Matrimonial Law - Maintenance to Wife – Refusal Based on Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Decree Not Sufficient by Itself – The Family Court denied maintenance to the wife solely on the ground of her non-compliance with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Held: As per Apex Court precedent, mere existence of such decree is not sufficient to disentitle a wife from maintenance – The husband must further establish that wife left without sufficient reason – Failure to consider this led to legal error in the order [Paras 3–4].

Maintenance to Daughter – Inadequate Reasoning for Quantum – Family Court awarded Rs. 2000/month till 06.05.2024 and Rs. 5000/month thereafter to the minor daughter – Held: Trial Court failed to assign reasons or consider father’s income and lifestyle to justify the quantum – Order suffers illegality on this count – Matter remitted for fresh decision [Para 6].

Conflicting Pleas – Incongruity Between Seeking Restitution and Divorce – Husband had sought divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act while simultaneously citing wife’s refusal to comply with decree of restitution – Held: This contradiction casts doubt on husband’s case and should have been considered in evaluating sufficiency of wife’s cause to live separately [Para 5].

Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside – Interim Maintenance Directed – The impugned order of the Family Court is set aside – Matter remanded for fresh disposal within 3 months – Meanwhile, interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/month each to wife and daughter directed from 01.04.2025, to be adjusted in final award [Paras 6–7].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Mental Cruelty – Filing of False Criminal Complaint – Divorce Upheld – The wife filed a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and his family, leading to their arrest and bail – The charges were not proved and they were acquitted – Held: The act of filing such unsubstantiated criminal proceedings caused social stigma and trauma, amounting to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce rightly granted [Paras 13–23, 38].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation – Court’s Finding – The parties were living separately for 29 years with no substantial cohabitation after marriage – Despite the wife’s affidavit expressing willingness to reunite, the Court found reconciliation impossible due to bitterness caused by past conduct – Held: Matrimonial bond was beyond repair – Divorce decree sustained [Paras 15, 39–42].

Standard of Proof – Civil Nature of Proceedings – The Court reiterated that in matrimonial cases, cruelty must be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt – Mental cruelty, being subjective, is inferred from overall conduct and impact – False criminal complaints, even if resulting in acquittal, can suffice for establishing cruelty [Paras 31, 34].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Trial Court’s decree of divorce was upheld – The ground of mental cruelty was proved – Reversal would only prolong hardship – No error in the trial court's judgment [Paras 42–44].

Matrimonial Law - Territorial Jurisdiction – Determination under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC Dismissed – Appellant claimed parties last resided in Faridabad, Haryana; Respondent claimed last matrimonial residence in Anand Parbat, New Delhi – Divorce petition filed in Delhi based on residence at Anand Parbat – Court found jurisdiction properly vested with Family Court, Tis Hazari, based on averments in the petition and lack of jurisdictional objection in prior restitution petition – Held: Divorce petition was rightly filed at Delhi; Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was rightly dismissed [Paras 5–19].

Pleading Standards – Consideration of Jurisdiction at Pleading Stage – Divorce petition’s averments taken as true at preliminary stage – Jurisdiction examined based on plaint only, not defence – Held: Return of plaint not warranted where jurisdiction properly claimed in pleadings [Paras 13–16].

Equitable Clarification – Opportunity to Raise Jurisdiction Later – Dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC does not preclude raising territorial jurisdiction objection during trial – Held: Right to contest jurisdiction at later stage preserved [Para 20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Family Court had territorial jurisdiction based on last matrimonial residence in Delhi – No infirmity found in impugned order – Appeal and pending applications dismissed as meritless [Paras 19–21].
 

Anticipatory Bail – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe by Public Servant – Bail Denied - The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, was accused of demanding ₹1000/- for signing a routine electric connection transfer – Audio recording of the demand and acceptance was submitted – Court held that prima facie the allegations were serious and warranted custodial interrogation – Rejected plea that recording was doctored, stating admissibility is a matter of trial – Bail denied considering gravity and public interest [Paras 2–4, 9–13].

Public Trust – Misuse of Office for Personal Gain – No Protection from Bail - The Court emphasized that even a modest bribe, if demanded by a public servant to perform legal duty, constitutes a breach of public trust – Such misconduct undermines institutional credibility – Held: Merely lacking prior criminal record is insufficient to grant anticipatory bail in corruption cases [Paras 10–12].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Denied – Petition Dismissed - The High Court found no ground to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner – Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed – Custodial interrogation deemed essential to preserve integrity of investigation [Para 13].

