Temple Surplus Funds – Utilization for Religious and Charitable Purposes – Non-Compliance with HR & CE Act – The surplus funds of the temple cannot be utilized for purposes beyond those specified in Section 66(1) or Sections 36-A and 36-B of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Held: Construction of a shopping complex does not align with the purposes outlined in the Act, such as propagation of religious tenets or other prescribed religious or charitable activities – Decision to construct the complex quashed [Paras 10-19].

Use of Partially Constructed Building – Repurposing for Charitable Objectives – Since a portion of the shopping complex was already constructed, the Court allowed its completion but restricted its use to charitable activities permissible under Sections 36-A and 36-B, such as feeding the poor or conducting Hindu marriages for those in need – Clarified that this should not set a precedent for constructing marriage halls using temple surplus funds [Paras 23-27].

Trusteeship – Lack of Appointment and Oversight – The absence of trustees for the temple meant that the decision to construct the shopping complex lacked legitimacy – Directed the authorities to expedite the appointment process while allowing the petitioner to challenge the appointments if dissatisfied [Paras 7-8, 14].

Violation of Interim Orders – Apologies and Assurance Accepted – Respondents breached an interim stay order but offered apologies and assurances to halt further construction – Contempt proceedings disposed of upon acceptance of the apologies [Paras 20-21].

Decision: The Court quashed the decision to construct a shopping complex using temple surplus funds, restricting its use to charitable purposes under Sections 36-A and 36-B of the HR & CE Act. The contempt petition was disposed of after apologies were accepted.
 

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 439 CrPC – Grant of Bail Despite Serious Charges – The petitioner was accused of criminal conspiracy in a murder that occurred inside jail premises – The prosecution alleged that he facilitated the attack by preventing the closing of a crucial gate – The Court noted that the petitioner did not directly participate in the assault and that the evidence of conspiracy was insufficient to justify further pre-trial incarceration – Held: Bail granted with stringent conditions, considering the prolonged custody and absence of direct assault by the petitioner [Paras 7-10].

Criminal Conspiracy – Bail Considerations – Insufficient Evidence to Deny Bail – The Court emphasized that while there was prima facie evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offense, it was not compelling enough to mandate continued incarceration – Bail cannot be denied solely based on weak conspiracy allegations – Held: Pre-trial custody should not amount to punishment, and bail was granted subject to conditions ensuring the petitioner's compliance with the legal process [Paras 8-12].

Bail Conditions – Restriction on Firearms Possession – Given the petitioner's criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations, the Court imposed an additional condition requiring the surrender of any firearms and ammunition – Held: Restricting firearm possession instills confidence in the victim’s family and prevents further offenses [Para 17].

Bail Conditions – Compliance with Supreme Court Precedents – The Court referenced Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735, emphasizing that bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused with the necessity of a fair trial – Held: The conditions imposed were proportionate and aimed at ensuring non-interference with the trial process [Para 18].

Cancellation of Bail – Conditional Grant of Bail – The Court directed that if the petitioner is found indulging in any non-bailable offense, the State shall move for cancellation of bail before the Sessions Court – Held: Bail remains subject to compliance with legal conditions, and violations would justify revocation [Para 19].

Decision: – Petition allowed. Bail granted with strict conditions.

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Preliminary Decree and Final Decree – Civil Suit No.7 of 1958 concerning properties of Paigah Asman Jahi – Preliminary decree passed on 06.04.1959 based on compromise – Lands listed in items 230 to 254 of Schedule ‘A’ were excluded from partition, subject to release by the Revenue Department – Reports by Receivers-cum-Commissioners on partition of remaining properties accepted – Later applications (Appl. Nos. 488 of 2012, 24 of 2024) sought final decrees for properties under item 252 of Schedule ‘A’ – Court held that properties under items 230 to 254 were not released or restored to the estate and hence not available for partition – Applications dismissed, final decree limited to items 1 to 229 and other schedules [Paras 36, 38, 43].

Scope of Receiver-Cum-Commissioner – Court clarified that the role of receivers is limited to the division and management of properties in accordance with the preliminary decree – Receivers cannot adjudicate title or determine the availability of properties beyond the decree – Findings in recent report (dated 06.07.2023) regarding the absence of partitionable properties under items 230 to 254 accepted – Observations about release orders in the report rejected as beyond scope [Paras 41, 44].

