Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Adultery – Divorce Decree Set Aside – Respondent-husband was granted divorce by Family Court citing cruelty and desertion – High Court on appeal found no specific incidents of cruelty or reliable evidence of adultery – Allegations of illicit relationship with co-respondent were unsubstantiated – Evidence showed wife was willing to resume matrimonial life – Held: Allegations were general, vague, and lacked legal substance – Divorce decree set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 13, 18-23, 26-27].

Cruelty – Must Be Proved with Specific Incidents – Mere Marital Discord Not Sufficient – Respondent failed to specify dates or incidents indicating mental or physical cruelty – Court held minor quarrels and occasional spats do not constitute legal cruelty – Conduct must be grave, continuous and cause genuine apprehension of harm – No such case made out – Burden of proof not discharged [Paras 18-22].

Adultery – Allegation Must Be Supported by Proof of Voluntary Sexual Relationship – No Evidence of Illicit Relationship – Court observed that adultery must be proved with clear evidence of physical relationship – Mere suspicion or social interaction does not suffice – No independent witness, circumstantial proof, or documentary evidence was produced – Allegation held to be baseless and motivated to create ground for divorce [Paras 24-26].

Repeated Divorce Litigations – Second Petition on Same Facts Not Maintainable – Earlier M.M. Case No. 62 of 2009 was compromised – Fresh divorce case filed on identical allegations without new cause of action – Court disapproved repeated litigation without genuine grievance – Reflects lack of bona fide on husband’s part [Paras 15, 18].

Appellant Willing to Resume Matrimonial Life – Conduct Undermines Ground of Desertion – Wife consistently expressed readiness to cohabit – Court held that readiness of one party to continue the relationship negates allegation of desertion by other spouse – Respondent-husband made no effort for restitution – Did not file petition under Section 9 HMA [Paras 18, 22-23].

Final Decision – Appeal allowed – Divorce decree dated 25.02.2019 set aside – M.M. Case No. 176 of 2011 dismissed – Parties not divorced – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of [Paras 27-29].

Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal – Offences under Sections 336, 427, 447, 506 IPC and Section 3(v) SC/ST Act – Acquittal Affirmed – State challenged acquittal of accused for allegedly damaging construction, pelting stones, and hurling caste-based abuses – Trial Court held land was jointly owned, exclusive possession not proved, civil dispute pending, and prosecution evidence riddled with contradictions – High Court held trial court’s view was reasonable, no perversity or misreading of evidence found – Appeal dismissed, acquittal upheld [Paras 12-13, 33-35].

Scope of Interference in Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference permissible only if judgment suffers from perversity, misreading, or omission to consider material evidence – If two reasonable views are possible, acquittal cannot be disturbed – Trial Court’s view upheld as a possible view [Paras 12-13, 34].

Criminal Trespass – Section 447 IPC – Joint Ownership of Land – No partition by metes and bounds – Complainant’s exclusive possession not proved – Trespass charge unsustainable [Para 33].

Evidentiary Contradictions – Witnesses inconsistent about dates of pillar construction – Photographs showed only iron bars, not completed pillars – Demarcation report did not note damaged pillars – Contradictions undermined prosecution case [Paras 23-26].

Disproportionate Estimate of Damage – Contract for entire house was ₹55,000 – Yet estimate of damage to two pillars inflated to ₹2,00,850 – Cast doubt on prosecution’s claim [Para 28].

SC/ST Act – Section 3(v) – Omnibus Allegation of Caste Abuse – Witnesses made generalised statements attributing caste abuses jointly to accused – No specific role assigned – Following Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, such omnibus inclusion unsafe – Charge not proved [Paras 30-31].

Alleged Stone Pelting – No stones recovered at spot – Site plan and photographs silent on stone debris – Prosecution version disbelieved [Para 32].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused confirmed – Bail bonds of ₹25,000 each directed under Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481 BNSS, 2023) for six months [Paras 35-36].

Family Law - Maintenance – Enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Increase Allowed – Revision Allowed – Petitioner sought enhancement of ₹10,000/month maintenance fixed in 2012 to ₹30,000/month citing increase in cost of living, medical needs, and respondent’s pension – Family Court had rejected plea stating no substantial change in circumstances – High Court held that increase in respondent’s pension from ₹28,705 (net salary in 2012) to ₹40,068 justifies enhancement – Maintenance enhanced to ₹14,000/month from date of revision petition [Paras 1, 7, 20-28].

Comparison of Net Salary and Pension – Faulty Reasoning by Family Court – Corrected by High Court – Family Court compared 2012 gross salary with current pension without considering that original maintenance was based on net salary – High Court found this comparison flawed and based enhancement on present net pension being substantially higher than net income in 2012 [Paras 14, 21].

CGHS Card Entitlement – Right of Legally Wedded Wife – Respondent Directed to Restore Wife’s Access – Respondent removed petitioner’s name from CGHS card despite ongoing maintenance – High Court held that as legally wedded wife, petitioner is entitled to CGHS benefits – Respondent directed to facilitate inclusion of her name on the card within two months [Paras 22-24].

Change in Circumstances – Interpretation – Includes Rise in Cost of Living and Health Needs – Court reaffirmed that “change in circumstances” under Section 127 Cr.P.C. includes not just income variation but also health issues, inflation, loss of family support, and deterioration of earning spouse’s health – Mere retirement doesn’t bar maintenance enhancement [Paras 17-18, 26-27].

Balancing Equities – Senior Citizens on Both Sides – Modest Enhancement Ordered – Both petitioner and respondent being senior citizens, Court adopted a balanced approach – Maintenance enhanced modestly to ₹14,000/month in view of respondent’s limited post-retirement income and petitioner’s medical needs [Paras 25-27].

