Matrimonial Law - Maintenance to Wife – Refusal Based on Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Decree Not Sufficient by Itself – The Family Court denied maintenance to the wife solely on the ground of her non-compliance with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Held: As per Apex Court precedent, mere existence of such decree is not sufficient to disentitle a wife from maintenance – The husband must further establish that wife left without sufficient reason – Failure to consider this led to legal error in the order [Paras 3–4].

Maintenance to Daughter – Inadequate Reasoning for Quantum – Family Court awarded Rs. 2000/month till 06.05.2024 and Rs. 5000/month thereafter to the minor daughter – Held: Trial Court failed to assign reasons or consider father’s income and lifestyle to justify the quantum – Order suffers illegality on this count – Matter remitted for fresh decision [Para 6].

Conflicting Pleas – Incongruity Between Seeking Restitution and Divorce – Husband had sought divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act while simultaneously citing wife’s refusal to comply with decree of restitution – Held: This contradiction casts doubt on husband’s case and should have been considered in evaluating sufficiency of wife’s cause to live separately [Para 5].

Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside – Interim Maintenance Directed – The impugned order of the Family Court is set aside – Matter remanded for fresh disposal within 3 months – Meanwhile, interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/month each to wife and daughter directed from 01.04.2025, to be adjusted in final award [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Law – Right to Fair Trial – Closure of Cross-Examination Opportunity – Reopening Allowed – The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order dated 19.02.2025 that denied adjournment and closed his right to cross-examine the Investigating Officer (IO), citing absence of senior counsel – The High Court held that fair trial includes the right to adequately cross-examine material prosecution witnesses – It was observed that the accused’s counsel had only sought a single adjournment and that denial at the first opportunity was harsh and improper – Held: The trial court’s order was set aside and the accused was granted one final opportunity to cross-examine the IO, subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- for re-summoning the witness [Paras 5–7].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction of Court under Section 34 – Statutory Arbitration under NH Act – Shivpuri Court's Jurisdiction Upheld – The appellant contended that only Gwalior courts had jurisdiction as the Arbitrator (Divisional Commissioner) was located there – The High Court held that in statutory arbitrations without an agreement designating a "seat", venue alone does not determine jurisdiction – Since part of the cause of action arose in Shivpuri and the first application was filed there, jurisdiction was proper under Section 42 of the Arbitration Act – Gwalior was only a convenient venue [Paras 25–32].

Land Acquisition – RFCTLARR Act Applicability to NH Act Arbitrations – Award Set Aside – Remanded to Arbitrator – The Court held that compensation must be determined with reference to Sections 26–28 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 even in National Highways Act proceedings – Failure to do so made the arbitral award unsustainable under Section 34 for being contrary to public policy – Held: Award set aside and matter remanded to the Arbitrator for fresh determination as per applicable legal framework [Paras 33–40].

Criminal Law – Regular Bail - Foreign National – Allegation of Illegal Entry – Confession to Police – Accused arrested on suspicion of being a Bangladeshi national without valid documents—Prosecution relied on alleged oral confession—Held: Confession before police inadmissible; prosecution case based only on alleged statement unsupported by valid documentary proof [Paras 2–5].

Constitutional Law – Violation of Articles 21 and 22 – Delayed Production Before Magistrate – Applicant arrested at 12:30 PM on 28.01.2025 and produced before Magistrate at 4:30 PM on 29.01.2025—Held: Custody beyond 24 hours without remand order violates Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC—Arrest prima facie vitiated; Court has duty to intervene [Paras 5.1–7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Supreme Court Precedents – Duty of Court to Enforce Fundamental Rights – Court followed Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240—Held: When fundamental rights are breached, bail must be granted irrespective of whether the plea was raised during remand—Division Bench ruling in Karan Ratan Rokade not applicable due to factual differences [Paras 5.3–6].

Proof of Nationality – Existence of Indian Identity Documents – Applicant relied on Aadhar, PAN, Ration Card, Voter ID, marriage certificate, and Gram Panchayat certificate to show long-term residence in India—Held: Documents raise triable issue; bail appropriate as prosecution must prove case during trial [Paras 5, 9].

Decision – Bail granted – Applicant to be released on ₹5,000 P.R. bond with two sureties – Provisional cash bail allowed – Conditions imposed including regular court attendance, no tampering with evidence, and restriction on travel outside Maharashtra – Order limited to bail, not merits [Paras 10–12].

 Service Law - Termination of Employee – Transfer Order and Non-Compliance – Justification Required – The employee challenged his transfer and did not join at the transferred location, leading to termination – Tribunal held the termination illegal for lack of inquiry – Held: Non-compliance with the transfer order cannot justify dismissal without conducting a domestic inquiry – Tribunal’s order sustained [Paras 2-7, 15-19].

Industrial Dispute – Domestic Inquiry Requirement – Employer Must Prove Misconduct – The appellant company failed to conduct or rely on any domestic inquiry before termination – Tribunal rightly held that stigmatic termination without opportunity violates natural justice – Held: Termination was rightly declared invalid due to absence of inquiry [Paras 10-12, 18].

Judicial Review – Limited Interference in Industrial Awards – No Perversity – The Single Judge declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s award, finding no legal infirmity – Appeal court reiterated settled law that appellate courts cannot reassess sufficiency of evidence – Held: No perversity or illegality in Tribunal’s findings – Writ Appeal dismissed [Paras 17, 19-20].

Equity and Statutory Compliance – Failure to Justify Termination – The appellant company did not utilize its right to justify termination by leading evidence before the Tribunal – Held: The company's inaction disentitles it from relief – procedural safeguards under Section 2A ID Act must be observed [Paras 11, 15-16].

