Matrimonial Law – Maintenance Pendente Lite – Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Qualified Wife – Denial of Maintenance – Appellant-wife (M.D. Gynaecologist) filed application for maintenance under Section 24 during pendency of divorce petition filed by respondent-husband (Neurosurgeon) – Trial court dismissed her application under Section 24 on finding that her ITRs reflected income exceeding Rs. 31 lakhs per annum – Application under Section 26 for children's maintenance allowed; respondent paying Rs. 60,000/- per month – Appellant contended she was removed from employment after filing of the case – Held: Contention rejected – Where a qualified person is capable of earning sufficiently through her expertise and refrains from doing so merely to impose a burden upon the husband, courts can deny maintenance under Section 24 – Impugned order cannot be faulted – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5-7].

Maintenance – Capability to Earn – Distinction from Precedent – Reliance placed by appellant on Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, 2008 AIR SC 530 – Held: Facts therein distinguishable – In that case wife was unemployed and husband had sufficient means; Supreme Court dismissed husband's appeal – In present case, appellant is a trained specialist capable of earning handsomely; precedent not applicable [Para 5].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order dated 07.04.2025 rejecting appellant's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 upheld.

Service Law – Pension – Delayed Release of Retiral Benefits – Interest – Fundamental Right – Petitioner retired on 31.03.2009 after 34 years of service; retiral benefits including GPF, leave encashment, GIS and salary arrears were released with delays ranging from six to nine months; pension papers were not processed in time despite Petitioner having submitted all documents in advance and after retirement – Respondents attributed delay to non-availability of Service Book and procedural challenges – Held: Procedural challenges cannot justify delay in release of pension and retiral benefits; it was the responsibility of the Respondents to initiate the process at least three months before the date of retirement; delay in release of terminal benefits amounts to deprivation of the right to life and liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India – Petitioner entitled to interest on delayed payments beyond 30.06.2009 till actual date of payment [Paras 37–40].

Rate of Interest – Article 65 – GPF Rate – Article 65(1) of Central Service (Pension) Rules, 2021 provides for payment of interest at GPF rate on delayed payment of pension and gratuity attributable to administrative lapses – GPF rate of interest from 2008 to 2023 varied between 8.8% to 7.1% – On an equitable basis, interest awarded at 8% p.a. simple interest [Paras 42–45].

Commuted Pension – Restoration After Fifteen Years – Second relief claimed by Petitioner that fifteen-year period of commuted pension ended on 31.03.2024 entitling him to full restoration of pension – Held: For restoration of full pension, Petitioner is required to file an application and follow prescribed procedure; no directions can be issued in this petition, however if application has been or is filed, the same shall be processed expeditiously and preferably within three months [Paras 46–47].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Respondents directed to compute and pay interest at 8% p.a. simple interest for the delayed period in release of pension beyond 30.06.2009 till date of payment, within eight weeks – Relief of full restoration of pension to be pursued by Petitioner through separate application – Petition disposed of accordingly.

Habeas Corpus – Child Custody – Natural Guardian – "Welfare of the Child is the Paramount Consideration" – Mother of the minor corpus died on 10.02.2025 during a failed IVF procedure – Since then, corpus was in the custody of maternal aunt and uncle (respondent Nos. 4 and 5) – Father, as natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, filed habeas corpus petition seeking custody – Respondents contended that the mother's death during an IVF procedure reflected adversely on the petitioner and that the child, being premature, required special care of the maternal aunt – Held: Death during a failed IVF procedure cannot be attributed to any fault of the petitioner so as to disentitle him from custody – No criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner – Petitioner financially sound, with stable residential arrangements and support of his sister nearby – Welfare of the child best served by restoring custody to the natural guardian – Corpus handed over to the father in Court itself – Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 granted visitation rights every Sunday at 4:00 PM for two hours [Paras as applicable].

Natural Guardian – Relatives Cannot Retain Custody – "If Custody Is Denied Now, the Child May Never Bond with the Father" – Court noted that the corpus was only 13 months old; denial of custody at this stage would result in the child growing up without forming any emotional bond with the father, detrimental to both child's development and father's parental rights – Age of maternal grandmother (71 years) also a relevant consideration for long-term welfare – Claim of maternal relatives cannot outweigh legal and natural claim of the father in the absence of any adverse material against him [Paras as applicable].

Sale Deed – Cancellation – Coercion – Limitation – Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Appellant's suit seeking cancellation of registered sale deed dated 25.10.1996 and permanent injunction dismissed by trial court – On appeal, High Court examines whether sale deed was executed under coercion and whether suit was barred by limitation – Held: No credible evidence of coercion established; suit filed on 12.10.2009 grossly time-barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation period of 3 years having commenced from 26.10.1996 when facts first became known to plaintiff – Appeal dismissed at admission stage with costs [Paras 32–50].

