraneous issues in the absence of a counterclaim - [Paras 18-19].

Civil Law - Local Government Duties - Gujarat Panchayats Act 1993 - Section 105 - Removal of Encroachments - The suit road was situated within the limits of the Village Panchayat - High Court emphasized that it is the statutory duty of the Panchayat to remove obstructions from public streets - Actions of the Revenue Talati in measuring the encroachment were within the legal framework governing panchayat administration - Held - The measurement and subsequent report cannot be deemed unauthorized - [Para 17].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts affirmed – Connected Civil Application for stay stands disposed of.

Criminal Law - Murder and Robbery - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 394 and 411 - Appellant Dharmendra Singh and co-accused Charan Singh were tried for the murder and robbery of a businessman who had collected Rs. 1,25,000 from local traders - Prosecution case established that Sher Singh (deceased) shot the victim while Dharmendra Singh snatched the suitcase and was caught red-handed by police personnel on a railway bridge - Suitcase containing specific currency bundles with signatures/seals of traders and personal effects was recovered from him - Trial Court convicted both appellants - High Court found that while fact witnesses turned hostile, they admitted the date, time, and factum of the incident - Dharmendra Singh's apprehension with the loot was corroborated by consistent police testimony - Evidence against Charan Singh found insufficient due to lack of arrest at the spot or incriminating recovery - Held - Conviction of Dharmendra Singh under Sections 302/34, 394, and 411 IPC affirmed - Charan Singh granted benefit of doubt and acquitted - [Paras 1-66].

Evidence Law - Hostile Witnesses - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 154 - Evidentiary value of hostile witnesses and First Information Report - Informant (PW-2) and several eyewitnesses turned hostile and resiled from statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC - Informant claimed FIR was dictated by police - Court relied on settled law that testimony of a hostile witness is not rejected in toto and can be used to the extent it supports the prosecution - FIR relevance is not lost merely because the informant turns hostile if the registration is proved and it forms part of official records - Date, time, and nature of incident were established through admissions of hostile witnesses - Held - Relevancy and sanctity of FIR maintained - conviction sustainable despite hostility of fact witnesses - [Paras 25-38, 53].

Evidence Law - Police Witnesses - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Reliability of recovery witnesses - Contention that no independent public witness supported the recovery of the looted suitcase - Prosecution relied solely on police personnel who caught the accused red-handed - Court held that there is no rule of law requiring discarding of police testimony merely due to their official status - Presumption that every person acts honestly applies to police officials - No evidence of enmity or motive for false implication was adduced by the defense - Held - Conviction can be safely recorded on the reliable testimony of police witnesses if it inspires confidence - [Paras 46-51].

Criminal Law - Arms Act - Arms Act 1959 - Section 25 - Proof of workability - Country-made pistol and cartridges recovered from Dharmendra Singh - Investigating Officer (PW-9) admitted in evidence that the weapon was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert examination - No personal testing conducted to prove the weapon was in workable condition - Failure to connect the weapon with the alleged crime - Held - Conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act is bad in law and contrary to settled principles - conviction set aside - [Paras 56, 58].

Decision: Criminal Appeal No. 2075 of 2008 (Charan Singh) allowed – Appellant acquitted of all charges. Criminal Appeal No. 2718 of 2008 (Dharmendra Singh) partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 302/34, 394 and 411 IPC affirmed – Conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act set aside – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence.

Civil Law - Temporary Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction claiming possession and ownership by succession from maternal grandfather - Plaintiff also filed application for temporary injunction - Defendants filed counter application for temporary injunction claiming possession through their predecessor - Trial Court allowed plaintiff application and dismissed defendants application finding prima facie possession of plaintiff based on revenue records including Pattadar Pass Book and pahanis - Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court order observing continuous reflection of plaintiff name in revenue records as pattadar and possessor - High Court observed that concurrent findings of lower courts based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence do not suffer from patent illegality or perversity - Held - No justification to interfere with well reasoned orders passed by trial court and affirmed by appellate court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction - Civil Revision Petitions dismissed - [Paras 6-9 - 35-40].

Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of interference with concurrent findings of subordinate courts - Defendants challenged concurrent orders of lower courts granting temporary injunction to plaintiff under Article 227 - High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents to reiterate that power under Article 227 is of judicial superintendence and not appellate or revisional - High Court cannot substitute its own view or reappreciate evidence unless findings are patently perverse or unsupported by any evidence resulting in grave injustice - Held - Concurrent findings of lower courts based on proper appreciation of material on record cannot be said to suffer from patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 - [Paras 20-27 - 38-39].

