Civil Law  – Declaration of Matrimonial Status – Sections 7 & 8, Family Courts Act – Jurisdiction – Appeal Allowed in Part – Plaintiff claimed declaration as second wife of late Mukesh Sharma – Trial court dismissed suit holding matrimonial status declaration lies exclusively within jurisdiction of Family Court – High Court upheld finding of lack of jurisdiction but held trial court erred in dismissing instead of returning plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC mandates return of plaint for presentation before competent Family Court – Impugned judgment modified accordingly [Paras 13-22].

Family Court Jurisdiction – Section 7 Explanation (b), Family Courts Act – Exclusive domain over validity of marriage and matrimonial status – Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 8 – Supreme Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308 applied – Declaration of matrimonial status can only be sought before Family Court [Paras 14-15, 18].

Return of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Mandatory where Court lacks jurisdiction – Trial court committed illegality by dismissing suit outright – Supreme Court in EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services, (2020) 12 SCC 667 reiterated principle – High Court directed return of plaint to enable presentation before competent court [Paras 16-19, 21-22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 17/09/2022 set aside to extent of dismissal of suit – Finding of lack of jurisdiction upheld – Trial Court directed to return plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before Family Court – No order as to costs [Paras 21-23].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Criminal Revision – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Order of Family Court quashed – Petitioner-husband challenged order directing him to pay ₹20,000 per month – High Court found Family Court failed to consider suppression of material facts, income and assets of parties, and mandatory guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha – Held: impugned order suffers from illegality and impropriety, set aside; matter remanded for fresh decision after affidavits of assets/liabilities [Paras 29-34].

Second Marriage & Alleged Fraud – Divorcee status disclosed in matrimonial site – Affidavit of “unmarried” not fraudulent – Husband married with full knowledge of prior divorce – No illegality or fraud committed by wife [Paras 15-18].

Entitlement to Maintenance – Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Wife alleged cruelty and dowry demand; delay of 16 months in lodging FIR casts doubt – Evidence of desertion without just cause relevant – Court emphasized contemporaneous evidence is critical in disputes of cruelty/desertion [Paras 12-14, 24].

Capacity to Maintain Herself – Wife holding M.Sc. in Botany, diploma in Japanese – Capable of earning – Concealed receipt of ₹40 lakhs alimony from first husband – Suppression of material facts disentitles equitable relief – Courts must consider earning potential and assets while fixing quantum [Paras 19-20, 25-28, 30].

Guidelines in Maintenance Proceedings – Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Affidavits of assets/liabilities mandatory for fair adjudication – Failure by Family Court to apply guidelines vitiated order [Paras 22-23, 29].

Decision: Revisional application allowed – Impugned order dated 24/05/2024 set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court, Saran at Chapra, to direct both parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities within four weeks and decide afresh within four weeks thereafter [Paras 31-34].

Civil Law – Order XXI Rule 99 CPC – Article 128 Limitation – Section 5 Inapplicable – Appeal Allowed – Respondent’s application under O.21 r.99 CPC held barred by the 30-day limitation from the date of dispossession; Section 5 does not apply to Order XXI; impugned appellate decree set aside – The Court held Article 128 governs O.21 r.99 applications and mandates a strict 30-day period from dispossession; exclusion under Section 5 being expressly barred in Order XXI, delay could not be condoned – Decision: Appeal succeeds; First Appellate Court’s judgment set aside; no costs [Paras 12, 14-15].

Limitation – Section 14(2) Limitation Act – Exclusion of Time – Simultaneous Proceedings – Benefit Denied – The respondent first moved under O.21 r.97 (pre-dispossession) and, while that was pending, filed O.21 r.99 (post-dispossession); Section 14(2) exclusion applies when the earlier proceeding is prosecuted with due diligence and good faith but fails for “defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature” and, ordinarily, after its disposal – On facts, simultaneous invocation of O.21 rr.97 and 99 could not attract Section 14(2); exclusion denied [Paras 12-13].

Execution – Meaning of “Dispossession” and Maintainability under O.21 r.99 – Article 128 Clock – The Court noted the sequence: dispossession delivered in execution on 19.08.2008; O.21 r.99 application filed on 08.01.2009 – Held, even assuming dispossession within the meaning of O.21 r.99, the application was time-barred under Article 128; Section 14(2) not available; therefore merits of title/possession controversies did not survive for decision [Paras 9, 12, 14-15].

Property Law – Unilateral Cancellation of Registered Sale Deed – Observations of Courts Below – Trial court found unilateral cancellation deed legally ineffectual and First Appellate Court accepted passing of title; High Court refrained from re-opening these aspects in view of its limitation finding – Outcome turned solely on limitation under Article 128 and the non-applicability of Section 14(2) on the facts [Paras 5, 7, 15].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Impugned judgment and decree set aside – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Rape converted to Outraging Modesty – Sections 354/323 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Trial Court convicted appellant for outraging modesty despite charge under Sections 376/511 IPC – High Court found victim’s evidence inconsistent with FIR, medical records, and Section 164 statement – Hostile witnesses and alternative version of incident (dispute over spitting at gate) created reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended; conviction set aside; appeal allowed. Acquittal. [Paras 10-15, 21].

