Divorce – Cruelty – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Wife alleged persistent dowry demands, misappropriation of jewellery, repeated assaults including a violent incident on 08.03.2013, and continuous humiliation – Evidence of wife and her father supported allegations – Respondent did not produce any witness or document – Held: Conduct caused grave mental agony and fear of harm, satisfying test of cruelty – Marriage became unworkable – Decree of divorce justified [Paras 3–8, 13–18].

Cruelty – Judicial Principles – Supreme Court in Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narain Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534, held cruelty must be judged by effect on aggrieved spouse and not by reasonable man standard – Applied herein to hold appellant’s consistent testimony established cruelty – Cited Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, which provided illustrative instances of mental cruelty like long separation, humiliation, sustained neglect – Court found appellant’s situation fell within these parameters [Paras 14–16].

Divorce – Desertion – Section 13(1)(ib), Hindu Marriage Act – Wife living apart since 10.03.2013 after being assaulted and thrown out – Respondent made no genuine effort to resume cohabitation – Belated restitution petition filed after two years but dismissed for non-prosecution – Continuous separation beyond two years proved intention to end matrimonial relationship – Ground of desertion established [Paras 19–22].

Mental Cruelty – Long Separation – Court observed couple lived apart for nearly 12 years; bond irretrievably broken; marriage had become a legal fiction – Insistence on continuation would cause greater misery – Thus, long separation itself constituted mental cruelty as per Samar Ghosh principles [Paras 17, 22].

Procedural Aspect – Respondent though served notice in High Court proceedings chose not to appear despite repeated opportunities – No cross-examination of appellant’s witnesses or contrary evidence – Unrebutted testimony of appellant-wife accepted as truthful – Family Court’s dismissal set aside [Paras 10–11, 20–21].

Relief – Divorce granted solely on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Appellant-wife limited prayer to dissolution of marriage – Liberty reserved to seek permanent alimony separately before appropriate forum [Paras 23–24].

Disposition – Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of Family Court dated 11.09.2018 set aside – Marriage between parties dissolved by decree of divorce – Registry directed to prepare decree accordingly [Paras 23–26].

Consumer Protection — Locus of “Complainant” — Brother filing on behalf of widow/children — Mother (Class-I heir) already co-petitioner — Liberal construction of welfare statute — Complaint maintainable — Petition under Article 227 dismissed; NCDRC requested to expedite final disposal [Paras 1, 8-18, 20-31, 32].

Consumer Protection — “Complainant” — Section 2(1)(b)(v) — Who can maintain complaint – In case of death of consumer, complaint may be instituted by “legal heir or representative” – Brother who initially described himself as trustee for widow/children is neither a stranger nor rank outsider – NCDRC had earlier recognized his standing; mother of deceased (a Class-I heir) was impleaded as co-petitioner, which relates back to institution – Held: Complaint maintainable and locus sustained [Paras 6-7, 12-15, 17-19, 23-31].

Succession — Class-I vs Class-II heirs — Relevance under Consumer Protection Act – The Act does not distinguish between Class-I and Class-II heirs; terms “legal heir” and “representative” are undefined and must not receive a rigid meaning – Even assuming strict succession principles, impleadment of mother (Class-I heir) cures objection; order attained finality [Paras 14, 29-31].

Procedural Law — Impleadment of legal representatives — Effect of Supreme Court order dated 26.04.2019 – SC directed heirs/legal representatives to implead themselves as co-petitioners within six weeks, with liberty to the opposite party to question locus if they declined – Non-service on widow/daughters did not imply resistance; repeated objections treated as dilatory [Paras 20-22, 27].

Consumer Law — Welfare legislation — Liberal construction – Consumer Protection Act being a welfare statute warrants liberal interpretation to avoid remedilessness for victim’s family; complaint can be filed by a family member; reliance placed on Spring Meadows Hospitals v. Harjol Ahluwalia (AIR 1998 SC 1801) [Paras 28-29].

Practice & Procedure — Final directions – Petition devoid of merit and dismissed; NCDRC requested to expedite disposal at final argument stage; memo of parties to conform to Supreme Court directions [Paras 31-33].

Murder of SI during patrol – Common intention – Section 34 IPC not attracted as appellant apprehended before firing – No recovery/no overt act – SC/ST Act s.3(2)(v) and Arms Act s.27 not made out – Entire conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted and released [Paras 39–42].

Criminal Law – Common intention – Section 34 IPC – Appellant apprehended before firing – Common intention not attracted – Evidence showed appellant was caught by police before co-accused opened fire – Use of weapons by others occurred after appellant had been separated upon arrest – Held: Section 34 IPC not attracted against appellant [Paras 39–41].

SC/ST Act – Section 3(2)(v) – Abuse by caste name not attributable to appellant – No ingredients made out – Where abusive words and firing were by others after appellant’s apprehension and no overt act by appellant is established, offence under Section 3(2)(v) not made out – Held accordingly [Para 40].