Decision: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed - No order as to costs - Pending miscellaneous applications if any stand closed.

Criminal Law - Condonation of Delay - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Statutory Right of Appeal - Petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act by the Judicial Magistrate Jaora and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment with a compensation deposit of Rs 140000 - Petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions Court with a delay of 12 days citing his rural background and intervening court holidays - The Sessions Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal at the threshold without adjudication on merits - Petitioner moved the High Court in revision - Held - The expression sufficient cause must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice - A minimal delay of 12 days should not be used to defeat a valuable statutory right of appeal - The lower appellate court adopted a hyper-technical and pedantic approach and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in a judicious manner - Impugned order quashed and matter remanded for decision on merits - [Paras 1-28].

Criminal Law - Revision - M.P. High Court Rules - Rule 48 - Exemption from Surrender - Petitioner sought exemption from surrender under Rule 48 read with Section 482 CrPC - Respondent relied on Deepak Sahu case to argue that surrender is a mandatory prerequisite for maintaining a revision petition - High Court examined the objective of Rule 48 and the Supreme Court ruling in Vivek Rai - Held - Rule 48 is intended to prevent convicted persons from evading law after their conviction has been substantively scrutinized and sustained by two consecutive courts - In the present case the petitioner was deprived of his first appeal on a technical limitation bar without any merit-based review - Enforcing strict surrender at this stage would result in excessive procedural hardship not intended by the framework of the rules - Exemption from surrender allowed - [Paras 20-29].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 02.04.2026 quashed – Matter remanded to the Sessions Court to decide the appeal on merits – Petitioner directed to approach the Sessions Court within 30 days – Exemption from surrender granted until the petitioner approaches the Sessions Court.

Writ Law - Disputed questions of fact - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Dispute regarding title and mutation based on alleged forged documents and unregistered sale deeds - Petitioner claimed land fell to his share in family partition and respondents fabricated a partition deed to grab the land - Revenue Divisional Officer initially set aside the mutation in favour of respondents and remanded the matter - Revisional authority being the Special Tribunal reversed the order and directed the parties to approach the competent civil court as the matter involved disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and validity of documents - High Court upheld the Special Tribunal order noting that the petitioner approached the authorities after an unexplained delay of 11 years - Held - Rival contentions raising pure questions of fact require examination of evidence and material documents which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction - Parties directed to approach the competent civil court - Writ Petition dismissed - [Paras 7-15].

Writ Law - Scope of writ jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Adjudication of disputed facts - Allegations of forged partition deeds and sale of land without title - Veracity of documents needs to be examined under the provisions of the Evidence Act - Held - Matter involving disputed question of fact about the ownership of the land in question could not be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - High Court is justified in directing the parties to approach the civil court for resolving such dispute - [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Writ Petition is dismissed – Petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.

Writ Law - Maternity Benefits - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 21 and 42 - Denial of pay during maternity leave - Petitioners engaged as Senior Residents/Tutors under 2020 Academic Arrangement Rules - Respondents withheld salaries during maternity leave citing tenure status and Finance Department advice claiming petitioners were out of assignment - Petitioners contended that Government Order dated 08.07.2024 explicitly extended maternity leave benefits as per existing rules - Respondents argued that tenure-based appointments preclude parity with permanent employees - High Court observed that maternity benefits are an extension of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 - Court noted that to strip emoluments at a vulnerable hour is a profound constitutional injury - Held - The Finance Department lost sight of constitutional bounds in its anxiety to prune public spending - Penalizing a mother based on the technical nature of employment contract while biological reality is identical to regular employees constitutes an egregious infraction of equality - Communication dated 14.10.2025 quashed - [Paras 1-14].

Writ Law - Statutory Mandate - J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1979 - Rule 41(1) - Leave salary entitlement - Government Order No. 451-JK (HME) of 2024 directed that female Senior Residents/Tutors shall be allowed maternity leave as per Government rules and regulations - Rule 41(1) as amended via SRO 353 of 2015 mandates 180 days maternity leave with full leave salary equal to last-drawn pay - Respondents attempted to deny pay alleging absence of public service rendered - Held - Right to full emoluments is an organic corollary of the right to leave itself - Rules explicitly include apprentices and tenure-based posts under the definition of 'post' in Rule 2(c) of the 2020 Rules - State cannot blow hot and cold by granting leave but withholding salary - [Paras 4-13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Communication dated 14.10.2025 quashed – Respondent No. 1 directed to grant full pay and allowances to petitioners during maternity leave and the corresponding extended period of residency.