Civil Writ - Temple Management – Online Darshan – Hybrid System – Petitioners sought restoration of online booking facility for darshan at Guruvayoor Temple citing hardships to elderly and differently-abled devotees – Managing Committee cited practical difficulties including ritual unpredictability and past conflicts between online and offline devotees – Held: Online mode cannot be ruled out altogether – Court directed introduction of at least two online-only darshan days per week [Paras 3-6, 12-15, 29, 30, 36, 40(F)]

Constitutional Law – Right to Worship – Temple Queue System – Petitioners contended that the absence of regulated queue systems violates the dignity and spiritual purpose of darshan – Court held that the Devaswom Committee is duty-bound under Section 10 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act to ensure proper facilities and order – Mandated scientific study of temple’s carrying capacity and implementation of systematic grouping of devotees with assigned time slots [Paras 4-5, 17, 31-36, 40(A)-(D)]

Administrative Law – Duty of Public Authorities – Crowd Management – In light of repeated complaints, Court held that temple authorities failed to address logistical and civic concerns – Directed formation of a multi-departmental coordination committee and creation of a real-time digital monitoring system for queue progress – Emphasised use of mobile applications and digital displays to inform and guide devotees [Paras 22-28, 37-39, 40(E), (L)]

Welfare of Devotees – Fundamental Religious Rights – Citing scriptures including Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, Court emphasised the sacred obligation to protect interests and dignity of pilgrims – Noted that no devotee should leave with grievance – Directed construction of air-cooled waiting halls, provision of water, shade, restrooms, and priority darshan for senior citizens and other special categories [Paras 18-20, 32, 33, 40(G), (K)]

Devaswom Committee – Compliance and Training – Court underscored the obligation of temple staff to uphold decorum and devotee dignity – Directed regular staff training and monitoring – Mandated report on action plan within two months from receipt of judgment [Paras 14, 32, 40(I)-(J)]

Railway Accident Claim – Compensation – Untoward Incident – Circumstantial Evidence – Deceased, a 17-year-old boy, died after falling from a local train due to crowd rush while on his way to visit Lalbaugcha Raja – Incident not reported to railway officials but immediate statements given to police at hospital and documented in inquest panchnama and postmortem report – Held: Circumstantial evidence consistent and credible – Failure to report to Station Master not fatal to claim – Rejection of claim by Tribunal set aside [Paras 4–10, 13, 15]

Beneficial Legislation – Railways Act – Interpretation – Circumstantial Evidence – Court held that being a welfare legislation, Railways Act allows reliance on circumstantial evidence to determine whether untoward incident occurred – Principle similar to criminal law accepted – First available statements at hospital given probative value – No evidence of fraud or fabrication found [Paras 11–12, 14]

Bonafide Passenger – Proof of Ticket – Witness Testimony – Friend accompanying deceased testified they had all purchased train tickets – No challenge to this in cross-examination – Court relied on testimony and applied ratio from Union of India vs. Rina Devi – Held: Physical ticket not required when journey and purpose proven through credible evidence [Para 16]

Appeal Allowed – Tribunal's order set aside – Appellants held entitled to Rs. 4 lakhs compensation with 6% interest from date of incident – Upper cap of Rs. 8 lakhs imposed as per norms – Payment to be made within 8 weeks upon furnishing of bank details [Para 17]

Senior Citizen Law – Eviction of Legal Heirs – Beneficial Legislation – Petitioner, an 80-year-old senior citizen, challenged the order of the Appellate Authority setting aside eviction of his daughter and her family from second floor of property – Appellate Authority held eviction unjustified as no ill-treatment or non-maintenance was proved – Held: Such a requirement is not a mandatory precondition where legal heirs have no right or interest in the property – Rule 22(3)(1) permits eviction from property where senior citizen merely has a right or interest – Appellate Authority's view contrary to established precedents [Paras 31–38].