Victim’s Evidence – Weight and Corroboration – Law recognises that sole testimony of prosecutrix can sustain conviction if trustworthy – In present case, contradictions between FIR, deposition, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and medical report undermined reliability – Court held victim’s testimony lacked cogency and required corroboration, which was absent [Paras 13-15].

Interested/Hostile Witnesses – Evaluation – PWs 3 and 4 (relatives in same premises) did not support prosecution version – PW 4 gave different account of quarrel between accused and victim’s husband – Witness not declared hostile – Lack of corroboration from neighbours and family members further weakened prosecution [Paras 14, 16-17].

Medical Evidence – Injury Report – Doctor noted only tenderness on chest and limbs, no signs of scuffle, sexual assault, or vomiting as alleged – Injury report used against accused though not put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Inadmissible for conviction as per Sujit Biswas principle – Medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution story [Paras 13, 19-20].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Principles of Natural Justice – All incriminating materials must be put to accused – Failure to confront with injury report violated audi alteram partem – Such evidence excluded from consideration [Paras 19-20].

Standard of Proof – Two Possible Views – As per Kali Ram and Raj Kumar Singh, where two views are possible, one favouring accused must prevail – Prosecution evidence not free from doubt; alternative version supported by some witnesses – Accused entitled to acquittal [Paras 18, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and conviction dated 17/09/2014 set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 354 and 323 IPC – Bail bond discharged in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 481 BNSS, 2023) [Paras 21-24].

Civil Writ - Foreigners Tribunal – Ex-Parte Declaration – Delay in Challenge – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the ex-parte opinion of the Foreigners' Tribunal after nearly six years – High Court held that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings, had appeared through counsel, and failed to adduce evidence despite multiple opportunities – Delay not justified – Petition dismissed solely on ground of laches and delay [Paras 1-4, 13, 20, 22].

Foreigners Act – Burden of Proof – Section 9 – Not Discharged – Tribunal held the petitioner failed to prove her Indian citizenship prior to 1971 as required under Section 9 – High Court observed that despite filing written statement, the petitioner failed to lead evidence, and absented herself from proceedings – Held: Petitioner failed to discharge burden imposed by law [Paras 2, 10-12, 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Condonation of Delay – High Threshold in Citizenship Matters – Petitioner claimed poverty, illiteracy, and advocate’s inaction as cause of delay – Court held these reasons insufficient, especially when petitioner’s family members were not prevented from assisting – Held: Delay of 6 years fatal – Petitioner not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction belatedly [Paras 5-9, 13, 16, 18-20].

COVID-19 Argument – Not Applicable – Pandemic Not a Valid Excuse – Petitioner argued delay due to COVID-19 disruption – Held: COVID limitation relief ended in 2022 – Petition filed in 2025 still barred by gross delay [Para 13].

Final Order – Writ Petition Dismissed – Opinion of Tribunal Sustained – High Court refused to interfere and directed that consequences of the Tribunal’s order would follow – Petition dismissed with directions to record the order in the Tribunal record [Paras 22-23].

Civil Law - Stamp Duty Refund – Failure of FDI Transaction – Limitation under Section 48 – Refund Allowed – Petitioner entered into Share Purchase Agreement requiring Government approval under Press Note No.3 (2020 series) – On rejection of approval, SPA became void and refund was sought under Section 47 – Application rejected by authority as time-barred under Section 48 – Held: Delay was due to government procedure; rejection solely on limitation offends equity – Refund allowed with interest [Paras 1–23].

Statutory Right vs. Procedural Technicalities – Substance Over Form – SPA rendered void due to denial of FDI clearance – Though Application was styled under incorrect statutory provision and filed beyond limitation, Court held substance of claim matters more than its form – Mere technicalities should not defeat a legitimate right to refund where underlying transaction failed [Paras 16–17].

Equity and Natural Justice – No Unjust Enrichment by State – Application could not be filed within six-month limitation as approval process was pending – Held: State cannot retain stamp duty when transaction fails – Rejection based only on limitation is against equity and fairness – Refund directed with interest [Paras 8–10, 21–22].

Condonation of Delay – Applicability of Limitation Act – Section 5 Not Barred – Court held that Stamp Act does not expressly exclude Section 5 of Limitation Act – Hence delay can be condoned in appropriate cases where refund claim is otherwise justified – Petition allowed [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Rejection Order Quashed – Refund Directed – High Court quashed impugned order dated 09.10.2023 rejecting refund application – Directed Respondents to refund ₹1,17,08,200 with 4% simple interest within four weeks [Para 22].

Criminal Writ – Hit-and-Run Investigation – Mandamus Issued – Police Found Negligent – Petitioner sought Writ of Mandamus directing filing of charge-sheet in a fatal road accident involving her son – FIR was registered on 17/08/2022 but investigation remained stagnant – Court found initial investigation grossly negligent and directed departmental inquiry against the first IO – Charge-sheet finally filed on 07/08/2025 after court’s intervention – Petition disposed with directions for expeditious trial and liberty to seek compensation [Paras 1–12].

