Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Right of Adult Children – Major Son Entitled till Majority Only – Major Daughter Not Covered – Petitioners sought enhancement of maintenance from their father – Family Court rejected claim citing their majority status – Held: As per Section 125 Cr.P.C., a child is entitled to maintenance only till majority unless physically or mentally disabled – Petitioner No.2 (son) was entitled to enhanced maintenance until attaining majority on 17.03.2020 – Petitioner No.1 (daughter) was major before filing the application and is not covered under Section 125 – Enhancement allowed only for son till majority [Paras 8-14, 18].

Section 20(3), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Maintenance to Unmarried Major Daughter – Remedy Available Under Personal Law – Although Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not allow maintenance to adult unmarried daughter, she may seek it under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Held: The dismissal under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not bar remedy under other statutory provisions [Paras 16-17, 21].

Moral Obligation of Father – No Recovery of Excess Maintenance – Welfare of Children Prioritized – Court noted that even if the father paid maintenance after children attained majority, he cannot recover or adjust the same – Held: Moral obligation of father and ongoing education of children outweigh technical legal restrictions – Refund of excess maintenance would adversely impact children's future [Paras 19-20].

Scope of Revision – Part Relief Granted – Maintenance Enhanced for Son till Attaining Majority – Family Court's decision partly modified – Petitioner No.2 (son) held entitled to maintenance at Rs. 8,000/month from 02.07.2018 till 17.03.2020 – Claim of petitioner No.1 (daughter) rejected under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but without prejudice to her rights under other laws [Paras 14, 18, 22].

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant accused of killing his wife by pressing her mouth; conviction primarily based on testimony of child witness (PW2) and complainant – Evidence riddled with contradictions; complainant not present at incident; FIR delayed; inquest report and immediate family gave no suspicion of foul play; recovery of pillow unsupported by forensic evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 10-17, 25].

Child Witness – Evidentiary Value – PW2 aged about 10–11 years claimed to witness assault – Testimony inconsistent, improbable, and contradicted by medical and post-mortem evidence – Supreme Court precedents (Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi); Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh) cited—Held: Child witness testimony requires corroboration and must inspire confidence; in present case, it did not [Paras 14, 22-24].

Defence Witness – Daughter of Deceased – Reliable – Defence produced DW1 (14-year-old daughter) who testified appellant was away caring for grandmother on night of incident; supported good relations between parents; cross-examination did not shake testimony – Trial court failed to consider her evidence – Held: Her version credible, raising doubt in prosecution case [Paras 18, 25].

Investigation – Lapses – IO ignored initial report by deceased’s son-in-law describing sudden death without suspicion; failed to examine material witnesses; site plan inconsistencies – Held: Investigation deficient, undermining prosecution case [Paras 11, 19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 27.09.2013 in S.T. No.19/2012 set aside; appellant acquitted of charge under Section 302 IPC [Paras 25-26].

Criminal Law – Cheque Bounce - Power of Attorney – Locus Standi and Knowledge of Transaction – Section 138 of NIA – Complaint Filed by Power of Attorney Holder – Not Maintainable - The complainant’s Power of Attorney Holder neither witnessed the transaction nor had sufficient knowledge of the facts as required under law – The Supreme Court mandates specific assertions about the POA holder’s knowledge in the complaint and evidence – Held: The complaint and evidence did not meet the legal threshold; hence, POA holder's testimony was insufficient [Paras 13-16, 25].

Legally Enforceable Debt – Presumption Not Rebutted – Insufficient Proof – Dishonour of Cheque – Complainant Failed to Prove Debt – No Documentary Evidence – The applicant failed to establish that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt – No agreement to sale or transaction document was produced – Held: In absence of such documents, presumption under Section 139 stands rebutted, and Section 138 is not attracted [Paras 17-23].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probability – Accused Not Required to Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Held: Accused can rebut presumption under Section 139 of NIA through cross-examination and circumstantial evidence – Burden discharged adequately [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – Acquittal Upheld – The Appellate Court’s finding that there was no legal and enforceable liability was correct – No illegality or perversity found in judgment – Revision dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 25-26].

