Limitation – Applicability of Extended Limitation due to COVID-19 – Petition and Appeal held to be within time - Appellant’s original petition filed during the Covid-19 limitation relaxation period as per Supreme Court directions – The Appeal filed within 90 days as provided by Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act was also within limitation despite Section 19(3) of Family Courts Act prescribing a shorter limitation – Appeal held to be maintainable [Paras 15-23].

Customary Divorce – Burden of Proof – Customary Divorce not Proved – Respondent failed to lead any documentary or oral evidence to establish customary divorce from first wife as required under Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Mere pleading without proof rejected – The Trial Court erred in not framing an issue regarding the existence and validity of customary divorce – Appellant entitled to succeed on this ground [Paras 24-39].

Impleadment of First Wife – Rule 8 of the Rules Under Hindu Marriage Act – Impleadment Not Mandatory – Court held that the first wife need not be impleaded as a co-respondent since the question was one of legal validity of marriage and not of her personal rights – The Trial Court's reliance on non-impleadment was misplaced – Appellant’s petition not defective for want of co-respondent [Paras 40-52].

Maintenance/Alimony – Maintainability of Claim by Second Wife – Though Appellant did not press for alimony, Court clarified that second wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act even where the marriage is declared void – Reference made to Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, 2025 INSC 197 – The Trial Court’s contrary view was incorrect [Para 53].

Offence of Rape – Misconception of Marriage – Respondent liable under Section 375 IPC / Section 63 BNS – Consent of appellant obtained on mistaken belief of valid marriage – Respondent’s conduct falls under ‘Fourthly’ clause of Section 375 IPC and Section 63(d)(iv) of BNS – Appellant’s mistaken belief of lawful marriage proved – Respondent committed rape punishable under Section 375/376 IPC and corresponding BNS provisions [Paras 54-58].

Desertion – Respondent’s Conduct Amounts to Desertion – Respondent failed to prosecute his restitution petition and remained unrepresented before the High Court despite due service – Court concluded that Respondent deserted the appellant and wilfully abstained from proceedings [Paras 59-62].

Trial Court Judgment – Improper Appreciation of Evidence – Judgment Set Aside – Trial Court wrongly presumed appellant’s knowledge of first marriage, failed to frame necessary issues, and misapplied rules on maintenance and impleadment – Findings were contrary to settled law and unsupported by evidence – Impugned order dated 19.11.2024 set aside and appeal allowed [Paras 63-72].
 

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Standard of Proof – Appeal Dismissed - The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including last-seen theory, police dog trail, accused’s conduct, and past misconduct – The minor witness (P.W.2) who initially supported the last-seen theory turned hostile and admitted inability to identify accused due to darkness – The Court held that the last-seen theory is a weak piece of evidence unless corroborated with additional material which was lacking in the present case – Absence of proximity in time between the alleged last-seen incident and the recovery of the dead body breaks the necessary chain of circumstances [Paras 13-14].

Police Dog Evidence – Unreliable Without Corroboration – Not Sufficient for Conviction - The Court noted that no evidence was led regarding the training, credibility, or procedural safeguards followed in using the police dog – Without forensic corroboration or supporting evidence, the police dog’s tracking trail was held to be insufficient and speculative to link the accused to the crime [Paras 17-18].

Past Conduct and Bad Character – Cannot Substitute Proof of Present Offence – The prosecution sought to rely on prior allegations of misconduct against Respondent No.1, including unproven past instances of rape within the village – The Court held that prior bad character, in the absence of a clear nexus to the current offence, cannot substitute for direct or circumstantial proof linking the accused to the charged crime [Para 15].

Suspicious Behaviour – Insufficient to Establish Guilt – Requires Conclusive Chain – The accused’s non-participation in the search, distracted demeanor, and remarks made during the search were deemed inadequate in the absence of other incriminating evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Such behaviour may be inappropriate but does not constitute legal proof [Para 16].

