Condonation of Delay – Divorce Proceedings – Remarriage of Respondent – Appeal against the decree of divorce granted ex-parte – Appellant’s delay in filing appeal attributed to lack of communication from her advocate – First appellate court’s refusal to condone delay upheld – Consideration of husband’s remarriage during pendency of delay condonation application significant – Held, appeal and condonation application infructuous due to remarriage [Paras 1-13].

Effect of Remarriage Post-Decree of Divorce – Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act – Legal validity of remarriage post-divorce decree if no appeal filed within limitation period – Held, second marriage lawful in absence of appeal or stay on decree – No distinction between ex-parte and contested divorce decrees under Section 15 – Appeal against divorce decree filed after respondent’s remarriage considered infructuous [Paras 6-12].

Principle of Finality and Legal Certainty – Importance of timely appeal in divorce matters – Courts emphasize on maintaining finality and certainty in matrimonial disputes to prevent complications arising from subsequent marriages – Reiteration of settled law that remarriage post-divorce decree, without pending appeal, is lawful [Paras 7-9].

Decision:

Second appeal dismissed – Decree of divorce and refusal to condone delay affirmed – Appeal declared infructuous due to respondent’s remarriage – Legal principles of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act applied.

Custody of Child – Physical Presence – Writ petition against the trial court's order requiring the physical presence of the child – Trial court insisted on the child's presence on several dates – Father contended that the child can communicate via video conference and is currently residing in Guwahati – Mother's application for child's custody led to the impugned order – High Court upheld trial court's decision emphasizing the necessity of the child's interaction with the court for custody determination [Paras 1-6].

Jurisdiction and Compliance – Father argued lack of jurisdiction by Bangalore courts and child's refusal to come to Bangalore – High Court rejected jurisdictional challenge noting that the mother had moved to Bangalore with the child in June 2022 with father's consent – Father's failure to comply with court orders to produce the child noted – High Court found trial court's decision to interact with the child appropriate considering the child's age and circumstances [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Father's non-compliance with court orders necessitates child's presence for proper custody determination – Trial court's order to produce the child upheld – Pending interlocutory applications closed [Para 6].

Property Dispute – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – The petitioner filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain respondents from interfering with the possession of the suit property – Respondents claimed possession and existing constructions on the land, disputing the property description – During trial, respondents sought an Advocate Commissioner’s appointment for property demarcation and inspection – Trial court allowed the application – High Court upheld the trial court’s order, emphasizing the necessity of an Advocate Commissioner to resolve factual disputes about property possession and boundaries [Paras 1-11].

Scope of Advocate Commissioner – Evidence Collection – The High Court differentiated between the collection of evidence and clarification of facts essential for the suit – The appointment aimed at identifying physical features and existing structures, not gathering evidence per se – Upheld as a proper exercise of discretion [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Trial court’s order for Advocate Commissioner’s appointment upheld – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, dismissed [Para 11].

Constitutional Law – Right to Education – Amendment to Maharashtra RTE Rules – Petitioners challenge the amendment excluding private unaided schools from admitting children from disadvantaged groups if government/aided schools are within 1 km – Contention that the amendment violates the RTE Act and Article 21-A of the Constitution – High Court examines the legislative intent and statutory obligations under the RTE Act [Paras 1-29].

Statutory Interpretation – Subordinate Legislation – Legitimacy of Amendment Rules – Argument that the amendment overreaches Section 12(1)© of the RTE Act – High Court holds that subordinate legislation must conform to the principal act – Amendment deemed ultra vires as it contradicts mandatory provisions of the RTE Act [Paras 30-35].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Free and Compulsory Education – High Court emphasizes that the amendment impinges upon the fundamental right to education – Provision restricting private school admissions violates Article 21-A and is inconsistent with legislative objectives [Paras 36-40].

Administrative Law – Arbitrary and Unreasonable Provisions – Amendment challenged on grounds of arbitrariness – High Court finds the exclusion of private unaided schools arbitrary and contrary to the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Article 15(5) of the Constitution [Paras 41-45].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – The impugned Amendment Rules notified on February 9, 2024, are set aside – High Court directs the State Government to ensure compliance with Section 12(1)© of the RTE Act, including private unaided schools in admission of children from disadvantaged groups [Para 46].

Sexual Harassment – Conviction and Appeal – The deceased appellant Sakthivel was accused of sexually harassing eight girl students aged 9 and 10 years in Solappadi Government Primary School. The allegations included inappropriate touching and pinching of the students. The trial court convicted Sakthivel under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. However, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction due to inconsistencies and lack of clear evidence from the victims and witnesses, undermining the prosecution’s case [Paras 1-13].