Arms Act – Section 27 – Non-recovery of weapon from appellant – No evidence of use/possession – Ingredients not satisfied – Conviction under Section 27 unsustainable [Para 40].

Assault on public servant – IPC Sections 353/334/332 – No overt act by appellant – Appellant in custody at time of firing – Ingredients not met – Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 40–41].

Evidence – FIR vis-à-vis deposition – Sections 145 & 157, Evidence Act – Prior statements can be used for contradiction/corroboration where attention drawn in cross-examination – Court rejected contention that there was no confrontation with FIR statements, finding compliance with Sections 145/157 on facts [Paras 36–38, 32].

Medical Evidence – Post-mortem – Firearm injury to nose/cranial cavity – Cause of death: haemorrhagic shock – Medical opinion consistent with ocular account of shooting by others – Does not connect appellant absent common intention/overt act [Paras 15–16].

Disposition – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 41–42].

Partition Suit – Maintainability – Hindu Law – Son cannot sue for partition during lifetime of father-Karta without his consent – Principles laid down in Sitara Lal, Hari Kishen and Satish Narain reaffirmed – Suit filed by plaintiff-son against father-Karta held not maintainable [Paras 9-10].

Cause of Action – Bald pleadings – No particulars of ancestral property or joint family nucleus alleged – Mere assertion of HUF existence insufficient – Plaint lacking material facts discloses no cause of action – Trial court erred in rejecting O.7 R.11 CPC application [Paras 11-12].

Court Fee – Ad Valorem Liability – Plaintiff admitted non-possession of properties – Claim of 1/3rd share without joint possession attracts ad valorem court fee on market value of share claimed – Supreme Court ruling in Kinny Kapur v. Gunveer Kapur applied – Trial court erred in deferring issue [Para 13].

Benami Transactions Act – Defence plea that properties purchased in names of other family members hit by prohibition – Strengthens requirement for plaintiff to specifically plead source of HUF funds – Absence of particulars fatal to plaint [Paras 2.1, 3].

Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Sufficiency of pleadings and valuation are threshold issues; cannot be deferred – Trial court’s approach contrary to settled law [Para 14].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 10.02.2023 set aside – Matter remitted to trial court for fresh decision on O.7 R.11 CPC application in light of findings – [Paras 15-16].

Eviction – Bona fide Requirement – Section 14(3), HP Urban Rent Control Act – Landlord entitled to choose premises suited to his condition – Subsequent availability of other flats did not defeat requirement – Eviction decree restored [Paras 14-18, 22-24].

Landlord’s Bona Fide Need – Petition filed in 2013 on ground of retirement and absence of accommodation at Dharamshala – Requirement established at trial; Rent Controller decreed eviction – Appellate Authority erred in doubting bona fides merely because other sets in same building became vacant during proceedings – Held, bona fide need must exist at institution and continue till final adjudication, but landlord’s age, convenience and road-level suitability of demised premises justified preference [Paras 12-14, 19-21].

Subsequent Events – Applied principle in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 SC 1711 – Requirement must subsist till appellate stage – However, subsequent vacancies did not nullify landlord’s specific need for road-level flat suited to his old age – Tenant cannot dictate choice of premises [Paras 14-17, 21].

Supreme Court Guidance – Followed Kanhaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan, SLP(C) 21965/2022, decided 25.02.2025 – Landlord is best judge of which premises satisfies his need – Tenant cannot question landlord’s selection [Para 20].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition allowed – Judgment dated 29.05.2023 of Appellate Authority-II, Kangra set aside – Eviction order dated 22.02.2023 of Rent Controller-I, Kangra affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 22-24].

Court Fees — Declaratory suit with injunctions relating to property — Injunction relief not independent of declaration — Market value basis applicable — Petition dismissed; impugned order upheld [Paras 2.1–2.4, 5-7].

Court Fees — Declaratory relief vs Cancellation — Distinction clarified — As per Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh (SC), executant must seek cancellation with ad valorem fee; non-executant in possession can pay fixed fee for declaration — However, if not in possession and consequential relief sought, ad valorem fee applies — Here, petitioner not in possession of yellow-marked portion, injunctions sought were consequential — Ad valorem valuation necessary [Paras 4-6].

Possession — Relevance for court fees — Petitioner not in possession of disputed portion used by respondents for ingress/egress — Separate gates and wall demarcation shown in site plan and photos — Hence consequential injunction relief flows from declaration — Market value valuation justified [Paras 5-6].

Valuation of plaint — No distinction between challenge to a clause or entire instrument — Declaration of nullity of Clause 22 of Sale Deed would affect entire deed with impact on property — Correct valuation must be at market value of subject property on date of suit [Para 6].

Decision — Impugned order valid — Petition dismissed — Plaintiff must value suit at market value and pay ad valorem court fees as per Court Fees Act and Delhi High Court Rules [Para 7].

Cognizance – Closure report – Magistrate relying on complainant’s statement and affidavit – Error in law – Matter should have been treated as complaint under s.190(1)(a) CrPC – Impugned order set aside; liberty to proceed under Chapter XV CrPC [Paras 12-16, 23-24].