Forensic Evidence – Absence of Blood, Semen, or Biological Link – Failure of Prosecution – The Court noted that the chemical examination report (Ext.13) did not reveal any incriminating material on the seized articles or clothing of the accused – The lack of scientific evidence further weakened the prosecution's case [Para 19].

Acquittal Upheld – Chain of Circumstances Incomplete – The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a cogent, credible, and continuous chain of circumstances against Respondents – Acquittal recorded by the trial court was upheld and the leave to appeal was refused [Paras 20-22].
 

Civil Law - Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Record – Not Made Out – Review Rejected – Applicant (Assessee) sought review of earlier judgment alleging failure to consider seizure of documents and resultant delay in filing return under Section 139 – Court held: No error apparent on face of record; ITR being “non-est” was merely an obiter, not a conclusive finding – Review dismissed [Paras 6–14, 17–18].
Block Assessment vs. Regular Assessment – Allegation of Double Taxation – Issue to be Examined in Appeal – Court clarified that interplay between block and regular assessment proceedings and alleged double taxation may be examined in statutory appeal but not a ground for review – Held: Review cannot be used to revisit findings already rendered [Paras 13, 16–17].
Substantial Question of Law – Left Open for Tribunal Post-Remand – Not Ground for Review – Review applicant argued that Court failed to answer the admitted substantial question of law – Held: Since matter was remanded, Tribunal had jurisdiction to reconsider factual and legal issues – Non-answering does not vitiate original judgment [Para 16].
Scope of Review – Cannot Substitute or Rehear Merits – Principles Reiterated – Detailed discussion of precedent including Lily Thomas, Shanti Conductors, Parison Devi, and Murali Sundaram – Held: Review is not an appeal in disguise – Only a patent error justifies intervention; none found here [Paras 6–12].
Decision: Review application dismissed – No error apparent on record found in judgment dated 16.05.2014 – Observations regarding ITR being “non-est” clarified as obiter – Connected statutory appeal to proceed independently – No costs [Paras 17–18].
 

Partition Suit – Unregistered Partition Deed – Held Inadmissible – Plaintiffs relied on Ex.P1 alleged to be a memorandum of oral partition – Trial and Appellate Courts held Ex.P1 to be a partition deed in presenti requiring compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act – Ex.P1 being unregistered was rightly held inadmissible – Courts below correctly rejected the plaintiffs' claim of partition [Paras 10-13].

Effect of Registered Release Deed – Valid and Binding – The plaintiffs' father had executed a registered release deed (Ex.D2) in 1956 relinquishing rights in favour of the defendant's branch – Plaintiffs neither challenged nor pleaded against the said release deed – Courts below rightly held that plaintiffs had no subsisting right in the suit property – Mere delay in raising the issue undermines the plaintiffs' claim [Paras 11-13].

Scope of Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings on Facts – Limited Scope – Both Courts held against the plaintiffs after appreciating oral and documentary evidence – High Court reiterated that under Section 100 CPC, interference is not warranted when concurrent findings are based on sound reasoning and no substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14-17].

Onus on Plaintiffs – Suppression of Release Deed – Plaintiffs suppressed Ex.D2 in the pleadings and failed to establish partition or joint family status – Courts below rightly held that plaintiffs cannot rely on weakness of the defendants without proving their own case [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court affirmed – No relief granted to the plaintiffs – Costs made easy [Paras 17].

Land Acquisition – Apportionment Dispute – Collector’s Refusal to Refer Case – Quashed – Petitioner Claimed Share in Ancestral Property - The petitioner, asserting a claim through lineage from a common ancestor, challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order disbursing ₹34 crore compensation without referring the apportionment dispute to the authority under Section 35 MIDC Act – Held: Petitioner’s interest could not be dismissed as frivolous merely due to lack of interim relief or absence in revenue records [Paras 5, 20-22, 41-44].

Section 35 MIDC Act – Discretionary Power to Refer Disputes – Not Absolute – Collector Must Refer Disputes in Case of Competing Claims – The High Court held that while Section 35 uses the term “may,” discretion must be exercised judiciously—if a genuine apportionment dispute exists, Collector is obliged to refer – Decision of SDO in refusing reference without proper consideration of rival claims held to be perverse [Paras 38-40, 44-45].

