Criminal Law – Conviction for Voluntarily Causing Hurt and Trespass – Sections 452, 323, and 325 IPC – Sentence Modified – The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 452 and 325 IPC and one year under Section 323 IPC, with fines – Conviction upheld by Appellate Court – In revision, petitioner confined challenge to sentence – Held: Considering that petitioner had undergone 6 months and 21 days in custody, was not involved in any other case, and sought peaceful life after 11 years of litigation, sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 1-5, 9-10].

Sentencing Principles – Judicial Discretion – Proportionality and Reform – Discretion in Sentencing Must Be Judicially Exercised – The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents to hold that discretion in sentencing must consider gravity, manner of offence, and reformation prospects – Held: Sentence should be proportional and not excessive – Law allows leniency in absence of minimum sentence and upon positive reformation indicators [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced – Petitioner Ordered to Be Released – While maintaining the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence to period already undergone – Directed immediate release of petitioner unless required in any other case – Miscellaneous applications also disposed of [Paras 10-12].

Criminal Revision – Maintainability Without Surrender – Permissible – Petitioner convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to 3 years RI challenged concurrent findings of guilt without surrendering – Held: In absence of specific High Court Rule mandating surrender, revision petition and application for suspension of sentence are maintainable even if convict has not surrendered – Rule of law does not permit judiciary to create procedural fetters where legislature is silent [Paras 9-12].

Suspension of Sentence – Discretionary Relief – Not Automatic – Although revision maintainable without surrender, Court clarified suspension of sentence is not a matter of right – Desirability depends on petitioner’s conduct, bona fides, and explanation for absence – Mere maintainability does not guarantee relief – Such petitions must pass test of judicial discretion [Paras 11-12, 14].

Judicial Discipline – Evading Process of Law – Court’s Discretion Critical – High Court emphasized distinction between “maintainability” and “entertainability” – A convict’s evasion or deliberate non-appearance to receive appellate judgment weakens case for suspension of sentence – Held: Admission of such petitions must not reward defiance or disrespect of judicial process [Paras 11-12].

Medical Grounds – Conditional Relief Granted – Petitioner claimed absence due to heart-related medical issues – Court accepted explanation and granted time to surrender – Directed petitioner to surrender before Trial Court by 18.08.2025 – Failure would authorize coercive steps – Petition to be listed thereafter for further hearing [Paras 13-14].

Final Directions – Time Granted to Surrender – Revision Petition Maintainable – Court allowed application seeking time to surrender and directed petitioner to do so by stipulated date – Matter to be listed for hearing on merits thereafter – No stay on sentence at this stage [Para 14].

Civil Writ - PIL - Solid Waste Processing – Prayer for Shifting Refused – Compliance with SWM Rules, 2016 Upheld – Petitioners sought direction to relocate waste processing activities of PCB and PMC at Hadapsar Industrial Estate, alleging pollution, foul odour, health hazards, and violation of previous governmental directions – Held: Processing facilities at the site are in accordance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and the State Government’s order dated 11.09.2018 – No mandatory order exists to shift or close processing at the current site – Petitioners’ reliance on direction for exploration of alternative site held only recommendatory, not binding – Shifting of all waste processing outside city limits not feasible for urban agglomerations like Pune – Existing facilities to continue with safeguards [Paras 21, 44-47, 55-56, 60-61].

Interpretation of State and Court Directions – Secretary, UDD’s Order of 11.09.2018 – Suitability for Waste Processing – After expert review and site visit, Secretary, UDD held the entire 28-acre land suitable for solid waste processing but prohibited further open dumping of mixed waste – Scientific processing, composting, bio-mining, and capping of legacy waste mandated – Direction to “look for alternative site” held as long-term recommendation, not as immediate order for relocation – Mere non-implementation of exploratory direction does not vitiate ongoing authorized operations [Paras 41-44, 45, 55-56].

Legal Duties of Local Bodies – Waste Management within City Limits – Under Rule 11(f) & Rule 15 of SWM Rules, 2016, local bodies must establish waste processing/disposal facilities for each area of 20 sq. km – Complete removal of all such facilities from city limits neither practical nor required under law – Mandate is to ensure scientific processing, compliance with environmental safeguards, and avoidance of mixed waste dumping – Individual inconvenience or ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome cannot override statutory duty for citywide waste management [Paras 29-31, 45-47].