Cognizance – Scope of Magistrate’s power – Magistrate not bound by investigating officer’s conclusion; may accept closure, order further investigation, or disagree and take cognizance under s.190(1)(b) – However, if relying on complainant’s evidence, must treat case as complaint under Chapter XV CrPC [Paras 12-14, 20-22].

Protest Petition – Nature – Judicially evolved concept; though not in CrPC, recognized by courts to safeguard victim’s participation – May be treated as complaint only if it satisfies s.2(d) CrPC and procedure under ss.200, 202 followed – Every protest petition need not be treated as complaint [Paras 18-21].

Trial Court Error – Magistrate misdirected in law by taking cognizance under s.190(1)(b) while relying on affidavit and statement of complainant – Proper course was to proceed as private complaint under Chapter XV – Impugned order set aside [Paras 23-24].

Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 – S. 20-B – allottee-tenant’s full sale-price deposit (1973); Settlement Officer’s objections merely technical; prolonged State inaction – estoppel – Civil Court jurisdiction available – proprietary rights & injunction affirmed; RSAs 2581/4164/4193/4194 of 1999 dismissed with costs.

Declaration of ownership and injunction against dispossession - Land Tenure – Section 20-B, Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act – Vesting of Ownership Rights – Plaintiffs allotted surplus land in 1963 as tenants, deposited full sale consideration in 1973 under Tehsildar’s order – Settlement Officer raised only technical objections (uncertified girdawari, missing lease file) but no action taken for decades – Held: Proprietary rights vested upon deposit of price; officials’ negligence cannot defeat substantive rights – Plaintiffs declared owners in possession, revenue entries corrected, injunction granted [Paras 4-7].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Bar under Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act – State contended bar of jurisdiction – Held: Where valuable civil rights are threatened due to inaction of authorities, Civil Court jurisdiction is not ousted – Plaintiffs entitled to seek declaration and injunction against State [Paras 5, 10].

Estoppel – State’s Silence – Nearly two decades of inaction after full payment – State never demanded batai nor rectified technical defects – Held: State estopped from denying ownership to plaintiffs – Conduct indicated recognition of proprietary rights [Paras 6, 10].

Appellate Practice – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court decreed declaration and injunction, First Appellate Court affirmed – High Court found no legal infirmity in concurrent findings – Regular Second Appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 8, 11].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Plaintiffs declared owners in possession; State restrained from interference; sale certificate to issue – All four appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 10-11].

Proclaimed Person – Quashment – BNSS S.528; CrPC S.82(2); NI Act S.138 – Non-service at correct address; cumulative compliance under S.82(2) mandatory – Proclamation dated 21-09-2023 quashed conditionally (surrender by 30-09-2025; Rs 10,000 costs; bail on bonds) – Petition allowed; non-compliance to entail dismissal.

Proclaimed Person—Quashment—Section 528 BNSS, Section 82(2) CrPC, Section 138 NI Act—Proclamation set aside subject to surrender and costs—Non-service due to incorrect address; mandatory cumulative compliance with Section 82(2) CrPC emphasized; petitioner ready to join—Held: Impugned proclamation order quashed subject to surrender by 30.09.2025 and payment of Rs.10,000; bail on bonds and conditions; failure to comply: petition deemed dismissed [Paras 5, 7-9].

Service of Process—Incorrect Address—Zimni orders—Proclaimed Person—Where the complainant did not furnish the correct address and the accused had shifted residence, non-appearance not wilful or deliberate—Process (summons/bailable warrants/warrants) not received; declaration as proclaimed person unsustainable—Quashment warranted to secure presence and expedite trial [Paras 2-3, 6-8].

Criminal Procedure—Section 82(2) CrPC—Mandatory Cumulative Compliance—Court reiterates that the steps under Section 82(2) CrPC must be complied with cumulatively, not alternatively; failure vitiates proclamation proceedings—Reliance placed on Gurbir Singh Mundi v. State of Punjab (P&H, 16.12.2021) [Para 5].

Purpose of Proclamation—Securing Presence, Not Punishment—Objective is to compel appearance and advance adjudication; where the accused shows readiness to join and reasons for absence are justified, setting aside proclamation with conditions furthers the ends of justice [Paras 6-8].

Conditional Relief—Surrender, Costs, Bail & Undertakings—Proclamation order dated 21.09.2023 set aside subject to surrender by 30.09.2025; costs of Rs.10,000 to complainant (R-2); on furnishing bail/surety bonds, release on bail; undertake to appear on all dates; not to leave India without leave; trial court free to impose additional conditions—Non-compliance results in petition being deemed dismissed [Para 8-9].

Decision: Petition allowed; proclamation order dated 21.09.2023 quashed subject to conditions—Surrender by 30.09.2025; pay Rs.10,000 costs to R-2; bail on bonds; affidavit undertaking to appear; do not leave country without permission; trial court may impose further conditions; non-adherence will deem petition dismissed [Paras 8-9].