Judicial Function of Apportionment – SDO Not Competent to Decide Complex Ownership Issues – Reference Mandatory - Referring to Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate and Rukminibai v. Krishnath, the Court reiterated that apportionment involves valuation of extinguished interests and must be decided by a judicial authority, not by revenue officers or the Collector/SDO [Paras 30-35, 37-39].

Revenue Records – Not Determinative of Title – Premature Disbursal Based on Survey Entries Invalid – SDO Erred - Court held SDO placed undue emphasis on names in revenue records and absence of injunction from civil suit—this approach ignored the genealogical linkage and pending partition suit, which established at least a prima facie claim [Paras 43, 44].

Direction to Refer – Writ of Mandamus Issued – Authority to Decide Apportionment – SDO Directed to Transfer Funds - Court directed the SDO to refer the apportionment dispute to the designated authority under Section 35 of MIDC Act within one month and deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest—authority to decide entitlement of each party in accordance with law [Paras 55-57].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – SDO’s Order Set Aside – Apportionment Dispute to Be Referred to Competent Authority – High Court held refusal to refer dispute was based on irrelevant considerations—directed SDO to forward compensation amount to authority for adjudication and equitable apportionment—Rule made absolute [Paras 55-60].

Civil Writ - Recruitment – Eligibility Criteria – One-Year LLM Degree – Arbitrary Exclusion – Provisional Selection List Quashed – Petitioner, though securing first rank in written exam, excluded on ground that her LLM was of one-year duration – Notification did not specify LLM must be of two-year duration – Held: Arbitrary to exclude candidate where UGC recognizes one-year LLM; No valid basis for discrimination between equivalent courses [Paras 5–11].

UGC Recognition – One-Year LLM Programme – Valid for Public Appointments – LLM from National Law School, Bangalore, a reputed institution – UGC approval suffices – Petitioner eligible as per existing norms – Court held that once accepted for Ph.D. enrolment, cannot be disqualified for public post [Paras 7–13].

Judicial Precedents – Division Bench Binding – Clarified Educational Patterns – Followed in Parandhaman and Suganya Jeba Sarojini cases – Held: Educational pattern (10+2+5+1) valid; one-year LLM cannot be disqualified on this basis – Pattern-based disqualification without statutory backing is untenable [Paras 8–10].

Discrimination in Selection – Merit Ignored – Violation of Fairness – Petitioner outranked selected candidates yet excluded due to non-existent restriction – Held: Such exclusion violates principles of merit and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution [Paras 11–14].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Selection List Quashed – Court directed appointment of petitioner with retrospective notional seniority and all consequential service and monetary benefits – Respondents directed to act within eight weeks [Paras 15–16].
 

Industrial Dispute – Reference by Appropriate Government – Reference Held Defective – The court held that while referring the industrial dispute, the Appropriate Government worded the reference in a manner suggesting a pre-declared conclusion that the contract system is “sham and bogus” – This prejudiced the adjudication and restricted the Industrial Tribunal from independently deciding the existence and validity of the contract – Held: Reference suffers from a material infirmity and is liable to be set aside [Paras 15-20].

Binding Settlements – Effect of Existing Long-Term Settlements – Validity Unaffected – The existence of prior settlements under Sections 12(3) and 2(p) of the I.D. Act between the contractors and the unions, which were not challenged earlier, cannot operate as an absolute bar to raising a fresh dispute – However, the factual existence of such settlements is relevant for the tribunal in deciding the sham contract issue and entitlement to benefits – Held: Previous settlements alone cannot preclude adjudication if a dispute exists [Paras 9.3-10.4].

Scope of Tribunal’s Jurisdiction – Limited by Order of Reference – Tribunal Cannot Go Beyond the Reference – The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the points specifically referred and matters incidental thereto – A reference which pre-supposes the outcome of disputed facts like the existence of sham contracts is legally unsustainable – Such determination must be left open for full adjudication by the Tribunal based on evidence [Paras 18-20].