Role of Pollution Control Board and Oversight – Authorization and Monitoring by MPCB – Facility authorized by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) with compliance to SWM Rules, 2016 – MPCB to monitor strict adherence to conditions, and to take legal action in case of any violation – No challenge to MPCB authorization in current petitions – Ongoing operation of facility remains subject to continuous regulatory compliance [Paras 33, 40, 57, 61(v)].

Joint Use by PCB and PMC – Validity of Collaboration – No legal bar against PCB and PMC jointly using the Hadapsar site for waste processing – Site within PMC limits but under PCB control; mutual arrangement to treat waste from both authorities found legal and longstanding – Petitioners’ objection to joint use rejected [Paras 53-54].

Safeguards and Environmental Protections – Directions to Minimize Health Impact – Both PCB and PMC directed to strictly prevent dumping of mixed waste and to ensure scientific processing, composting, and proper disposal of residual waste – Both bodies must adopt all feasible modern measures (including odour/dust suppression, enclosure, fogging/misting, increased boundary wall, etc.) to protect public health and minimize nuisance – Court issues further directions for compliance with SWM Rules, 2016 and State Government’s order dated 11.09.2018 [Paras 48-52, 59-61].

Decision – Relief for Shifting Facility Rejected – Both writ petitions and PIL dismissed – Prayer for shifting the waste processing facility from Hadapsar Industrial Estate to an alternate site refused – Directions issued for scientific and compliant management of facility, with liberty to PCB/PMC to seek more land if needed [Paras 60-62].

Matrimonial Law - Partition of Matrimonial Property – Order 12 Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on Admissions – Appeal Dismissed – Husband’s application for preliminary decree allowed by Family Court on basis of admission in wife’s written statement that suit property was jointly purchased – Sale deed reflected joint ownership without specified shares – Held: Admission was categorical; vague claims of higher contribution unsupported by evidence cannot override statutory presumption of equal shares under Section 45 TPA – No trial necessary on ownership issue [Paras 16-18].

PWDV Act – Right to Reside in Shared Household – Scope – Wife’s plea to resist partition citing Section 17 PWDV Act rejected – Court held right of residence is not absolute and does not bar lawful partition by co-owner – Statutory protection intended to prevent unlawful eviction, not to confer greater proprietary rights than ownership share – Financially independent spouse cannot indefinitely block partition on “shared household” claim [Paras 19-22].

Equitable Considerations – Court noted husband’s bona fide offer to pay wife ₹4 crore or provide alternative residence – Wife’s insistence on exclusive possession unjustified in law and equity – Purpose of partition suit is to secure each co-owner’s enjoyment of their share [Para 27].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Preliminary decree of equal ownership upheld – Observations confined to present appeal and not to affect merits of other pending proceedings [Paras 28-30].

Tenancy Law - Rent Control Act – Executability of Eviction Decree – Multinational Company Sub-lessee – Jurisdiction Upheld – The petitioner, a multinational company, challenged the execution of eviction decrees on the ground that premises were exempt under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Held: The exemption is qua the premises let or sub-let lawfully – In the absence of lawful subletting, and where tenancy was terminated due to non-user and subletting by original tenant, the Small Causes Court retained jurisdiction – Executing Court rightly refused to declare decree null and void [Paras 6.4, 6.8, 31-35, 38-39].

Execution – Scope of Challenge – Nullity of Decree – Limited Grounds – The Court reiterated that executing courts can declare a decree null and void only when there is inherent lack of jurisdiction – Held: In this case, decree was passed by a court having jurisdiction over landlord-tenant matters – Petitioner is barred from changing stance post-decree execution proceedings – No inherent lack of jurisdiction found [Paras 16-18, 39-40].

Tenant and Sub-tenant – Contradictory Stand – Estoppel – Petitioner Denied Protection Under Rent Act, Then Claimed Exemption – Not Permissible – Before the Trial Court, the petitioner had denied being in exclusive possession and claimed protection under the Rent Act – Later, in execution proceedings, sought to argue that the Act does not apply – Held: Petitioner estopped from raising contrary plea at belated stage – Such volte-face undermines judicial process [Paras 11, 33-34].