Right or Interest in Property – Scope of Protection – Respondents claimed rights on second floor based on alleged contribution to construction and long-term residence – Court rejected this contention as induction was solely on basis of petitioner’s ownership and license – Held: Possession of respondents is referable to petitioner's permission – Even a “modicum of right” in property is sufficient to seek eviction under Rule 22(3)(1) – Senior citizen’s interest in safety and peaceful possession overrides conflicting claims of licensees [Paras 39–43, 46–47].

Ill-treatment Not Mandatory – Purpose of Act – Court reiterated that the Senior Citizen Act is a beneficial statute – Held: Senior citizens need not establish ill-treatment or wait for abuse to seek protection or eviction of children – Even apprehension of threat to peace, safety and well-being is sufficient – Delay in filing complaint not fatal if harassment persists or senior citizen sought reconciliation before seeking legal remedy [Paras 32–34].

Title Dispute – Not a Bar to Eviction – Court held that eviction proceedings under Senior Citizen Rules are summary in nature – Pendency of civil suit or lack of title in children/legal heirs does not prevent eviction – Civil courts can still be approached by parties if title is to be conclusively adjudicated – Summary eviction permissible for protective purposes [Paras 42–44, 50].

Decision: Eviction Upheld – Impugned Appellate Order dated 28.08.2023 set aside – District Magistrate’s eviction order dated 24.03.2022 restored – Respondents directed to vacate second floor within four weeks – Deputy Commissioner of Police directed to ensure enforcement – Respondents also restrained from harassing or abusing the petitioner in the interim [Paras 48–52].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Decree of Divorce Granted – Appellant alleged repeated abusive conduct by wife, threats of suicide, denial of physical relationship, and desertion without cause – Family Court dismissed petition citing isolated nature of incidents and unclean hands due to dowry allegations – Held: Cumulative effect of wife’s behaviour including verbal abuse, threats of false criminal charges, and persistent withdrawal from cohabitation amounted to mental cruelty – Appellant's evidence consistent and largely unshaken – Divorce granted under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA [Paras 1, 3, 17, 20, 23–25]

Family Law – Clean Hands Doctrine – Section 23(1)(a) HMA – Appellant denied relief by Family Court on ground of unclean hands due to dowry harassment allegations – Held: Allegations by wife were belated and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence – FIR and other proceedings initiated only after divorce petition – No credible material to show petitioner’s conduct constituted matrimonial offence – Principle of clean hands wrongly invoked – Not a bar to relief [Paras 18, 21–22]

Family Law – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Allegation of Sexual Misconduct by In-Law – Wife alleged attempted molestation by father-in-law – Parties living separately since 2020 – No child from marriage – Held: Allegation strikes at core of family trust and makes restoration of marital harmony impossible – Relationship has broken down irreparably – Compelling parties to continue in such marriage serves no legal or societal purpose – Divorce granted [Paras 23–25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 20/03/2025 of Family Court set aside – Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Registry directed to draw up decree sheet – No orders as to costs.

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Conspiracy and Murder – Rejection – Appellants accused of providing finance and dangerous weapons to co-accused for eliminating the deceased (Santhosh Kumar @ Kanuma) – Charged under BNS, Arms Act, and SC/ST Act – Trial court rejected bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS – High Court affirmed the rejection, noting that providing logistics and finance for murder is as grave as direct involvement – Held: Prima facie materials exist to attract the commission of the alleged offence; bail rejected due to the heinous nature of the crime and likelihood of witness tampering [Paras 1-8].

Criminal Conspiracy – Role of Accused – Financial Aid and Weapon Supply – Charge sheet (Column 17) detailed the specific roles of the accused in a conspiracy to murder the deceased due to prior enmity – Appellants (Accused 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20) allegedly provided funds and weapons (long knives/machhu) – Court observed that the materials prima facie establish participation in the conspiracy – The role of funding and arming the perpetrators is grave and disentitles the accused to bail [Paras 6-7, 14].