Police Inaction – Dereliction of Duty – Court Orders Inquiry – PSI Mr. Dnyadev Pawar, who led the investigation for two years, failed to seize key evidence including the deceased’s vehicle and ignored available e-challan records – Held: Clear case of dereliction of duty – Director General of Police directed to initiate departmental inquiry and take appropriate action under rules [Paras 8–10].

Compensation – Liberty to Approach MACT – Delay in Criminal Proceedings to Be Excluded – Since the accident involved a motor vehicle and the deceased was unmarried and earning, Court allowed liberty to Petitioner to seek compensation from MACT – Period spent before High Court and Trial Court to be excluded for computing limitation [Para 12(c)].

Expeditious Trial – One Year Timeline – Directions Issued – Trial Court directed to complete trial within one year – All parties directed to cooperate – Adjournments to be strictly limited to compelling reasons only [Para 12(a)-(d)].

Final Decision – Petition Worked Out – Rule Made Absolute – As charge-sheet was filed and investigation completed, petition deemed worked out – However, serious view taken of earlier investigative failures, and directions issued for systemic accountability [Paras 7–12].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Section 302 IPC – Upheld for Accused No. 4 – Based on testimony of four consistent eyewitnesses who specifically attributed sword blows to the accused – Minor inconsistencies held immaterial – Conviction for murder upheld despite lapses in investigation [Paras 11, 15-16].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Accused No. 2 Acquitted – No Direct Evidence – Conviction based solely on discovery panchnama which was not proved in accordance with law – Neither eyewitnesses nor circumstances linked him to the crime – Held: Conviction not sustainable – Acquittal ordered [Paras 12-14, 18].

Test Identification Parade – Procedural Lapses – TIP Not Trustworthy – Conduct of TIP not in accordance with law – Witnesses knew many dummy participants – No corroboration between parade and court testimony – However, in-court identification of Accused No. 4 by multiple witnesses deemed reliable – TIP discrepancies did not vitiate case against him [Paras 11(4), 12].

Discovery Evidence – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Knife Recovery Unreliable – Panch witnesses to discovery panchnama turned hostile – Investigating Officer failed to narrate full details of discovery – Recovery pertained to weapon allegedly used by another accused – Held: Discovery inadmissible and cannot form sole basis for conviction [Paras 13-14].

Police Notification – Section 135(1) of Gujarat Police Act – Notification Not Proved – Prosecution failed to produce certified copy or gazette publication of weapon prohibition order – Held: Conviction under Section 135(1) unsustainable due to non-compliance with Section 78 of Evidence Act [Para 17].

Faulty Investigation – Not a Ground for Acquittal – Though lapses occurred in identification and recovery processes, they do not override consistent eyewitness accounts – Court reiterated that faulty or negligent investigation alone does not justify acquittal if guilt is otherwise proven – Held: No interference with conviction of Accused No. 4 [Paras 10, 15].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction of Accused No. 4 under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Conviction under Section 135(1) Gujarat Police Act set aside – Accused No. 2 acquitted of all charges – State not having filed appeals against acquittals or certain IPC charges – Held: Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 2017 allowed – Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2018 partly allowed [Paras 16-18].

Civil Writ - Minority Institution – Appointment Approval – Article 30 Protection – Approval Mandated – Petitioners appointed after advertisement, interviews, and panel preparation by Christian minority schools – DI rejected approval citing non-compliance with Notification No. 1314 – Held: Minority institutions protected under Article 30 have autonomy in staff appointments – Special Rules under Notification No. 641 govern such institutions – Rejection orders are arbitrary and unlawful – Writs allowed [Paras 1–32].

Constitutional Rights – Article 30(1) – Administrative Autonomy – Affirmed – Christian minority institutions enjoy constitutional autonomy in staff appointments subject only to regulatory oversight – Court reiterated principles from TMA Pai Foundation, P.A. Inamdar, and Ivy C. Da Conceicao – State’s role limited to regulatory measures, not administrative interference [Paras 10–13, 20–22, 28].

Procedural Validity – Notification No. 641 Overrides General Rules – Recruitment by Minority Schools Lawful – Special Rules under Notification No. 641 specifically empower School Committees and Founder Bodies to appoint staff – Notification No. 1314 cannot override constitutional and special rule protections – Hence, appointments made were lawful [Paras 19–21, 26–27].

Grounds of Rejection – New Grounds in Affidavit – Not Permissible – Orders Must Stand on Recorded Reasons – Court held that DI cannot supplement rejection orders with new justifications in affidavits – Action contrary to principles laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill – Validity to be judged only by original reasons [Paras 14, 30].

Final Decision – Rejection Orders Set Aside – Directions Issued – High Court set aside rejection orders dated 06.08.2009, 22.11.2019, and 18.11.2019 – Directed DI to approve petitioners’ service and pay fixation within four weeks – Writ petitions allowed [Para 32].