Employer-Employee Relationship – To Be Determined by Tribunal – The Court clarified that whether the contract system is genuine or sham and whether the workers are employees of the petitioner or the contractors is a pure question of fact and cannot be predetermined by the Appropriate Government – The Tribunal is the competent authority to decide this issue after trial [Paras 17-18].

Final Decision – Reference Order Set Aside – The Court quashed the impugned reference orders passed on 18.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 – Directed the Appropriate Government to re-frame the reference terms properly without pre-judging the issue within 45 days – Writ Petitions disposed accordingly [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Law - Rape – Consent Based on Promise to Marry – Victim Major – Conviction Set Aside – Alleged victim engaged in consensual relationship with appellant under belief of future marriage – High Court found from ossification test (PW6) that victim was approximately 25 years old at time of incident – No evidence to show that promise was false from inception – Held: Consent not vitiated – Ingredients of Section 375 IPC not attracted [Paras 6–12, 21–25]. 
 
Delayed FIR – Lack of Prompt Disclosure – Inference of Consent – FIR filed after 5 months of pregnancy – Victim did not inform anyone immediately post incident – Court held delay and continued sexual relationship point to voluntary participation, not coercion or rape [Paras 11–13, 20, 23]. 
 
Ossification Test – No Proof of Minority – No Documentary Birth Record – Age determined as 25 years with ±2 years – Court relied on ossification test in absence of credible documentary proof – Victim held to be major at time of alleged incident – Section 375 ‘sixthly’ not applicable [Paras 9, 21]. 
 
Witness Discrepancies – Material Contradictions – Victim’s Testimony Unreliable – Court noted inconsistency in victim’s deposition and prior statements under Section 161 CrPC – Other key witnesses not examined – Medical evidence did not support forceful intercourse – Conviction held unsustainable [Paras 14–16, 24–25]. 
 
False Promise to Marry – Not Sufficient to Vitiate Consent – Awareness of Nature of Act – Victim knowingly consented to sexual act – Consent under such belief not legally invalid where no evidence of fraud or deception from inception – Relationship found consensual [Paras 22–23]. 
  
Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged – Trial Court records to be returned immediately [Paras 26–27]. 
 

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Appeal against conviction - Firing in Open Court – Conviction Upheld – Heinous Act – Appellant, present in courtroom during cross murder trial, fired from close range at PW2 Ram Bharose Lal with country-made pistol – Court held act was intentional and premeditated, backed by enmity – Held: Appellant rightly convicted under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act – No case made for sentence reduction [Paras 1–6, 34–41].

Eyewitness & Injured Witness – Credibility of Testimony – Relatives Not Disqualified – Court reaffirmed that testimony of injured victim (PW2) and nephew (PW1) could not be discarded merely due to relationship – PW2's presence undisputed, bullet still lodged in body during statement recording – His testimony corroborated by medical and investigative evidence – Held: Reliable and sufficient for conviction [Paras 23–30, 34–39].

Weapon Recovery – Arrest on Spot – Close Range Injury – Evidentiary Chain Intact – Appellant caught with loaded firearm inside courtroom – Recovery of five live cartridges and spent shell corroborated by seizure memo – Charring and tattooing on wound confirmed close-range shot – Held: Recovery and medical evidence strengthened prosecution case [Paras 4–6, 35–37].

Defective Investigation – Not Fatal – Courtroom Attack With Eyewitnesses – Alleged lapses like missing ballistic report or police staff testimony held immaterial in light of direct, cogent, and prompt evidence – Reliance placed on multiple SC precedents confirming that defective investigation alone doesn't vitiate trial where guilt is otherwise established [Paras 30–34, 39].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC (life imprisonment) and Section 25 Arms Act (three years RI) upheld – Sentences to run concurrently – No scope for leniency given the gravity and setting of the crime – Courtroom attack considered a severe threat to the justice system [Paras 43–45].