Tenancy Law - Thika Tenancy – Interpretation of Documentary Evidence – Declaration of Thika Tenancy Upheld – The plaintiffs claimed rights as thika tenants over a property comprising 21 rooms based on tenancy of their predecessor Khalil Choudhury – Defendants claimed ownership by purchase deeds and will – Trial Court dismissed suit holding Khalil was not a thika tenant – First Appellate Court reversed the finding, holding Khalil’s name appeared in rent receipts and his possession of 8 rooms indicated tenancy – Held: Appellate Court’s view reasonable, supported by documents and not perverse – Declaration of thika tenancy affirmed [Paras 6, 16–18, 23].

Ownership vs. Tenancy Rights – Simultaneous Vesting Not Permissible – Appellants contended that claim of thika tenancy and ownership could not coexist – Held: Even if ownership by purchase was assumed, in absence of surrender, the thika tenancy rights of Khalil subsist under new landlord – Rights are independent and subsisting unless relinquished [Para 22].

Jurisdiction – Civil Court Competence – Thika Tenancy Disputes Prior to 2010 Amendment – Objection to jurisdiction raised citing amendment to 2001 Act – Held: Since suit filed in 1978, prior to 2010 amendment, civil court was competent to decide thika tenancy rights – Amendment not retrospective – Jurisdiction upheld [Paras 25–26].

Inheritance under Mohammedan Law – Rights of Grandchildren – Respondents claimed ownership under inheritance as residuary heirs – Appellants contested bequest under will to grandchildren – Held: Issue not determinative since suit confined to thika tenancy rights – However, noted that under Sunni Law, grandchildren through predeceased daughter not direct heirs; will cannot operate beyond 1/3rd share without consent [Paras 13–14, 24].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Interference with First Appellate Court’s Finding – Appellate Court found Khalil to be thika tenant based on documents and admissions – High Court held such finding was not perverse nor based on inadmissible evidence – Interference not warranted in second appeal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 27–29].

Rent Control – Claim of Tenancy and Deposit of Rent – Scope of Section 30(1), U.P. Rent Act – Petition Dismissed – Respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 30(1) claiming tenancy and sought to deposit rent after alleged refusal by landlord – Petitioner objected denying tenancy and ownership – Trial Court allowed the deposit at claimant’s risk and held landlord had no locus to object – District Judge dismissed revision as not maintainable – Held: Section 30 allows deposit by persons “claiming to be tenants” and does not require adjudication on landlord-tenant relationship – Munsif acts as a court, not a persona designata, but powers under Section 30 are confined to permitting deposit without adjudicating rights – No revision lies due to overriding effect of Section 38 of the Act – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–13].

Jurisdiction – Revisional Powers and Bar under Special Act – CPC Overridden – Revision Not Maintainable – The High Court clarified that although Munsif acts as a court, the order passed under Section 30 of the Act is not revisable under Section 115 CPC due to explicit bar under Section 38 of the U.P. Rent Act – Any adjudication on tenancy must be done under Chapters II to IV of the Act and not in proceedings under Section 30 – Order permitting rent deposit has no bearing on substantive rights [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Deposit Does Not Confer Tenancy Rights – High Court held petitioner lacked locus as he neither proved ownership nor landlord status – Permitting rent deposit by respondent does not grant tenancy protection – Future eviction proceedings remain unaffected by the deposit order [Paras 16–17].
 

Criminal Law - Murder/Assault – Three Incidents – Culpable Homicide – Evidence Established – The appellants were involved in a series of assaults over a land dispute involving livestock, with the final incident leading to the death of the complainant’s father – Prosecution established three distinct incidents on 16.08.1983 through ocular and medical evidence – The third assault led to the death, with clear and consistent testimonies of PW1 (son), PW7 (daughter-in-law), and PW8 (granddaughter), and corroborated by post-mortem findings – Held: Conviction under Section 304 Part I upheld, no reason to interfere with trial court’s findings [Paras 1-3, 10, 14-18, 30-34, 41-44].