Bail Jurisprudence – Parity Principle – Non-Applicability – Co-ordinate Bench had granted bail to Accused No. 17 and Accused No. 15 in separate petitions – Appellants sought release on grounds of parity – Court held that despite the release of co-accused, the specific roles of the present appellants in facilitating the crime warranted detention – Parity cannot be the sole ground when prima facie material points to involvement in a heinous offence punishable with death or life imprisonment [Para 8].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere confirmed – Bail rejected.

Civil Law – Substitution – Delay Condonation – No Requirement That Delay Application Must Precede or Accompany Substitution Application – Application for substitution of deceased defendant filed belatedly – Separate delay condonation application filed later – Trial court condoned delay and allowed substitution – Held: Formal delay application not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown and Court is satisfied – Delay condonation under Section 5 Limitation Act permissible even if filed subsequently – No legal bar to consider both applications together [Paras 12–13, 16]

Civil Procedure – Abatement of Suit – No Separate Application to Set Aside Abatement Required If Relief Is Implicit – Suit abated under Article 120 of Limitation Act after expiry of 90 days from date of death of defendant – Plaintiff did not file separate application to set aside abatement – Held: Substitution application containing prayer for bringing legal representatives on record can be treated as implied request to set aside abatement – Technical plea rejected – Courts should adopt liberal and justice-oriented approach [Paras 17–20]

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Sufficiency of Cause – Discretion of Court – Court satisfied with explanation that Power of Attorney holder was out of station – Delay not deliberate or mala fide – Held: Court rightly exercised discretion under Section 5 Limitation Act – Delay condonation proper [Paras 23, 25]

Civil Procedure – Revision under Section 115 CPC – Limited Scope – Non-speaking or unreasoned order not by itself a ground for interference – Unless failure of justice or irreparable injury shown, revisional interference unwarranted – Trial court order allowing substitution and amendment upheld [Paras 21–22]

Civil Procedure – Liberal Construction in Substitution Matters – Order XXII Rule 10A CPC – Obligation on counsel to inform Court of death – Intention of legislature is to ensure substitution matters are not defeated by procedural delay – Courts must adopt realistic and equitable approach [Para 24]

Decision: Revision dismissed – Order dated 12.12.2024 of trial court upheld – Delay condonation and substitution application valid – No separate application to set aside abatement required – No costs.

Partition Suit – Maintainability of Revision – Article 227 – Order Accepting Partition Commissioner’s Report – Held: A revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order accepting the Partition Commissioner’s Report if the final decree is yet to be passed – The order accepting the Commissioner’s Report, without drawing up of final decree, does not constitute a decree under Section 2(2) CPC and is not independently appealable under Section 96 or Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC – Once final decree is passed working out rights of parties, it becomes appealable – Held: Interlocutory order accepting Commissioner’s Report can be challenged under Article 227 to prevent denial of remedy where appeal does not lie [Paras 1, 4, 8, 22, 24, 30]

Civil Procedure – Partition Decree – Distinction Between Preliminary and Final Decree – Reiterated that a preliminary decree declares rights of co-sharers, while a final decree works out those rights through metes and bounds division – Until final decree is passed, rights are not conclusively determined, and execution cannot proceed – Court must follow Order 26 Rule 14(3) CPC before passing a final decree [Paras 11–16, 22–23]

Appellate and Revisional Jurisdiction – Challenge to Acceptance of Commission Report – Reiterated: No appeal lies from an order merely accepting Commissioner’s Report unless it culminates in a final decree – Party aggrieved may challenge such order under Article 227 – Section 105 CPC permits challenge in appeal from final decree if no separate appeal lies earlier – Prior decisions in Sanat Kumar Dey and Papy George do not preclude Article 227 remedy [Paras 24, 26–30]

