Maintainability of Public Interest Petition – Parallel Civil Litigation – Petitioners filed a PIL alleging encroachment of a historic public road while disputes over the same subject were pending in civil courts – Decision: PIL dismissed as the matter pertains to private rights and cannot be entertained under public interest jurisdiction [Paras 15-17].

Public Interest Jurisdiction – Misuse for Private Disputes – Court emphasized that PIL jurisdiction is reserved for genuine public causes – Found that the petitioners, being defendants in civil suits over the disputed road, sought to circumvent the civil court proceedings – Decision: Petition dismissed for lack of bona fides and misuse of PIL mechanism [Paras 18-20].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Exclusive Domain over Private Disputes – Court reiterated that PIL cannot be used to challenge or interfere with civil court orders in private disputes – Decision: Relief sought to set aside interim civil court orders was declined, upholding separation of judicial domains [Paras 22-23].

Road Development Allegations – Lack of Evidence – Petitioners alleged non-development of a 100-year-old mud road and encroachment by a private respondent – Court found no substantive proof of public utility status or wrongful encroachment – Decision: Petitioners failed to substantiate claims, leading to dismissal [Paras 25-27].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, citing the pending civil suits and the lack of bona fide public interest. The Court declined all reliefs, including setting aside civil court orders or issuing directions for road development.

Domestic Violence – Maintenance to Divorced Wife – Applicability of PWDV Act – Applicant challenged the enhancement of maintenance awarded to his divorced wife under the PWDV Act – Contended that divorce dissolves the domestic relationship, negating claims under the Act – Held: As per Supreme Court rulings in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi and V. D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot, a divorced wife is entitled to reliefs under the PWDV Act for acts of domestic violence committed during the domestic relationship – Appeal dismissed, and maintenance upheld [Paras 8-13].

Definition of Domestic Relationship – Divorce Irrelevant to Past Violence – The PWDV Act protects divorced women for acts of violence occurring during the marriage – Court emphasized that the absence of a subsisting domestic relationship at the time of filing the application does not bar claims under Section 12 of the PWDV Act – Relief granted if the violence is linked to the period of domestic relationship [Paras 11-13].

Maintenance Enhancement – Validity of Order – Trial court awarded maintenance of ₹1,500/month, later enhanced to ₹3,000/month by appellate court – High Court upheld the enhancement, finding no perversity in the orders and affirming the divorced wife's entitlement to monetary relief under the PWDV Act [Paras 2, 14].

Legal Principles – Wider Scope of PWDV Act – Observations in Prabha Tyagi clarified that the Act provides comprehensive protection to women, including divorced wives, for violence occurring during the marriage – Supreme Court jurisprudence supports maintenance for acts of domestic violence irrespective of marital status at the time of filing [Paras 8-13].

Decision: Revision application dismissed – Maintenance of ₹3,000/month upheld – No interference warranted in the appellate court’s judgment [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law – Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC – Obligation of Husband – Petitioner sought maintenance for herself and her minor daughter, claiming marital relationship with Opposite Party No. 2 – Trial Court awarded ₹2,000 per month to both; Sessions Court denied maintenance to Petitioner but enhanced child’s maintenance to ₹3,000 – Held: Maintenance is a social obligation to prevent vagrancy and destitution – Maintenance granted to the wife and minor child upheld, recognizing her prima facie marital status and the legitimacy of the child [Paras 17-21, 23].

Marital Status – Prima Facie Proof of Marriage Sufficient – Strict proof of marriage not mandatory in Section 125 CrPC proceedings – A long period of cohabitation as husband and wife establishes a presumption of marriage – Declared by Civil Court that Petitioner is the lawful wife and the child is legitimate – Entitlement to maintenance confirmed unless stayed by appellate court [Paras 19-20].

Maintenance for Minor Child – Enhancement Valid – Sessions Judge enhanced maintenance for the child from ₹2,000 to ₹3,000 per month – No objections raised by either party – Enhancement affirmed, ensuring the child’s welfare [Para 21].

Execution of Maintenance – Non-Payment Consequences – Non-payment of maintenance makes Opposite Party liable to execution proceedings under CrPC – Petitioner permitted to execute defaulted payments as per law [Para 23].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned order denying maintenance to Petitioner set aside – Opposite Party No. 2 directed to pay ₹2,000 per month to Petitioner and ₹3,000 per month to the child as maintenance – Orders of Trial Court and enhancement by Sessions Court affirmed [Para 23].
 