Post-Mortem Evidence – Admissibility Without Examining Doctor – Admitted Without Objection – The defense challenged the admissibility of the post-mortem report citing non-examination of the doctor – However, the court held that the post-mortem was marked as Exhibit-4 under Section 294 CrPC on consent without objection – Hence, it was validly relied upon – Held: Objection at appellate stage not maintainable [Paras 33-35].

Section 313 CrPC – False Explanations – Adverse Inference – The accused gave bare and evasive denials under Section 313 CrPC and failed to offer an alternate version or account of their whereabouts – The court drew adverse inference as permissible under settled law – Held: Their silence and denials bolster the prosecution case [Paras 27-29, 44-46].

Independent Witnesses – Credibility – Neighbours Not Related to Victim – The testimonies of PW2 and PW3, independent witnesses and neighbours, corroborated the first and second assaults and general sequence of events – Held: No enmity or motive to falsely implicate – Their evidence found reliable and credible [Paras 16-17, 37-39].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – The court found the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt on all three incidents – Medical and ocular evidence were consistent – Defense failed to raise reasonable doubt – Held: Appeals dismissed, accused to surrender for remaining sentence [Paras 47-48].

Criminal Law – Regular Bail - Foreign National – Allegation of Illegal Entry – Confession to Police – Accused arrested on suspicion of being a Bangladeshi national without valid documents—Prosecution relied on alleged oral confession—Held: Confession before police inadmissible; prosecution case based only on alleged statement unsupported by valid documentary proof [Paras 2–5].

Constitutional Law – Violation of Articles 21 and 22 – Delayed Production Before Magistrate – Applicant arrested at 12:30 PM on 28.01.2025 and produced before Magistrate at 4:30 PM on 29.01.2025—Held: Custody beyond 24 hours without remand order violates Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC—Arrest prima facie vitiated; Court has duty to intervene [Paras 5.1–7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Supreme Court Precedents – Duty of Court to Enforce Fundamental Rights – Court followed Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240—Held: When fundamental rights are breached, bail must be granted irrespective of whether the plea was raised during remand—Division Bench ruling in Karan Ratan Rokade not applicable due to factual differences [Paras 5.3–6].

Proof of Nationality – Existence of Indian Identity Documents – Applicant relied on Aadhar, PAN, Ration Card, Voter ID, marriage certificate, and Gram Panchayat certificate to show long-term residence in India—Held: Documents raise triable issue; bail appropriate as prosecution must prove case during trial [Paras 5, 9].

Decision – Bail granted – Applicant to be released on ₹5,000 P.R. bond with two sureties – Provisional cash bail allowed – Conditions imposed including regular court attendance, no tampering with evidence, and restriction on travel outside Maharashtra – Order limited to bail, not merits [Paras 10–12].

 Service Law - Termination of Employee – Transfer Order and Non-Compliance – Justification Required – The employee challenged his transfer and did not join at the transferred location, leading to termination – Tribunal held the termination illegal for lack of inquiry – Held: Non-compliance with the transfer order cannot justify dismissal without conducting a domestic inquiry – Tribunal’s order sustained [Paras 2-7, 15-19].

Industrial Dispute – Domestic Inquiry Requirement – Employer Must Prove Misconduct – The appellant company failed to conduct or rely on any domestic inquiry before termination – Tribunal rightly held that stigmatic termination without opportunity violates natural justice – Held: Termination was rightly declared invalid due to absence of inquiry [Paras 10-12, 18].

Judicial Review – Limited Interference in Industrial Awards – No Perversity – The Single Judge declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s award, finding no legal infirmity – Appeal court reiterated settled law that appellate courts cannot reassess sufficiency of evidence – Held: No perversity or illegality in Tribunal’s findings – Writ Appeal dismissed [Paras 17, 19-20].

Equity and Statutory Compliance – Failure to Justify Termination – The appellant company did not utilize its right to justify termination by leading evidence before the Tribunal – Held: The company's inaction disentitles it from relief – procedural safeguards under Section 2A ID Act must be observed [Paras 11, 15-16].

Final Decision – Writ Appeal Dismissed – Tribunal’s Order Upheld – The Court upheld the Tribunal’s directive to reinstate the employee without back wages and dismissed the company’s writ appeal – No costs imposed [Para 20].