Finality of Decrees – Applications seeking recognition of assignment deeds and final decrees for properties excluded in the preliminary decree were held to be unsustainable – Earlier reports accepted without proper verification deemed null – Court directed drafting of final decree for properties under items 1 to 229 and other schedules, closing the 66-year-old litigation – Receivers discharged [Paras 40, 45, 46].

Decision: Civil Suit No.7 of 1958 closed – Final decree to be limited to items 1 to 229 of Schedule ‘A’ and other schedules. Applications dismissed – Liberty granted to applicants to seek appropriate remedies under law.
 

Virginity Test – Declared Unconstitutional – Right to Dignity under Article 21 Violated – Request for Virginity Test Rejected – The applicant sought virginity test of the wife alleging her illicit relationship and refusal to cohabit, while the wife alleged impotence – Held: Virginity test is unconstitutional, violates Article 21 guaranteeing right to dignity and personal liberty of women – No woman can be compelled to undergo such a test [Paras 6-

9].

Right to Personal Liberty – Includes Right to Dignity and Decency – Test Violates Fundamental Rights – The Court held that compelling a woman to undergo virginity test infringes Article 21 – Right to live with dignity and decency is non-derogable – Husband may prove his defence through permissible medical examination on himself, but not by compromising wife’s dignity [Paras 9-11].

Two-Finger Test – Prohibited Practice – Applicability Extended – Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022) 14 SCC 299 and Delhi High Court in Sr. Sephy v. CBI, 2023 held that tests like virginity tests and two-finger tests are unconstitutional – Reliance placed on these precedents to deny relief [Paras 6-8].

Adjudication on Merits – Allegations Subject to Evidence – Trial Court’s Order Upheld – The allegations made by both parties regarding impotency and infidelity are to be adjudicated based on evidence in the pending proceedings – No illegality or perversity found in rejection of the application for virginity test [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – No Ground to Interfere with Trial Court’s Order – Court found no merit in the revision and upheld the trial court’s rejection of the request for virginity test [Para 13].

POCSO Offences – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Petition to quash proceedings for rape and penetrative sexual assault under IPC and POCSO Act, based on an affidavit by the victim’s mother retracting the allegations and attributing the case to retaliation. Held: Allegations of serious sexual offences cannot be quashed solely on the basis of subsequent withdrawal of allegations – The accusations must be tested through a trial – No case for quashing made out under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 5-6, 13-14].

Serious Offences – Withdrawal of Allegations – Section 482 CrPC – In cases involving heinous offences like rape or offences under POCSO Act, the victim's or complainant's subsequent retraction or settlement does not justify quashing criminal proceedings – The trial process is essential for judicial scrutiny of allegations. Held: The Trial Court to consider all aspects, including retraction, during discharge hearing or trial [Paras 6, 13-15].

Decision – Petition dismissed. Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 845/2019 not quashed. Trial Court directed to consider the petitioner’s discharge plea on merits, including the victim's mother’s affidavit. Petitioner permitted to appear through counsel except when personal presence is necessary [Paras 14-15].
 

Service Law - Recruitment - Disclosure of Pending Criminal Case - Bona Fide Mistake - Candidate failed to disclose pendency of criminal case due to lack of awareness - Not construed as suppression or fraud - Candidate acquitted honorably - Discharge order set aside - Reinstatement directed [Paras 3-16, 18].

Nature of Offence - Triviality of Alleged Crimes - Offences under Sections 341, 504, and 506 IPC held not to constitute serious crimes - Employer’s obligation to evaluate trivial cases for possible condonation - Non-disclosure found to lack dishonest intent [Paras 12-13, 17].

Employment in Disciplined Forces - Role of Character Verification - Mere omission or minor errors in disclosure cannot tarnish suitability for disciplined forces - Requirement to exercise discretion and consider the facts and circumstances holistically [Paras 14-16, 18].

Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents - Flexibility in Assessing Lapses - Principles in Avtar Singh v. Union of India applied - Omission due to bona fide error held not to disqualify the candidate [Paras 12-14, 16-17].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Discharge order and Single Judge's decision set aside - Reinstatement of appellant with directions for continuation of service within eight weeks [Paras 18-19].
 