Final Decision – Writ Appeal Dismissed – Tribunal’s Order Upheld – The Court upheld the Tribunal’s directive to reinstate the employee without back wages and dismissed the company’s writ appeal – No costs imposed [Para 20].

Civil Law - Ex Parte Decree – Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Improper Service Alleged – Rejected – Petitioner challenged the ex parte decree passed in 2014 on grounds of improper service, asserting erroneous address and irregular Munadi – Held: Address used matched that in earlier sale documents signed by petitioner; service through Munadi was legally ordered after satisfaction of the court regarding evasion – No merit in petitioner’s claim of improper service or procedural fault [Paras 7–11].

Delay in Filing – Absence of Disclosure of Knowledge Date – Presumption of Knowledge Established – Application to set aside ex parte decree filed in 2018 without specifying when or how petitioner gained knowledge of the decree passed in 2014 – Held: The unexplained four-year delay, combined with evidence of petitioner's prior awareness and procedural compliance, justified rejection of the application [Para 12].

Misuse of Legal Process – Abuse of Order 9 Rule 13 to Delay Execution – Court observed widespread misuse of Order 9 Rule 13 by defendants in specific performance suits to stall execution proceedings – Held: Petitioner’s conduct reflects such abuse and amounts to misuse of process causing judicial delay – No interference warranted [Para 9, 12].

Service on Female Member – Not Fatal in Present Case – Though service on adult female member may not meet procedural standards post amendment to Order 15 Rule 5 CPC – Held: Petitioner had independently appeared in execution proceedings and had been validly served through other means – The judgment in Sanjeev Kumar v. Vinod Kumar Mahajan inapplicable in facts [Para 13].

Decision: Revision Petition – Dismissed – Orders of Trial and Appellate Courts Affirmed – The Court found no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings dismissing the petitioner’s application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Revision petition found meritless and dismissed accordingly [Paras 14–15].

Tenancy Law - Thika Tenancy – Interpretation of Documentary Evidence – Declaration of Thika Tenancy Upheld – The plaintiffs claimed rights as thika tenants over a property comprising 21 rooms based on tenancy of their predecessor Khalil Choudhury – Defendants claimed ownership by purchase deeds and will – Trial Court dismissed suit holding Khalil was not a thika tenant – First Appellate Court reversed the finding, holding Khalil’s name appeared in rent receipts and his possession of 8 rooms indicated tenancy – Held: Appellate Court’s view reasonable, supported by documents and not perverse – Declaration of thika tenancy affirmed [Paras 6, 16–18, 23].

Ownership vs. Tenancy Rights – Simultaneous Vesting Not Permissible – Appellants contended that claim of thika tenancy and ownership could not coexist – Held: Even if ownership by purchase was assumed, in absence of surrender, the thika tenancy rights of Khalil subsist under new landlord – Rights are independent and subsisting unless relinquished [Para 22].

Jurisdiction – Civil Court Competence – Thika Tenancy Disputes Prior to 2010 Amendment – Objection to jurisdiction raised citing amendment to 2001 Act – Held: Since suit filed in 1978, prior to 2010 amendment, civil court was competent to decide thika tenancy rights – Amendment not retrospective – Jurisdiction upheld [Paras 25–26].

Inheritance under Mohammedan Law – Rights of Grandchildren – Respondents claimed ownership under inheritance as residuary heirs – Appellants contested bequest under will to grandchildren – Held: Issue not determinative since suit confined to thika tenancy rights – However, noted that under Sunni Law, grandchildren through predeceased daughter not direct heirs; will cannot operate beyond 1/3rd share without consent [Paras 13–14, 24].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Interference with First Appellate Court’s Finding – Appellate Court found Khalil to be thika tenant based on documents and admissions – High Court held such finding was not perverse nor based on inadmissible evidence – Interference not warranted in second appeal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 27–29].

Civil Law - Commercial Suit – Amendment of Plaint – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Application Allowed – Amended Pleading – The plaintiff moved an amendment application which was allowed on the same day – It was not clearly recorded whether the defendants opposed or conceded to the amendment – The defendants were granted time to file a written statement to the amended plaint [Paras 2-5].

Striking Off Defence – Order 8 Rule 1 CPC and Commercial Courts Act – Improper Summons – Written Statement Not Filed – Defence Struck Off – The trial court struck off the defence for non-filing of written statement citing expiry of limitation – However, the summons served were for ‘Settlement of Issues’, not in proper commercial format – Held: The outer limit of 120 days for filing written statement had not expired – Reliance on Order 8 Rule 1 for striking off defence was misplaced post-amendment of plaint [Paras 6-12].

Decision – Written Statement Allowed on Record – Petition Allowed – In light of the fact that the statutory period for filing the written statement had not lapsed, and owing to the respondent's no-objection along with imposition of costs, the High Court allowed the petition – Directed that the written statement be deemed on record if already filed or else be submitted within 7 days, with further trial to proceed as per law [Paras 14-20].

Anticipatory Bail – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe by Public Servant – Bail Denied - The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, was accused of demanding ₹1000/- for signing a routine electric connection transfer – Audio recording of the demand and acceptance was submitted – Court held that prima facie the allegations were serious and warranted custodial interrogation – Rejected plea that recording was doctored, stating admissibility is a matter of trial – Bail denied considering gravity and public interest [Paras 2–4, 9–13].

Public Trust – Misuse of Office for Personal Gain – No Protection from Bail - The Court emphasized that even a modest bribe, if demanded by a public servant to perform legal duty, constitutes a breach of public trust – Such misconduct undermines institutional credibility – Held: Merely lacking prior criminal record is insufficient to grant anticipatory bail in corruption cases [Paras 10–12].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Denied – Petition Dismissed - The High Court found no ground to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner – Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed – Custodial interrogation deemed essential to preserve integrity of investigation [Para 13].