Decision: Application under Article 227 held maintainable – Civil Revision Applications to be de-tagged and heard on merits by appropriate bench – Issue of substantive challenge to Commissioner’s Report to be considered upon further hearing [Paras 30–32]

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Partition Suit – Cause of Action Disclosed – Appellant sought partition of ancestral and joint family properties – Trial court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC citing prior consent decree, limitation, and lack of co-ownership – Held: Plaint discloses cause of action – Questions of limitation, title, and effect of prior consent decree are mixed questions of fact and law requiring trial – Plaint cannot be rejected at threshold [Paras 13–16, 20, 25–27]

Civil Procedure – Consent Decree – Misrepresentation – Order XXIII Rule 3 – Bar under Rule 3A – Plaintiff claimed signatures on compromise were obtained by misrepresentation – Presence not recorded in decree – Plaintiff not recorded as party to earlier suit – Held: Whether plaintiff was party to decree or her rights extinguished by it is a triable issue – Bar under Rule 3A CPC applies only to parties to compromise decree – Not adjudicable at preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 17, 21–22]

Limitation – Accrual of Cause of Action – Consent Decree and Subsequent Denial – Plaintiff claimed her rights were denied after mother’s death and refusal by brother to partition properties unless she relinquished claim over other property – Held: Accrual of cause of action is a disputed factual issue – Cannot be conclusively decided at Order VII Rule 11 stage – Limitation defence to be adjudicated during trial [Paras 21, 25]

Family Law – Coparcenary Property – Hindu Joint Family – Plaintiff's Right to Partition – Plaintiff, daughter, claimed right in ancestral and coparcenary property – Father supported her claim – Held: Whether HUF exists and plaintiff is entitled to share are triable issues – Mere absence of detail about HUF or co-ownership in title documents is not ground for rejecting plaint – Rejection of suit at threshold unwarranted [Paras 19–20]

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Scope – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope limited to plaint and annexed documents – Validity of consent decree, extent of partition rights, and alleged misrepresentation must be adjudicated at trial – Court cannot reject plaint based on defence pleadings or external documents – Rejection set aside and suit restored [Paras 13, 17, 26–29]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 07/05/2024 set aside – Plaintiff’s suit for partition (CS(OS) 90/2017) restored to original number – Parties directed to appear before Roster Bench on 02/12/2025.

Criminal Law – Illegal Detention – Chapter Proceedings under Section 107 CrPC – Executive Magistrate’s Jurisdiction – Executive Magistrate passed order remanding petitioner to judicial custody in Chapter Case under Section 107 – Held: Magistrate had no authority under CrPC to remand person to custody in such proceedings – Detention for 7 days was unlawful and violated petitioner’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Compensation of ₹1,00,000 awarded to petitioner – State given liberty to recover from erring officer [Paras 10–13, 18]

Judicial Accountability – Misuse of Power – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act – Executive Magistrate claimed immunity under Section 3 of Judges (Protection) Act for remanding petitioner – Held: Power exercised under Section 107 CrPC is executive in nature – Act of Magistrate not judicial or quasi-judicial – Protection under Section 3 not applicable – Respondent No. 3 personally liable for excess of jurisdiction [Paras 15–16]

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Illegal detention by public authority – Petitioner detained without show cause notice or lawful order – Held: Violation of Article 21 – Compensation a necessary public remedy for infringement of fundamental right – State directed to pay and recover from officer responsible [Paras 13–14, 17–18]

Constitutional Law – Compensation for Violation of Fundamental Rights – Petition under Article 226 maintainable – Petitioner entitled to monetary compensation for illegal arrest and unauthorized detention in breach of statutory safeguards – Compensation awarded despite absence of malice – Focus is on consequences of rights violation, not intention [Paras 14, 17]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed –

(a) State of Maharashtra directed to pay ₹1,00,000 to petitioner within 4 weeks.

(b) Liberty granted to State to recover said amount from respondent no. 3 (Tahsildar).

(c) Rule made absolute.