Civil Writ - Caste Certificate Validation – Pre-constitutional Record Evaluation – Principle of Preponderance of Probabilities – Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe Validated - The petitioner contested the caste scrutiny committee’s rejection of his ‘Tokre Koli’ certificate, asserting that entries in pre-constitutional records describing his ancestors as ‘Koli Dhor’ should be accepted as consistent with the claim – The court noted substantial evidence, including historical and documentary records, establishing equivalence between ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ as both fall under the same entry in the Scheduled Tribes list – Held: The committee’s approach of treating ‘Koli Dhor’ entries as contrary to the claim was arbitrary and perverse – The petitioner’s claim was substantiated on the balance of probabilities, emphasizing that no additional advantage accrues by the interchangeable use of ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ [Paras 19-22].

Jurisprudential Consistency – Relevance of Supreme Court Decisions – Distinguishable Contexts Applied - Referring to the precedent in State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) and other cases, the court clarified that the principle disallowing reclassification of tribes by High Courts did not apply as both ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ are explicitly listed under the same entry – The committee’s refusal to validate based on pre-constitutional ‘Koli Dhor’ records was inconsistent with established principles [Paras 23-26].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Tribe Validity Certificate Directed - The High Court quashed the committee's decision and directed immediate issuance of a tribe validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to the ‘Tokre Koli’ Scheduled Tribe [Paras 27-30].

Pension Revision – UGC Pay Scale – Kerala Service Rules (Part III) – Respondents retired from Collegiate Education Department under UGC pay scale – Tribunal directed pension revision from 01/01/2006, citing Government Order stipulating pension calculation based on revised pay introduced retrospectively – Held: Pensioners entitled to revised pension from 01/01/2006 as per Kerala Service Rules and law laid down in U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka – Government’s postponement of benefits to 01/07/2009 held unjustified [Paras 7-9].

Policy Decisions – Judicial Interference – Contention that courts should not interfere in policy decisions rejected where statutory provisions and established law mandate specific benefits – Tribunal's direction upheld as it aligns with KSR provisions and Supreme Court rulings [Paras 10-12].

Retrospective Pay Revision – Consequential Pension Benefits – Once pay is revised retrospectively, pension must reflect the revised pay, irrespective of retirement date within the effective period – Delay in granting benefits contravenes established rules and principles of equity [Paras 8, 9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Tribunal’s order upheld – State directed to disburse revised pension and arrears within four weeks [Paras 13, 15].
 

Partition Suit – Joint Ownership and Title under Sale Deed – Plaintiffs sought partition of property purchased jointly with the deceased defendant – Trial and appellate courts found no evidence supporting the defendant's claim of sole ownership or payment of the entire sale consideration – Decision: Plaintiffs declared entitled to 2/3 shares of the property [Paras 17-19].

Adverse Possession – Burden of Proof under Section 27 of the Limitation Act – Defendant claimed adverse possession and exclusive ownership since 2002 – Court observed the defendant failed to establish the date possession became adverse or continuous possession without hindrance – Decision: Claim of adverse possession rejected, affirming plaintiffs’ joint possession rights [Paras 22-25].

Exclusion of Oral Evidence – Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act – Defendant contended that her father requested inclusion of plaintiffs’ names in the sale deed despite her paying the entire sale consideration – Held: Oral evidence contradicting terms of the registered sale deed was inadmissible – Decision: Defendant’s claim was dismissed [Paras 28-30].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Limits of Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC – Second appeal confined to substantial questions of law – The Court found no perverse or illegal findings in the lower courts’ judgments – Decision: Appeal dismissed, affirming partition decree [Paras 32-34].

Decision: The second appeal was dismissed. The decree and judgment of the Additional District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur, in A.S. No. 21 of 2020, and the Sub Court, Mettur, in O.S. No. 268 of 2015, were upheld.
 

Amendment of Recruitment Rules – Validity of Preliminary Notifications – Section 35 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 – Prescribed Qualifications for Appointments – Amended Rules Not Finalized – Petitioners Not Entitled to Relief – The Court held that a preliminary notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board in 2008 to amend recruitment qualifications for the posts of Thakil, Nadaswaram, and Panchavadyam was not followed by a final notification as required under Section 35 of the Act – In the absence of a final notification, the qualifications prescribed in the final notification of 2001 prevailed, which required completion of Class VIII and experience, and did not mandate certification from Kshethra Kalapeedom – Petitioners, relying on subsequent certificate verification lists, could not insist on appointments, as the certificate qualification was not legally enforceable [Paras 11-13, 15] – Decision: Relief denied.