Interpretation – Exemption Under Section 3(1)(b) – Applies to Lawfully Let or Sub-let Premises – Cannot Be Used to Circumvent Rent Act – Held: Section 3(1)(b) applies only to premises let or sub-let lawfully – Allowing unlawful subletting to invoke exemption would render protections of the Rent Act meaningless – Such interpretation rejected [Paras 36-38].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Executing Court Order Sustained – Writ Petitions dismissed – No interference warranted with orders upholding decree and possession warrants – Rule discharged with no order as to costs [Paras 41-42].

Matrimonial Dispute – Return of Gold Ornaments – Wife’s Claim Not Proved – Decree Set Aside – The wife alleged that 81 sovereigns of gold were misappropriated by the husband, including 75 sovereigns received at marriage – Held: Husband admitted only 22 sovereigns and produced documentary evidence (RC extract, receipts, account statements) proving jeep was purchased on hire purchase – Ext.B7 photo relied upon by wife was found unreliable – Wife failed to prove misappropriation – Decree for return of gold ornaments set aside [Paras 6-12].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Petition Filed as Counterblast – Rejected – OP for restitution was filed by wife after receiving notice in divorce petition – Conduct and chronology indicate lack of bona fides – Wife lodged complaint to husband’s superior officer and remained at parental home since 2008 – Her conduct not consistent with desire to resume cohabitation – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights reversed [Paras 13-14].

Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Long Separation and Unjust Accusations – Divorce Granted – Parties had been living separately since 2008 with no cohabitation thereafter – Wife accused husband before military superiors, despite evidence of financial support – Letters by husband reflected cordiality and intent to continue relationship – Relationship had irretrievably broken down – Held: Husband entitled to divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion [Paras 13-14].

Appreciation of Evidence – Family Courts Act – Evidence Act Not Applicable – Family Court erred in rejecting Ext.A3 RC extract despite certification by RTO – Ext.A4 series and Ext.A5 account statements corroborated hire purchase – Court held that standard of proof in family proceedings is liberal – Documentary evidence accepted [Paras 8-10].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Marriage Dissolved – Wife’s Claims Dismissed – Held: Husband’s petition for divorce allowed – Wife’s petitions for return of gold ornaments and restitution of conjugal rights dismissed – Family Court’s judgment set aside [Para 14].

Property Law - Jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar – Section 16A of Apartment Act – Delegation of Powers under MCS Act – Jurisdiction Upheld – Petitioners contended that the Deputy Registrar lacked authority under Section 16A of the Apartment Act, as no express delegation existed – Held: Notification dated 24.11.2021 issued under Section 3 of the MCS Act conferred powers of the Registrar on the District Deputy Registrar of Pune City – Hence, order dated 08.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Registrar was within jurisdiction [Paras 3.1, 4, 17].

Interpretation of Section 10 of Apartment Act – Common Maintenance Charges – Proportionate Contribution Mandated – Petitioners challenged the directive to pay maintenance based on apartment size – Held: Deed of Declaration dated 29.07.2011 and statutory provisions under Sections 6 and 10 of the Apartment Act require owners to bear common expenses in proportion to their undivided interest – The clause explicitly provides for sharing expenses based on unit size – Equal maintenance practice by resolution is contrary to law and cannot override statute or registered deed [Paras 6-12, 14-17].

Validity of Deed of Declaration – Binding Nature of Registered Instruments – Obligation of Apartment Owners – Held: Deed of Declaration and Supplementary Deed are binding on all owners – Covenant in clause 8(XVIII) of the Declaration clearly provides a formula for sharing expenses based on area and contribution to maintenance corpus fund – Registered instrument must prevail unless modified through another registered document – Members cannot escape obligations under the Deed or the Apartment Act [Paras 6-9, 11, 14].

Equality Argument – Larger Flat Owners Not Entitled to Equal Charges – Rejected – Petitioners contended that larger flat owners did not enjoy more benefits in common areas – Held: Argument untenable – Larger apartments have greater value and higher undivided share; statutory scheme mandates proportionate contribution – Equal maintenance collection historically practiced cannot negate statutory obligation [Paras 10-12, 16-17].

Condonation of Prior Resolutions – Estoppel and Practice – No Defence Against Statutory Compliance – Petitioners argued that the general body resolutions permitted equal charges – Held: Past practice or resolutions cannot override provisions of the Apartment Act – Registered Deed of Declaration and statutory mandate must be followed – Petitioners have benefited from previous inequality but cannot now resist legal compliance [Paras 13, 15, 17].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Orders of Deputy Registrar and Co-operative Court Upheld – Held: Both orders dated 08.07.2021 and 13.05.2022 are reasoned and consistent with the Apartment Act and the Deed of Declaration – Writ Petition fails – No interference warranted [Paras 17-19].