Maintenance for Wife – Allegations of Infidelity Without Proof – Section 125(4), Cr.P.C. – Maintenance Upheld – The husband alleged infidelity of the wife without providing any evidence – The Court held that a wife is justified in living separately when her chastity is questioned by her husband without proof – Such allegations amount to character assassination, providing sufficient cause for the wife to refuse to live with the husband – Held: Wife entitled to maintenance [Paras 4-5].

Quantum of Maintenance – Standard of Living – Husband’s Capacity to Pay – Maintenance Reasonable – Maintenance of ₹3,000/month upheld as reasonable, considering the husband’s admitted income of ₹9,000/month and the wife’s inability to maintain herself – The amount aligns with the husband’s standard of living – Held: No interference warranted [Para 5].

Burden of Proof – Allegations Without Evidence – Adverse Inference – The Court noted the husband’s failure to produce evidence to support his claims of infidelity – Such failure justified rejection of his plea against maintenance – Held: No ground to interfere with the trial court's findings [Para 4].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – The Court dismissed the revision, affirming the trial court’s order granting maintenance to the wife – No costs imposed [Paras 5-6].
 

Labour Law - Maintainability of Industrial Dispute - Definition of Workman - Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Supervisory Role and Salary Ceiling - Tribunal lacked jurisdiction - The Workman, designated as Senior Charge Hand, performed supervisory and administrative duties and earned above the statutory salary ceiling - Held: Employee does not qualify as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Act - Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain the dispute questioned and found lacking - Industrial dispute declared void and award set aside [Paras 21-33].

Judicial Discipline - Adherence to High Court Directions - Failure to Frame Issue on Workman Definition - Tribunal's Breach - Tribunal did not frame an independent issue regarding the employee's status as directed by the High Court - Held: Non-compliance with the High Court's orders amounts to judicial indiscipline, rendering the award coram non judice and void [Paras 34-43].

Jurisdiction - Doctrine of Coram Non Judice - Nullity of Tribunal’s Orders - Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Orders passed by a judicial forum without jurisdiction are a nullity - Subject matter jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot be waived - Tribunal's award held invalid due to lack of jurisdiction over the dispute [Paras 36-39].

Industrial Welfare - Applicability of Statutory Parameters - Balancing Welfare and Legal Compliance - Workman’s Claim Denied - Industrial Disputes Act's welfare intention must adhere to statutory provisions - Employee’s supervisory duties and salary disqualified him as a workman - Courts upheld statutory compliance over welfare claims [Paras 24-29, 43].

Decision - Management’s Writ Allowed - Workman’s Writ Dismissed - Liberty to Pursue Remedies - The Court allowed the Management's writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's award and dismissing the Workman’s writ - Workman granted liberty to pursue alternative remedies under law [Paras 44(i)-(iv)].
 

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Refusal to Live with Husband – Sufficient Cause Established – Maintenance Upheld – Wife refused to live with her husband due to allegations of infidelity made by him, which were unsupported by any proof – Court held that such accusations constitute sufficient cause for the wife to live separately under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Held: Accusations of infidelity without proof justify the wife’s decision to stay apart, and she is entitled to maintenance [Paras 4-5].

Quantum of Maintenance – Husband’s Income Considered – ₹3,000/- Maintenance Upheld – Husband claimed to earn ₹9,000/- per month as a skilled laborer and objected to the maintenance amount as excessive – Court observed that ₹3,000/- per month (1/3rd of the husband’s income) was reasonable and in line with the standard of living of the husband – Held: Trial Court rightly awarded ₹3,000/- as monthly maintenance [Para 5].

Character Assassination – Impact on Wife’s Rights – Maintenance Justified – Husband raised baseless allegations of infidelity against the wife, leading to her separation – Court held that such baseless character assassination violates the wife’s dignity and is a valid ground for living separately – Held: The wife’s refusal to live with the husband was justified, and her entitlement to maintenance remains unaffected [Para 4].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Maintenance Order – No Grounds Found – High Court declined to interfere with the Family Court’s order as it found no illegality or perversity in the findings – Held: Maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month upheld, and revision petition dismissed [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed. Maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month as directed by the Family Court is upheld.