Declaration, Possession And Injunction - Benami – Fiduciary Capacity Exception – Sections 4(1) & 4(3)(b) of the 1988 Act – Exception Not Attracted – Appellant (niece) claimed that her paternal uncle held the allotted/leased/sold house benami for her benefit because she funded part of the price and reposed trust – Held: Mere relationship and past financial dealings do not establish a fiduciary capacity; the parties lived separately, the uncle was financially independent, in possession, and obtained lease/sale deed in his own name; exception under Section 4(3) not made out [Paras 35-39].

Benami – Tests & Burden – Six Indicia Reiterated – Appeal Evaluated on Source of Funds, Possession, Motive, Relationship, Custody of Title, Conduct – Appellant contributed ≈25% (₹8.45 lakhs) while respondent paid the balance (≈₹25 lakhs); respondent remained in possession; no credible motive for benami made out; custody of title with respondent; conduct consistent with respondent’s ownership – Held: Transaction not benami; plaintiff failed to discharge strict burden [Paras 29-30, 38-39].

Civil Procedure – First Appeal under Section 96 CPC – Scope – Reappreciation of evidence leads to same conclusion as trial court – Trial court’s partial decree for refund with interest upheld; no illegality in rejecting declaration/possession claims [Paras 39-40].

Relief – Money Claim – Interest – Refund of ₹8,46,865/- with interest @6% p.a. from dates of payment till realization – Trial court’s direction affirmed; parties to bear their own costs [Paras 39-43].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 06.04.2013 affirmed; interim order vacated; office to prepare decree [Paras 40-44].

Service Law – ACR/APAR – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Writ Court not Appellate Over Tribunal – Where the Competent Authority gives reasoned orders on each adverse entry after examining records and partially expunges where warranted, Tribunal’s refusal to re-appraise is not perverse – High Court affirms that grading and personality-assessment are matters of subjective satisfaction, ordinarily immune from interference absent perversity or procedural illegality [Paras 18-21].

CCS (Conduct) Rules – Rule 3(2)(ii) “Best Judgment” – Officer’s Duty to Act Judiciously vis-à-vis Superiors’ Directions – “Best judgment” does not license an officer to sit in judgment over or defy lawful directions – Tribunal’s construction upheld as a plausible view in writ jurisdiction – Mere disagreement with policy/implementation cannot sanitize adverse entries when targets remain unachieved and record shows non-cooperation [Paras 15-16, 19-20].

Adverse Remarks – Communication and Representation – AIS (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 r.8 & r.10 – DoPT OMs (20/05/1972; 14/05/2009; 23/07/2009) – Procedural Compliance – Representations considered through detailed, reasoned orders; some pejorative phrases expunged while core remarks retained – Such calibrated consideration satisfies r.10 and administrative instructions; no ground to quash surviving entries [Paras 17-19].

Post-Retirement Challenge – Consequential Relief – Petitions filed after superannuation without specific consequential claims – Government’s contention that dispute is academic noted – Court decides on merits but finds no case for interference – Reliefs held inconsequential in the absence of demonstrated legal infirmity in the process or perversity on the face of the record [Paras 11, 20-22].

Connected Matters – Mixed Outcomes Before CAT – In OA 436/2014 the Tribunal directed consideration for deletion of the observation “prone to commit financial irregularities”; others dismissed – High Court, addressing the common challenge by the Petitioner for fuller expunction, declines to expand relief and maintains the Tribunal’s calibrated orders [Paras 5, 20-22].

Decision – Original Petitions Dismissed – CAT’s view sustained; no perversity or procedural violation shown – Appreciation recorded for amicus curiae [Paras 21-23].