"Registered Sale Deed Carries Presumption of Valid Execution" – Sections 58 and 60, Registration Act, 1908 – Appellants failed to rebut statutory presumption of valid execution and registration – Sale deed executed at Tehsil Etah, a crowded public place, before scribe and witnesses; sub-registrar made independent enquiry from vendor before registration – Attesting witness DW-2 proved due execution – No FIR registered despite allegations of abduction and gunpoint coercion; no eyewitness examined – Held: Plaintiff failed to rebut presumption of validity; mere oral assertions insufficient to impeach registered document [Paras 38–43].

"Valuation and Stamp Duty — Allegation of Undervaluation Unsustained" – Section 47-A, Indian Stamp Act – Appellants contended that property was worth ₹20 lakhs but sale deed valued it at ₹2.05 lakhs – ADM (Administration), Etah, vide order dated 17.05.2002, upheld valuation as per prevailing circle rate (land @ ₹700/sq.m.; construction @ ₹2,000/sq.m.) and found stamp duty properly paid – Held: Allegation of undervaluation and insufficient stamping not proved [Para 43].

"Oral Evidence Inadmissible to Contradict Terms of Written Instrument" – Section 92, Indian Evidence Act – Sale deed specifically recorded that possession of disputed property was handed to defendants at time of execution – Appellants' oral assertion of continued possession contradicts express recital of registered instrument – Held: Such contradiction is barred by Section 92; oral evidence cannot be led to contradict terms of a dispositive document [Para 46].

"Limitation for Cancellation of Instrument Runs from Date of First Knowledge" – Article 59, Limitation Act, 1963 – Plaintiff's wife moved application before sub-registrar on 26.10.1996 itself; thereafter made complaints to SP, Chief Minister, and SDM – SDM advised filing suit for cancellation in 2007 but suit filed only on 12.10.2009, approximately 13 years after accrual of knowledge – Held: Limitation commenced on 26.10.1996 when facts of alleged execution first became known; suit filed belatedly is grossly barred by time [Paras 47–48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC with costs throughout – Impugned judgment and decree dated 07.10.2025 affirmed.

Service Law – Termination – Simultaneous Acquisition of Qualifications – Absence of Statutory Prohibition – Teacher appointed in 1997 as untrained Assistant Teacher, completed in-service training in 1999, and granted regular pay scale in 2000 – Served continuously for 29 years without adverse record – Services terminated vide order dated 11.12.2025 on the ground that petitioner had simultaneously obtained Certificate in Physical Education and passed Intermediate Examination during academic session 1993-94, and had concealed this fact at the time of appointment – Held: In the absence of any statutory provision, rule, or regulation prohibiting simultaneous pursuit of two courses, this ground cannot constitute a valid basis for disqualification or termination – Impugned order quashed – Writ petition allowed [Paras 43-52].

Natural Justice – Termination Without Departmental Inquiry – Procedural Infirmity – No regular departmental inquiry conducted as mandated under the U.P. Basic Education (Staff) Service Rules, 1973 read with the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 – Termination effected merely on the basis of notices, without formulation of charges, without adducing evidence, and without affording meaningful opportunity of hearing – Held: Such course of action is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice [Para 48].

Long Continuance in Service – Absence of Fraud – Equitable Bar Against Annulment – Petitioner rendered nearly three decades of continuous and unblemished service – Impugned order bereft of any categorical finding of fraud, misrepresentation, or submission of forged documents – Earlier inquiry reports dated 03.03.2021 and 27.07.2024 both recorded that complaints were unsubstantiated – Educational qualifications, including High School Certificate (1991), Certificate in Physical Education (1993-94), and Intermediate Certificate (1995), never cancelled or invalidated by any competent authority – Held: Drastic consequence of termination in such circumstances wholly disproportionate and legally unsustainable [Paras 45-49].

Defiance of Court Order – Salary Withheld Despite Interim Direction – This Court in Writ-A No. 15556 of 2025 had directed completion of inquiry within two months and payment of current salary – Despite the said order, salary not paid and services terminated by order dated 11.12.2025 – Court noted this conduct while quashing the impugned order [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gautam Budhh Nagar, quashed.

Medical Reimbursement – Government Employee – Emergency Treatment – Private/Unapproved Hospital – Entitlement to Full Reimbursement – Husband of respondent, a government employee, sustained severe head injury in a motor accident on 08.06.2009 and was referred from a Government Trauma Center without treatment; he was admitted in emergency to private hospitals at Gurugram where total expenditure of Rs. 6,00,031/- was incurred – Appellants withheld substantial amounts on the ground that treatment was taken from unapproved hospitals – Held: In an emergency situation, a patient or attendant cannot be expected to hunt for approved hospitals from a list; refusal of reimbursement on such technical grounds is unreasonable, unjust, and arbitrary – Right to life under Article 21 casts an obligation on the State not to defeat its employees' medical entitlements through technicalities [Paras 9, 11–14].