Evidence – Witness Testimony – Reliability – The testimonies of the eight victims (P.W.1 to P.W.8) were found to be inconsistent and similar, raising doubts about their veracity and the possibility of tutoring. The Assistant Elementary Education Officer (P.W.13) and the Headmaster (P.W.14) did not receive any complaints of sexual nature during their initial investigations. The evidence presented did not satisfactorily establish the foundational facts required to invoke the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act [Paras 11-12].

Investigation – Procedural Deficiencies – The investigation revealed procedural lapses, including the delay in filing the complaint and inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses. The medical examination of the victim did not corroborate the allegations of severe sexual harassment. The failure to provide a coherent and consistent account of the incidents significantly weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The court directed the refund of any fine amount paid by the legal heirs of the deceased appellant [Para 13-14].

Anticipatory bail – Appellant’s apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No. 129/2022 registered at Police Station Dheerpura, District Datia – Alleged offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(n]/k) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Prosecution case alleging that the appellant, Baldev Singh, abused and assaulted a member of the SC/ST community, and threatened him and his family members based on their caste – Appellant’s defense claiming innocence and false implication, asserting that the complainant and his son had abused and assaulted him first, leading to his lodging of an FIR (No. 130/2022) at the same police station – Earlier complaints by the appellant against the complainant highlighting threats and abusive behavior – Grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court on the grounds that custodial interrogation was not required and the offenses other than those under the SC/ST Act were bailable in nature – Conditions for anticipatory bail set, including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with a solvent surety – Direction to the appellant to cooperate with the investigation and abide by the conditions of bail – Clarification that observations in this order would not affect the proceedings in the lower court.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation Assessment – Appellant challenged the compensation awarded by the MACT for being excessive – High Court reviewed the computation of monthly income, considering evidence and minimum wages notification – Tribunal’s assessment of deceased’s income at Rs. 6000/- per month upheld – Adjusted compensation considering future prospects [Paras 4(A)(i)-4(A)(ii)].

Insurance Policy – Act Policy vs. Comprehensive Policy – Appellant insurer contested liability based on nature of insurance policy – High Court held that ‘Act Policy’ (Liability Only Policy) does not cover risk towards occupants of the vehicle – Comprehensive/Package Policy required to indemnify occupants – Appellant exonerated from liability to pay compensation – Registered owner and transferee held liable [Paras 4(B)(iii), 4(C), 4(D)].

Registered Owner’s Liability – Transfer of Ownership – High Court emphasized that registered owner as per RTO records remains liable to third parties despite any unregistered transfer – Liability cannot be shifted to transferee unless registered with RTO – Registered owner and transferee jointly and severally liable to pay compensation [Paras 4©, 4(D)].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned award modified – Appellant insurance company exonerated from liability – Compensation liability fastened on respondents (registered owner and transferee) – Remaining terms of the impugned award including interest component remain unchanged [Para 5].

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Revision against Family Court order – Respondent wife and son filed application for maintenance alleging dowry harassment, cruelty, and non-consensual acts – Family Court directed revisionist to pay 25,000/- to wife and 20,000/- per month to son – Revision dismissed, upholding Family Court’s order [Paras 1-9, 26-29].

Cruelty and Non-consensual Acts – Allegations of dowry harassment and forced anal intercourse by husband – Revisionist argued anal sex not an offense post-Navtej Singh Johar ruling – Court held wife’s refusal valid due to physical incapacity and injuries – Mental cruelty claim by husband not substantiated [Paras 10-25].

Legal Precedents – Refers to principles in Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) and Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) – Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC does not apply to Section 377 IPC for married couples – Physical incapacity due to injuries justifies wife’s refusal for non-consensual acts [Paras 10-15, 22-25].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – No interference in the Family Court’s order directing maintenance – Court finds wife’s allegations of cruelty substantiated and husband’s claims unproven [Paras 28-29].

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC, and section 6 of the POCSO Act – Appeal against the order of the Special Court – Contentions of the Parties – Evaluation of Evidence – Determination of Age of the Victim – Reliability of Victim’s Evidence – Defense Plea. [Para 1]

POCSO Act – Section 34(2) – Special Court to determine whether a person is a child or not – Statutory mandate to record reasons for such determination – Importance of establishing the minority of the victim child as a condition precedent to proceeding with a case under the POCSO Act. [Para 8]

Evidence – Statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. – Not substantive evidence – Can be used for corroboration or contradiction – Requirement of confronting the witness with contradictions during cross-examination. [Para 10]

Conviction under section 366 of IPC – Kidnapping or abduction of a woman with intent to compel her to marry against her will or for illicit intercourse – Merger of conviction under section 363 of IPC as a higher offense – No separate sentence required for section 363 of IPC. [Para 11]

Victim’s evidence – Corroborated by family members and circumstantial evidence – Trustworthy and reliable – Conviction justified – Dismissal of the appeal. [Para 11]