Tenancy Law - Civil Revision – Eviction Orders under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Sham Sale Transaction – Revisions Allowed – The petitioners-tenants challenged concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on grounds of bona fide requirement and ceased occupation under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and Section 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 – Authorities below accepted the landlord’s title on basis of registered sale deed – High Court held that the transfer of property in favour of the landlady was a sham transaction devised to procure eviction, evidenced by intra-family conveyance, contradictory testimony, and inconsistent consideration – Findings of bona fide requirement and ceased occupation based on misreading and ignoring crucial evidence – Held: Eviction orders unsustainable – Revisions allowed and appellate orders set aside [Paras 8, 12–17].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – Interference when findings are perverse/misread – Applied – The Court reiterated that while revisional power does not permit re-appreciation of evidence as in appeal, interference is warranted where findings are perverse, based on misreading, or lead to miscarriage of justice – Relying on Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the Court examined whether the authorities below misread crucial evidence and concluded that they did, justifying interference [Paras 11–12].

Landlord–Tenant Relationship – Attornment on Transfer – Title enquiry in rent proceedings – Exception for apparent fraud/sham – Though a registered sale deed generally suffices to establish landlordship and attornment follows transfer, the Court held that, on the peculiar facts (intra-family transfers, earlier NRI proceedings, immediate re-transfer, and inconsistent testimony), the sale in favour of the landlady was a sham devised to procure eviction – Authorities below erred in treating the sale as unimpeachable without engaging with the broader context and record [Paras 12.2, 14–16].

NRI Eviction Proceedings – Earlier petitions withdrawn – Res judicata – Not a bar to fresh cause – Contextual relevance – The earlier NRI petitions withdrawn after leave to defend did not operate as res judicata; however, their sequence (transfer to NRI relative to invoke special provisions, withdrawal upon challenge, followed by reconveyance and fresh eviction plea) was material context evidencing a contrived scheme, which the authorities below failed to weigh [Paras 13, 14.1–14.3].

Evidence – Cross-Examination and Documentary Inconsistencies – Sale consideration timing (cheque dated 06.12.2016) vis-à-vis sale deed (12.12.2017) – Non-negotiation of price – Ignorance of market rate/ownership change – Cash vs cheque contradictions – Cumulative effect – The landlady’s evidence revealed material inconsistencies suggesting lack of genuine consideration and awareness—indicative of a colourable device; authorities’ omission to grapple with these contradictions amounted to misreading of evidence [Paras 15.1–16.2].

Eviction Grounds – Bona fide Requirement & Ceased Occupation – Concurrent findings set aside – Since the foundational premise (genuineness of landlord’s title and bona fides) was vitiated by misreading and perversity, the resultant eviction orders on bona fide requirement and ceased occupation could not stand – Revisions allowed; impugned appellate orders set aside [Paras 8, 16.3–17].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder and Unlawful Assembly – Partly Allowed – Trial Court convicted both appellants under Sections 302, 149, 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – Appellant Kamakhya Singh’s conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC upheld based on direct evidence and credible eyewitness testimony – Conviction of Binod Singh under Section 302/149 IPC set aside due to lack of proof of unlawful assembly or shared common object – However, Binod Singh convicted under Section 307 IPC for causing gunshot injury – Sentences modified accordingly – Trial Court’s reliance on related witnesses upheld – Appeal disposed of with directions for surrender [Paras 1, 78-85].

Criminal Trial – Murder – Credibility of Related Witnesses – Conviction Upheld in Part – Prosecution’s witnesses were close relatives and three were injured in the incident – Court held that relatedness alone does not undermine credibility when testimony is consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and withstands cross-examination – Presence at crime scene proved – Kamakhya Singh’s conviction sustained on this basis [Paras 32-36, 64-70].

Unlawful Assembly – Conviction Under Section 149 IPC – Set Aside – Trial Court’s finding that accused acted in furtherance of common object not supported by evidence – No proof of assembly of five or more with shared common object – Omnibus allegations against unidentified persons insufficient – Binod Singh’s conviction under Section 302/149 IPC set aside – Also Section 148 IPC not attracted [Paras 37-52].

