Family Law - Child Custody – Mutual Consent Divorce – Subsequent Custody Petition – Impermissible Under Guardians and Wards Act – Allowed Under Hindu Marriage Act Only - Custody of child was settled by consent in mutual divorce decree under Section 13(b), granting custody to mother – Father subsequently filed petition under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act – Held: Proper remedy lies under Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, not Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act – Family Court's order rejecting Order VII Rule 11 application quashed – Petition under Guardians and Wards Act dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 1, 5, 20, 28].

Paramountcy of Child's Welfare – Custody Orders Not Final – Subject to Variation – Welfare Must Prevail - Custody arrangements, even by consent, are not absolute – Orders under matrimonial law are inherently temporary and can be varied under Section 26 HMA based on change in circumstances – Court emphasizes that welfare of child is paramount and custodial stability must not be lightly disturbed [Paras 13-15, 18, 22].

Jurisdiction – Guardians and Wards Act vs Hindu Marriage Act – Post-Divorce Custody Variation – Exclusive Remedy Under Section 26 HMA - After a decree of divorce under Section 13(b), custody claims must be revisited via Section 26 HMA – Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act cannot override consent-based judicial orders – Petitions seeking change must specify new facts unknown at time of decree and demonstrate compelling change in circumstances [Paras 17, 21, 24-27].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Family Court's Order Set Aside - Trial court erred in entertaining the custody application under wrong statute – Civil Revision Application allowed – CMA No. 105 of 2021 rejected as not maintainable under law [Paras 28-29].
 

Motor Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim for non-examination of eyewitness – Accident proved through FIR, post-mortem report, and police investigation – Criminal acquittal of respondent No.1 not binding on Tribunal – Negligence proved on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities – Claimant entitled to compensation [Paras 9-17].

Standard of Proof – Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal wrongly insisted on strict proof as required in criminal trial – Held: Strict rules of evidence do not apply in claim petitions – Tribunal is to decide claims on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment in Sunita vs Rajasthan State Transport Corporation followed [Paras 11-14].

Driving Licence – Validity of LMV Licence to Drive Tractor – Tribunal’s finding that respondent No.1 did not possess valid licence is contrary to law – As per Supreme Court in Bajaj Allianz vs Rambha Devi (2024 INSC 840), a driver holding LMV licence is competent to drive transport vehicles below 7500 kg including tractors – Issue No.3 answered against the Insurance Company [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Acquittal – Not Binding on Tribunal – Criminal acquittal of the driver by giving benefit of doubt does not ipso facto absolve him of civil liability under the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal ought to have independently appreciated evidence – Supreme Court’s ruling in N.K.V. Bros v. M. Karumai Ammal applied [Paras 14-15].

Compensation – Computation – Minimum wages considered as basis of income – Future prospects added @40% – Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses applied – Multiplier of 17 adopted considering age of deceased at 28 years – Compensation awarded under conventional heads following Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram [Paras 18-21].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Award dated 06.08.2005 set aside – Claimant entitled to total compensation of ₹3,55,320/- with interest @9% per annum from date of petition till realization – Insurance Company directed to deposit compensation within two months – Costs imposed for non-appearance of counsel also addressed [Paras 26-30].

Civil Law - Limitation for Specific Performance – No Fixed Date for Performance – Suit Within Time - The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, holding that the agreement stipulated execution of the sale deed within six months – The High Court found that the six-month period related only to the completion of construction and handing over of possession, not execution of the sale deed – Held: In the absence of a fixed date for performance, the suit was within the three-year limitation period, and the trial court erred in dismissing it as time-barred [Paras 40-50].

Genuineness of Agreement – Allegation of Interpolation Rejected – Validity Upheld - The defendant contended that the agreement was forged or interpolated – The High Court found that all insertions were accompanied by signatures, confirming authenticity – Held: The agreement dated October 16, 1995 was genuine, and the defendant’s contradictory stands regarding its validity were legally untenable [Paras 66-70].

Doctrine of Part Performance – Admission by Co-Owners – Sale Deed Execution Directed - Two out of three co-owners admitted the agreement and executed a registered sale deed for their 2/3rd share – The High Court held that the remaining defendant was bound by the agreement and must execute a deed for her 1/3rd share – Held: The plaintiff is entitled to specific performance for the remaining share, upon payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,667/- [Paras 55-65].

Eviction Decree and Specific Performance – Plaintiff’s Ownership Prevails Over Possession Dispute - The defendant argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the plaintiff did not challenge the counterclaim decree for eviction – The High Court rejected this argument, stating that once the plaintiff becomes the lawful owner, the eviction decree becomes inoperative – Held: The decree for specific performance supersedes the eviction decree, and the defendant must execute the sale deed [Paras 80-85].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Trial Court’s Order Set Aside – Decree of Specific Performance Granted - The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision and directed the defendant to execute a sale deed for her 1/3rd share in favor of the plaintiff upon payment of Rs.1,667/- – Held: If the defendant fails to comply, the plaintiff is entitled to have the sale deed executed through court [Paras 98-101].
 