Appointment Based on Lists – Legal Validity – Mandamus Cannot Be Issued Contrary to Law – Non-Prescribed Qualifications Cannot Confer a Legal Right to Appointment – The Court ruled that no mandamus could be issued to direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to appoint petitioners based on their placement in the certificate verification lists when the prescribed qualifications under law did not include certification from Kshethra Kalapeedom – Petitioners lacked a legal right to insist on appointments contrary to rules – Such directions would violate statutory provisions [Paras 15-16, 31] – Decision: Appointments rejected.

Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 – Effect of Recruitment Centralization – Post-2015 Appointments Governed by Recruitment Board – Board Alone Competent to Conduct Recruitment – After the enactment of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015, which came into force on 01/04/2014, the Devaswom Recruitment Board became the sole authority for recruitment to non-hereditary posts – The Travancore Devaswom Board lacked authority to appoint candidates directly based on its earlier lists – Petitioners’ reliance on pre-2014 processes was misplaced, and appointments could only occur through procedures prescribed by the Recruitment Board [Paras 20-22, 25] – Decision: Petition dismissed.

Age Relaxation – No Entitlement in Recruitment Process for Candidates Relied on Outdated Rules – Amendments in 2021 Apply Prospectively – The Court rejected petitioners’ plea for age relaxation in the recruitment process, holding that engagement on daily wages under interim orders conferred no vested right to appointment – Appointments to posts of Nadaswaram-cum-Watcher, Thakil-cum-Watcher, and similar roles would be governed by the Travancore Devaswom Board Officers' and Servants Rules, 2021 – Petitioners, being overaged, were not entitled to special consideration under the amended rules [Paras 29, 33] – Decision: No relief granted.

Judicial Precedents – Applicability of Old Rules to Prior Vacancies – Overruled Principle in Rajkumar Case (2023) – The Court held that the principle that vacancies arising prior to rule amendments must be governed by old rules (Y.V. Rangaiah v. Sreenivasa Rao) stood overruled by the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajkumar (2023) – Petitioners’ reliance on old rules to claim appointments was untenable, especially when no finalized amendments supported their qualifications [Paras 26-27] – Decision: Reliance on outdated rules rejected.
 

Bail in Money Laundering Cases – Section 45 of PMLA – Twin Conditions Evaluated - The Court considered whether the petitioner satisfied the conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for bail, including whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence if released. The petitioner was not arraigned as an accused in the predicate offence, raising questions about the prosecution’s case – Held: Petitioner satisfies the twin conditions; bail granted [Paras 14-15, 18-19].

Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Granted - The petitioner has been in custody since 10th March 2023, and the trial involves voluminous evidence with no likelihood of early conclusion. The Court emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Held: Continued detention amounts to pre-trial punishment; bail granted [Paras 22-28].

Restrictive Bail Provisions and Article 21 – Constitutional Balance - The Court observed that restrictive bail conditions under the PMLA cannot override the sacrosanct right to life and liberty under Article 21. A balance must be maintained between statutory provisions and constitutional guarantees – Held: Bail granted with stringent conditions to address apprehensions of witness tampering and flight risk [Paras 23-25].

Decision: The bail application is allowed.
 

Limitation - Condonation of Delay – Inordinate Delay – Application Rejected - The appellant sought condonation of a 4486-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to alleged professional misconduct by previous counsel and subsequent pursuit of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Court held that the appellant, a corporate entity, failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay or take action against the counsel for alleged misconduct. The explanation was found unsatisfactory, especially as the appellant neglected its duty of diligence in monitoring litigation – Held: Delay not condoned; application dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Section 14 Limitation Act – Lack of Good Faith – Benefit Denied - The appellant claimed exclusion of time spent in pursuing proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Court observed that the judgment under challenge was not ex parte, rendering the application misconceived. Further, the appellant failed to act with due diligence or in good faith, as required under Section 14 – Held: Time not excluded; appeal barred by limitation [Paras 9-10].

Professional Misconduct – No Action Taken – Explanation Unacceptable - The appellant alleged professional misconduct by its previous counsel but admitted to taking no action against the counsel. The Court noted that condoning the delay based on unsubstantiated allegations would unjustly condemn the counsel unheard, violating principles of justice – Held: Allegation rejected; delay not condoned [Paras 3-6].

Purpose of Limitation Law – Public Policy and Judicial Discipline – Court Reiterates Standards - The Court reiterated that laws of limitation are grounded in public policy, ensuring legal certainty and diligence. Unexplained delays and negligence undermine judicial discipline and fairness – Held: No interference with accrued rights of the respondents due to appellant’s inaction [Paras 7-8].

Decision: The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal (RFA 797/2024) and accompanying applications are dismissed as barred by limitation.