Injured Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Affirmed – Eyewitnesses Baleshwar, Umesh, and Dharmendra were also victims of gunshot injuries – Court emphasized high value of testimony of injured witnesses – Medical evidence supported injuries – Their version remained unshaken under cross-examination [Paras 33-36, 64-70].

Identification of Accused – Source of Light – Objection Overruled – Although lanterns were not seized by the Investigating Officer, witnesses consistently stated they identified accused in lantern light – Court accepted explanation, noting accused were known residents of the village – Held: Identification reliable – No prejudice caused by minor investigative lapses [Paras 76-77].

Defective Investigation – Impact – No Benefit to Accused – Though the investigation was perfunctory and lacked sketch map, independent witnesses, or seizure of lighting source, court held that lapses did not affect prosecution case where eyewitness testimony was consistent, credible, and corroborated – Conviction based on substantive evidence upheld [Paras 60-61].

Vicarious Liability – Constructive Liability Under Section 149 IPC – Not Established – Court reiterated legal standards for invoking Section 149 IPC – Mere presence in a group with arms not enough without clear proof of common object – Prosecution failed to prove that those standing outside shared intent – Hence, constructive liability under Section 149 IPC not attracted [Paras 38-52].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration of Ocular Testimony – Strengthened Prosecution Case – Post-mortem and injury reports confirmed firearm injuries sustained by deceased and injured victims – Though one Medical Officer was not examined, his report was accepted without dispute – Court found consistency between medical records and witness statements [Paras 70-75].

Decision: Modification of Conviction and Sentence – Kamakhya Singh’s life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC upheld – Binod Singh’s conviction under Section 302/149 IPC reversed – He was convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to 7 years RI with fine – Court directed set-off for time already served and ordered surrender [Paras 78-85].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Stay Pending Application to Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree – Article 227 – Order 21 Rule 26 CPC – Executing Court’s refusal upheld – Court reiterated that ex-parte decree remains valid and enforceable until set aside – Application for stay must be made before the Court where proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 are pending – Executing Court correctly declined stay [Paras 3-5].

Scope of Order 21 Rule 26 CPC – Limited Jurisdiction – Executing Court may stay execution for reasonable time to enable judgment-debtor to approach Court passing decree or appellate Court – Where JD instead filed stay before Executing Court itself, rejection proper – No irregular exercise of jurisdiction [Para 5].

Relief in Interest of Justice – Protective Interim Order – Though dismissal upheld, High Court granted protective stay of one week to enable petitioner to move application for stay in pending Order 9 Rule 13 proceedings – Directed expeditious disposal of such application within 15 days – Execution stayed till decision of such application [Para 5].

Decision – Civil Revision dismissed with observations – Executing Court’s order sustained – Interim protection granted to petitioner for one week, extendable till decision on stay application in main proceedings [Paras 5-6].

NDPS – Possession of 20 kg Poppy Husk – Section 15 NDPS Act – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Appellant convicted for intermediate quantity – No minimum punishment prescribed – Trial Court imposed 1½ years RI – High Court considered that appellant already served 4 months, faced trial for 14 years, not involved in other cases, and has since lived peacefully – Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 10,000 – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 6, 9-11].

Sentencing – Discretion and Proportionality – Awarding of sentence not a formality – Courts must balance deterrence with reformation and proportionality – Reliance placed on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 and Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P., AIR 2017 SC 1166 – Punishment should suit crime and offender; undue harshness avoided [Paras 7-8].

Right to Speedy Trial – Delay in Proceedings – Occurrence in 2011, conviction in 2012, appeal decided in 2025 – Prolonged pendency and mental agony considered as mitigating factor – Sentence reduced accordingly [Paras 6, 10].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction maintained – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000 payable within one month, default leading to one month RI – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 11-12].