Bail - NDPS – Charge Sheet Without FSL Report – Bail Granted - The petitioner was arrested for possession of 300 grams of MDMA and remained in custody for nearly a year – The prosecution filed a charge sheet without an accompanying Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report – The Court held that in cases under the NDPS Act, a chemical analysis report is an integral part of the investigation, and without it, the charge sheet is incomplete – Held: Since the Supreme Court is considering the issue of charge sheets being filed without FSL reports, and in similar cases bail has been granted, the petitioner is entitled to bail [Paras 6-7].

Long Pre-Trial Detention – No Trial Commenced – Bail Cannot Be Denied Indefinitely - The petitioner was in custody since 29.03.2023 and was granted interim bail on 13.03.2024 – The trial had not yet commenced – The Court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in trial proceedings violates the petitioner’s rights – Held: The interim bail order was made absolute, and the petitioner was directed to attend trial proceedings regularly [Paras 5-6].

Conditions for Bail – Compliance with Court Directives Required - The High Court imposed conditions, including surrendering the passport, refraining from influencing witnesses, and appearing before the trial court on scheduled dates – Held: Violation of any condition would result in the cancellation of bail [Para 7].

Decision – Bail Granted – Interim Order Made Absolute - The Court made the interim bail granted on 13.03.2024 absolute and directed the petitioner to comply with all bail conditions, keeping the legal issue of FSL reports open for future determination [Para 7].
 

Civil Law - Negative Declaratory Relief – Suit for Declaration of Non-Marital Status – Maintainability – Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Defendant contended that a suit seeking a declaration that no marriage exists is barred under Section 34 – Court held that a suit for declaration of legal status is maintainable under Section 9 CPC, irrespective of the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – Legal character includes marital status, and a suit seeking a declaration of non-marriage is within the jurisdiction of the civil court [Paras 10-12, 17-18].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Declaratory Relief Outside Specific Relief Act – Plaintiff argued that relief could be sought under Section 9 CPC, which grants civil courts broad jurisdiction – Court held that declaratory relief is not confined to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – Civil courts can grant such declarations independently [Paras 15-16].

Conflicting High Court Views – Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Karnataka High Court had previously held in Bhuvaneshwari v. Revappa that such suits are not maintainable – Calcutta High Court in Joyita Saha v. Rajesh Kumar Pande ruled otherwise – Court followed Supreme Court’s ruling in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, which held that a suit for a declaration regarding marital status, whether affirmative or negative, is maintainable [Paras 19-21].

Consequential Relief – Not Always Necessary – Defendant argued that a suit for mere declaration without consequential relief is barred by the proviso to Section 34 – Court held that in cases concerning marital status, the declaration itself is a substantive relief and need not be accompanied by additional claims [Paras 24-25].

Court’s Decision – Suit for Declaration of Non-Marriage Maintainable – Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC not justified – Civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain such suits – Revision application dismissed [Paras 22-25].

Criminal Evidence Law - Electronic Evidence – Right to Cloned Copy – Natural Justice – Cloned Copy Directed to Be Provided - Petitioners challenged denial of a cloned copy of hard disk relied upon for prosecution evidence – Court held that denial would violate right to fair trial – Directed trial court to provide cloned copy at petitioners’ expense to ensure effective cross-examination and defence [Paras 20–28].

Recall of Witness – Section 311 CrPC – Not a Ground to Deny Evidence Access - Prosecution had recalled PW-7 under Section 311 CrPC to introduce digital evidence – Court held that recall cannot bypass obligation to provide access to digital material if used against accused [Paras 11–13, 22].

Section 207 CrPC – Post-Supply Inspection Rights Retained – Cloned Copy Still Justified - Even assuming documents were supplied during charge, Court held that accused retains right to request copies at later stages, especially if trial is prolonged or records misplaced – Supply of cloned copy not barred [Paras 21, 26].

Precedent – P. Gopal Krishnan v. State of Kerala Applied – Cloned Copy of Electronic Records Mandatory - Citing Supreme Court ruling, Court emphasized that hard disks are electronic records and must be cloned and provided unless privacy issues exist – No such concern in this case [Paras 23–24].

No Delay Attributable to Accused – Prosecution Caused Trial Protraction - Court noted it was the prosecution that delayed the trial through multiple recall applications – Accused not found to be abusing process or causing delay – Cloned copy necessary for fair cross-examination [Para 22].

Final Decision – Application Allowed – Cloned Copy Ordered – Cross-examination Deferred - Trial court directed to clone and provide hard disk copy through authorized IT experts – Cross-examination of PW-7 deferred until then to protect fair trial rights [Paras 27–30].

Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty – Denial of Education – Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Wife alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty, including coercion to discontinue her education and demand for dowry – Husband denied allegations and contended that he supported her studies – Trial court ruled in favor of husband, holding that cruelty was not established – High Court reversed the decision, holding that preventing a spouse from pursuing education or creating conditions that obstruct education amounts to mental cruelty, justifying divorce [Paras 16-22].