Medical Reimbursement – Approved Hospital – Wrongful Curtailment – Respondent's husband also received treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, a Government-approved hospital; appellant sanctioned only Rs. 48,979/- against a bill of Rs. 1,40,975/- – Held: Respondent is entitled to full reimbursement of the remaining amount of Rs. 91,996/- as the hospital is on the approved list and no denial was entered in the written statement [Para 9].

Interest on Delayed Medical Reimbursement – Om Prakash Gargi Distinguished – Appellants relied on Om Prakash Gargi v. State of Punjab, 1996 INSC 1155, to contend that interest cannot be awarded on delayed medical reimbursement – Held: Said judgment is distinguishable on facts, as in that case the amounts had not been verified, whereas in the present case the claim was duly verified on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and the department failed to grant the entitlement for over a year by moving the file from office to office – Interest rightly awarded on delayed payment [Paras 11–13].

Medical Reimbursement – Reasonable Time – Judicial Direction – Interest at 9% per annum – In the larger public interest, it is necessary to fix a maximum time period for deciding medical reimbursement claims – Held: State of Punjab, State of Haryana, U.T. Chandigarh, Corporations and Boards are directed to decide medical reimbursement claims within a maximum period of two months from the date of submission of medical bills; beyond that period, interest at 9% per annum shall be payable – Copy of order directed to be sent to all concerned for compliance [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Regular second appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments and decrees of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rewari dated 22.01.2013 and the Additional District Judge, Rewari dated 18.12.2013 upheld – State of Punjab, State of Haryana, U.T. Chandigarh, Corporations and Boards directed to decide medical reimbursement claims within two months; interest at 9% per annum payable on delayed claims.

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 406/420/120B IPC – Quashing of Complaint – Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Opposite party/complainant alleged that petitioners induced supply of electrical goods worth Rs. 11,15,297/- by misrepresentation and thereafter denied the transaction refusing payment – Petitioners sought quashing contending absence of business transaction and non-production of authenticated bills – Held: At the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C., court is not to embark on an enquiry into reliability of evidence or conduct a mini-trial – Defence materials cannot be looked into unless unimpeachable – If prima facie ingredients of the offence are made out from the complaint and accompanying documents, proceeding cannot be quashed [Paras 26-28, 32].

Cheating – Mens Rea – Intent Since Inception – Shifting Stand of Accused – Petitioners initially took the position that there was never any business transaction with the opposite party, and obtained interim stay on that basis – Upon complainant filing affidavit with invoices, delivery challans, bank statements and ledger extracts reflecting commercial transactions, petitioners shifted stand to disputing authenticity of bills – Held: Such shifting of stand from "no transaction" to "transaction not proved" prima facie discloses dishonest intention since inception – Subsequent conduct of denying transactions, returning bills as concocted and failing to pay despite receiving goods constitutes sufficient material for inference of mens rea – Commercial origin of dispute does not preclude criminal prosecution where deception at inception is alleged [Paras 19, 22, 29, 32].

Section 406 IPC vs. Section 420 IPC – Coexistence – Petitioner argued that offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot coexist on the same facts – Held: Question of coexistence of offences is itself a triable issue and cannot be decided at the stage of quashing – Court noted the argument but declined to resolve it at pre-trial stage [Para 7].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Power – Civil vs. Criminal Dispute – Petitioners contended the dispute was purely civil – Held: The fact that allegations arise from commercial transactions does not render the criminal complaint non-maintainable – Civil remedy and criminal prosecution may coexist where dishonest intention is alleged – Following Lal Moni Devi vs. State of Bihar, Rajest Bajaj vs. State of NCT Delhi and Shivanarayan Kabra vs. State of Madras – Criminal proceeding cannot be quashed at this stage [Paras 29-34].

Section 340 Cr.P.C. / Section 379 BNSS – Application for Preliminary Enquiry for Prosecution for False Statement on Oath (CRAN 10 of 2025) – Allegation of suppression of material facts and false statements on affidavit by petitioners – Held: Allegations are at a premature stage and it would be too early to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. at this juncture – Kept open for future consideration after adjudication of substantive issues, if situation demands [Para 36].

Decision: CRR 2107 of 2018 dismissed – Criminal proceeding before learned Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta to continue – CRAN 10 of 2025 kept open for future consideration – No opinion expressed on merits of the case.