Transgender & Intersex Persons Policy – Implementation & Reforms – Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 – Court Directions Issued – In writ petition concerning rights of transgender persons, the Court noted with appreciation the State’s notification of the Tamil Nadu State Policy for Transgender Persons, 2025 – Considered community suggestions on horizontal reservation, representation in monitoring committees, marriage registration, recognition of domestic partnerships, and renaming of policy – Directed State to take early decision on reservation; ensure representation of trans women, trans men, and intersex persons in district/state committees; issue directions to Registrars for smooth marriage registration; and consider renaming policy to reflect transgender and intersex focus – Also urged framing of LGBQA+ policy at the earliest – Ordered relevant departments to file status reports on NCERT module and medical curriculum sensitisation – Matter posted for further orders [Paras 1-10, 14].

Reservation – Clause 3.7 of Policy – Court noted ambiguity on whether horizontal reservation in education and public employment is envisaged – Directed Government to decide to avoid repeated litigation [Para 4].

Monitoring Committees – Representation Mandated – Directed State to ensure district and state-level committees under the policy include at least one trans woman, one trans man, and one intersex person – Necessary notifications to be issued for effective functioning [Para 5].

Marriage of Transgender Persons – Apex Court Recognition – Directed State to issue instructions to Registrars for legal sanction and registration of such marriages in line with NALSA and Arunkumar rulings [Para 6].

Recognition of Domestic Partnerships – Suggested that State provide for deeds of familial association or civil unions to safeguard rights where succession laws are silent [Para 7].

Policy Title – Court observed that renaming to “Transgender and Intersex Persons Policy” may better reflect intent and community identity [Para 8].

Decision:Court issued directions to Government to consider and implement community suggestions, take decisions on reservation and policy amendments, ensure committee representation, and expedite framing of LGBQA+ policy – Status reports directed – Matter adjourned to 15.09.2025 for further orders [Paras 4-10, 14].

Criminal Law – Obstruction of Public Servant – Section 186, 353, 333, 34 of the IPC – Conviction Restored – The trial court acquitted the Respondent of charges of obstructing a public servant – Held: Testimony of the Complainant HC Rohtash and eye-witnesses including SHO and QRT staff clearly establish that the Respondent prevented the complainant from discharging his duties during helmet checking – Minor contradictions in police DD entries immaterial – Offence under Section 186 IPC proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction ordered [Paras 25-32, 39, 41].

Use of Criminal Force – Section 353 IPC – Public Servant Assaulted – Conviction Upheld – Respondent engaged in physical scuffle with HC Rohtash upon being stopped – Supported by testimonies of PW-11 (Complainant), PW-5 (SHO), PW-8 and PW-9 (Constables) – The scuffle qualifies as criminal force under Sections 349 and 350 IPC – Offence under Section 353 IPC also proved – Acquittal reversed [Paras 25-30, 42-45].

Grievous Hurt to Public Servant – Section 333 IPC – Acquittal Sustained – Medical record did not show external injury; MLC lacked final PTA report – Alleged hearing loss not corroborated by timely medical evidence – PW-11 did not revisit hospital post incident – Injury claimed not linked conclusively to the incident – Held: Offence under Section 333 IPC not established – Acquittal upheld [Paras 47-50].

Delay in Medical Certification – Evidentiary Gaps – PTA report missing – Although the MLC initially mentioned referral for ENT assessment, the final report indicating grievous hearing loss was never produced – HC Rohtash’s testimony did not describe specific ear injury – Such absence of material evidence led to doubt about grievous hurt claim [Paras 48-50].

False Defence – Allegation of Bribery by Accused – Found Baseless – Respondent alleged money was forcibly taken and FIR fabricated – Held: Recovery of ₹11,000 documented in personal search memo; if money had been illicitly seized, it would not have been officially recorded – Story of being let off and returning with mother found implausible – Defence rejected [Paras 33-36].

Final Decision – Acquittal under Sections 186 and 353 IPC Set Aside – Conviction Ordered – Respondent held guilty under Sections 186 and 353 IPC – However, acquittal under Section 333 IPC affirmed due to lack of conclusive medical proof – Matter listed for arguments on sentence [Paras 51-52].