Mental Cruelty – Objective Assessment – Court emphasized that cruelty need not be intentional – It is sufficient if the conduct of one spouse causes anguish, frustration, or humiliation to the other – Relying on Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy and Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, the Court held that the husband's actions amounted to mental cruelty, warranting dissolution of marriage [Paras 14-20].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Justification for Divorce – Parties lived separately for over eight years – Mediation efforts failed at both trial and appellate stages – Court held that forcing the parties to continue the marriage would serve no purpose – Decreed that the marriage should be dissolved in light of long separation and irreconcilable differences [Paras 21-23].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Unjustified Decree – Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Husband’s claim for restitution was based on the assertion that the wife left without reasonable excuse – High Court held that compelling a spouse to discontinue education and endure an unwelcoming environment constitutes a valid reason to live separately – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights set aside [Paras 22-23].

Final Decision – Appeals allowed – Marriage dissolved on the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Trial court's decree rejecting divorce petition set aside – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of husband also set aside [Paras 23-24].
 

Criminal Procedure – Interim Custody of Property – Sections 451, 457 CrPC – Gold Ornaments and Bonds Not Released – Petitioner sought interim custody of 105 gold ornaments, seized cash, and proceeds of matured bonds, claiming personal ownership and irrelevance to the criminal proceedings – The trial court rejected the application, noting that the seized assets were subject to adjudication as potential proceeds of crime and that Enforcement Directorate (ED) had already attached related assets – Held: The seized assets are prima facie linked to the crime and must remain in official custody until the conclusion of trial – No merit in seeking interim custody on the ground of deterioration of gold or personal use [Paras 6-8, 38-40].

Economic Offences – Prevention of Corruption Act – Proceeds of Crime – Maintainability of Petition under Section 482 CrPC – The CBI contended that the assets seized were crime proceeds and that the petition under Section 482 CrPC was not maintainable as the appropriate remedy was revision under Section 397 CrPC – The High Court held that while Section 482 CrPC can be invoked in extraordinary cases, an application under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC seeking interim custody is interlocutory in nature and thus not subject to revision – Petition under Section 482 CrPC held maintainable, but relief denied on merits as the seized property is integral to the criminal case [Paras 13-18, 27-30].

Criminal Procedure – Seizure of Property – Role of Enforcement Directorate – ED had provisionally attached properties related to the case, including shares in M/s Brahmani Industries, treating them as proceeds of crime – The petitioner failed to implead ED in the present petition, weakening the claim for return of assets – Held: Since ED’s attachment was upheld by the adjudicating authority and pending before the Supreme Court, release of bonds and gold ornaments cannot be permitted at this stage – The petitioner may file an application under Section 452 CrPC after trial [Paras 44-46].

Natural Justice – Right of Accused to Use Property – Delay in Trial – Petitioner argued that the long pendency of the trial caused undue hardship and sought release of gold ornaments for his daughter’s wedding – Court rejected this argument, noting that the trial was at an advanced stage, and a portion of the gold was already returned for the wedding – Interim release of assets not justified given the gravity of allegations and ongoing trial [Paras 38-39].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – The High Court upheld the trial court’s order and dismissed the petitions, holding that the seized assets were crucial to the ongoing trial and could not be released at this stage – Petitioners granted liberty to file fresh applications under Section 452 CrPC upon completion of the trial [Paras 49].
 

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement of Income – Application of Minimum Wage Notification – Future Prospects and Deduction Adjusted – Compensation Enhanced - Tribunal treated the deceased, a building material shop owner, as a casual labourer due to absence of income proof and applied minimum wage of ₹6,000/- – Court held that minimum wage applicable at the time of the accident was ₹7,200/- as per government notifications – Deduction for personal expenses reduced to 1/4th as deceased left behind four dependents including an unborn child – Tribunal correctly applied multiplier of 18 – Future prospects added at 40% following Pranay Sethi – Total compensation enhanced to ₹18,12,960/- [Paras 6-7].

Unborn Child – Entitlement to Compensation – Included as Dependent - The deceased's widow was pregnant at the time of the accident – The male child born later was held entitled to be treated as a dependent and eligible for compensation under the MV Act – Court followed settled law that unborn children are also entitled to compensation if born alive [Para 6].

Conventional Heads – Omission Rectified – Consortium and Loss of Estate Compensation Awarded - Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of estate and consortium – High Court awarded ₹1,44,000/- under loss of consortium (₹48,000 x 3 for widow, mother, and minor son) and ₹18,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate – Computation of compensation realigned as per Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, and Magma General Insurance guidelines [Paras 6-7].

Final Award – Compensation Enhanced – Interest Modified - Total enhanced compensation fixed at ₹18,12,960/- with an additional ₹9,29,000/- payable to the appellants along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization – Appeals allowed and disposed [Paras 8-9].