Customs Law – Export Incentives – RoDTEP Scheme – Sugar Exports – Denial of Benefit – Petitioners engaged in export of white refined sugar (ITC(HS) Code 17011490) availed duty credit under RoDTEP Scheme – Export policy of sugar amended from "free" to "restricted" by Notification No. 10/2015-20 dated 24 May 2022, with exports permitted under specific permission of Directorate of Sugar – Revenue denied RoDTEP benefit treating such exports as ineligible "restricted" exports under Notification No. 76/2021-Customs (N.T.) – Held: Sugar exported with specific permission under prescribed conditions cannot be treated as a totally restricted or prohibited item so as to deprive petitioners of RoDTEP benefits – Petitioners entitled to duty credit under the Scheme [Paras 3-4, 9, 22].

Export Policy – Restricted vs. Prohibited Exports – RoDTEP Ineligibility – Item No. 1 of Table 1 to Notification No. 76/2021 excludes from RoDTEP duty credit goods "restricted or prohibited for export" – Revenue contended that sugar, post-Notification dated 24 May 2022, became blanketly ineligible – Held: The said notification does not impose a total embargo; it permits export with specific permission and prescribed quota – Characterising quota-permitted exports as "restricted/prohibited" is a misreading of the notification – Revenue's position contrary to the policy conditions set out in the notification itself [Paras 19-22].

Precedent – Finality of High Court Decision – Uniform Policy – Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. and M/s. Satyendra Packaging Ltd. held that RoDTEP benefit cannot be denied to sugar exporters acting under specific Government permission – Department's SLP dismissed by Supreme Court on 26 April 2024 – Department's own communications accepted finality of the Gujarat High Court orders and proceeded to grant benefit to those petitioners – Held: Once an issue has attained finality in view of an authoritative pronouncement by a High Court, the department ought not to re-agitate the same before other High Courts; doing so invites conflicting interpretations and judicial chaos – Principle of inter-High Court comity and uniform policy on Central legislation affirmed following Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd. and Jayantilal Ramanlal & Co. [Paras 23-25].

Relief – Refund with Interest – Petitioners who were not granted RoDTEP benefit directed to be granted the same – Where benefit was already granted but subsequently recovered from petitioners, refund of amount so recovered directed within four weeks along with interest at 6% per annum – No coercive recovery action to be taken where benefit has been granted [Paras 26-27, Order clauses (i)-(iv)].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Petitioners held entitled to RoDTEP benefit – Respondents directed to grant rebate under the Scheme to petitioners who exported sugar under specific permission – Petitioners from whom benefit was recovered directed to be refunded with 6% p.a. interest within four weeks – No coercive action for recovery to be taken – Rule made absolute. No costs.

Adoption Law — Intercountry Relocation — HAMA Adoption — NOC by CARA — Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021 — Adoption Regulations, 2022 — Petitioner no. 1 (minor) adopted by petitioners nos. 2 and 3 under HAMA, 1956 by adoption deed dated 08.02.2021 — Petitioners sought relocation of the child to Canada, a Hague Convention signatory — District Magistrate, Ferozepur furnished a Verification Report under Regulation 22B(1) and Schedule XXXIII — CARA, instead of issuing an NOC, issued merely a 'Support Letter' and marked the application as "rejected" on the portal with the remark "matter cannot be taken up as it is related to HAMA" — Held: Chapter IV-A of the 2021 Regulations is expressly titled to govern adoptions concluded under HAMA, 1956 where parents seek to relocate the child abroad — Upon receipt of verification report, CARA is mandated under Regulations 22B(2) and 22E(1) to ensure compliance with Articles 5 and/or 17 of the Hague Convention — The obligation to pursue and facilitate this compliance rests on CARA, not on the adoptive parents — CARA's abdication of its responsibility by issuing a mere support letter is untenable — Petition disposed of with directions [Paras 17–27, 34–35].

Hague Convention — Articles 5 and 17 — Central Authority's Obligation — Cooperation Between States — CARA and Canadian Authorities — Article 7(1) of the Hague Convention mandates cooperation between Central Authorities of the State of origin and the receiving State for the welfare and protection of the child — CARA proceeded on a misconception that the matter could not be taken up as the adoption was under HAMA — No objection by CARA as to the validity of the adoption — Held: CARA is directed to liaise with Canadian authorities, convey the statutory and regulatory position, and thereafter issue an NOC upon conclusion of the exercise under Articles 5 and/or 17 [Paras 28–35].

Best Interest of Child — Paramount Consideration — Adoption Regulations Cannot Be Construed to Leave Validly Adopted Children Without Relief — A construction that precludes parents who have effected a valid HAMA adoption from obtaining relocation approval under the 2021 Regulations would be contrary to the express wording of those Regulations and the paramount principle of the best interest of the child — Such construction is not acceptable [Paras 14, 25, 30].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of — CARA directed to liaise with Canadian authorities and convey the regulatory and statutory position — CARA further directed to issue NOC to petitioners upon conclusion of the exercise under Articles 5 and/or 17 of the Hague Convention — Pending applications disposed of.