Final Decision – Family Court’s order set aside – Maintenance enhanced to ₹14,000/month with effect from date of revision – Arrears to be cleared within six weeks – CGHS card to be restored within two months [Paras 28-29].

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles of Double Presumption – Acquittal Upheld – The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of two accused charged under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC for assaulting and robbing the complainant – The Trial Court acquitted the accused citing inconsistencies in identification, non-sealing of recovered items, and contradictory testimonies – High Court reiterated the principle of double presumption of innocence applicable after acquittal and found no compelling reason to interfere – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-16].

Identification – TIP Refused – Delayed and Tainted Identification Not Reliable – Complainant identified accused in court more than a month after arrest, claiming he recognized them during court visit – Accused had refused TIP citing prior exposure in police station – High Court held such identification lacked evidentiary value due to procedural compromise and delay [Paras 6, 11, 14].

Recovery – Failure to Seal Recovered Items – Recovery Not Credible – Purse, PAN card, and ID card allegedly recovered from accused were neither sealed nor subjected to forensic testing – IO admitted inability to link currency notes to the complainant – Recovery held to be in open condition and devoid of evidentiary worth [Paras 9, 14].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Independent Witness Denied Presence of Accused – Defence witness DW6, an independent eyewitness and neighbor, stated that quarrel occurred between complainant and other persons and the accused were not present – Prosecution did not cross-examine the witness – DD entries and MLC also did not mention robbery – Held: Prosecution version doubtful [Paras 7-8, 14].

Appellate Review of Acquittal – Scope Limited – No Interference Without Perverse Finding – Citing precedents including Ravi Sharma v. State (2022) and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. (2020), Court reiterated that appellate courts must be cautious in reversing acquittals – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s assessment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-13, 15].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No.2 under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC upheld – No interference warranted in well-reasoned judgment of Trial Court – Proceedings against respondent No.1 abated due to death during pendency of appeal [Paras 6, 15-16].

Criminal Revision – Conviction for Negligent Driving – Revision Dismissed – The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and Section 187 MV Act for rash driving that caused the death of a 4-year-old girl – His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Appellate Court – Held: In revision, re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible unless there is gross miscarriage of justice or perversity – No such infirmity found – Concurrent findings of guilt based on credible evidence upheld [Paras 13-18, 41-46].

Negligent Driving – Hit and Run – Minor Child Crushed on Kachha Portion – Maximum Sentence Justified – Evidence showed that the petitioner drove the vehicle off the pucca road and hit the child standing on the kachha portion – He failed to take the injured child to hospital despite being in close vicinity – Witness testimonies were consistent and corroborated – Defence of alternate route not proven – Held: Maximum sentence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC justified due to reckless conduct and lack of regard for human life [Paras 38-44].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Minor Contradictions Not Material – Testimonies Consistent on Material Particulars – Held: Minor inconsistencies in time estimates or shop descriptions did not shake core prosecution version – Witness behaviour post-incident cannot be used to discredit testimony – There is no standard reaction expected from eyewitnesses [Paras 21-31].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Not Equivalent to Appellate Power – Evidence Appreciated by Trial and Appellate Courts – Held: The revisional court is not an appellate forum – Revisional powers are limited to correcting jurisdictional or legal errors – Concurrent findings not shown to be perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable – Hence, no interference warranted [Paras 13-18, 42].

Defence Evidence – Testimonies Contradictory – Not Sufficient to Displace Prosecution Case – Defence witnesses claimed alternative route was used – Their accounts were inconsistent and failed to disprove prosecution case – Held: Learned Courts below rightly discarded defence evidence [Paras 32-36].

Sentence – Maximum Punishment – No Leniency Warranted – Victim was a 4-year-old child – Driver showed no remorse or responsibility – Held: Courts justified in imposing maximum sentence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC in view of gravity of offence and alarming rise in road accidents – Plea for sentence reduction rejected [Paras 42-44].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – No illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice found in concurrent judgments of Trial and Appellate Courts – Revision dismissed and sentence confirmed [Para 46].

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim – Liability of Registered Owner – Vehicle Uninsured – Compensation Liability Affirmed – Offending scooter involved in accident was admittedly uninsured – Registered owner argued that vehicle was taken by respondent-driver without authority and that driver had agreed to bear compensation liability – Held: Registered owner cannot evade liability under Section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act – Absence of insurance and failure to prove forcible taking of vehicle makes registered owner liable – Dismissal of appeals upheld by relying on Supreme Court rulings in Naveen v. Vijay and Brij Bihari Gupta v. Manmet – Registered owner may pursue independent remedy against the driver but remains liable to injured parties [Paras 5, 9-12].

Uninsured Vehicle – No Relief Against Compensation Liability – Affidavit by Driver Not a Ground to Discharge Owner – Registered owner relied on driver’s affidavit stating he would pay compensation – Held: Such affidavit does not affect liability of registered owner under the Act – Owner must satisfy award and may seek recovery from driver separately – Tribunal rightly held both owner and driver jointly and severally liable [Paras 5, 11-12].

Appeals Against Compensation – No Enhancement Sought by Claimants – Finding Limited to Owner’s Liability – No appeal for enhancement was filed by claimants – Scope of appeal confined to contest of liability by registered owner – Tribunal award upheld to the extent of holding owner liable – Appeals dismissed [Paras 4, 12].

Contract Law - Recovery Suit under LoC – Rejection of Goods by Importer – Time Not Essence – Appeal Dismissed – In a dispute arising from the appellant’s refusal to accept goods under an irrevocable Letter of Credit, the Court upheld the Trial Court’s decree awarding Rs. 7,89,840/- with interest to the exporter (Respondent No. 1) – It held that the minor delay in shipment did not justify rejection, discrepancies raised by the issuing bank could not be relied upon by the buyer, and time was not the essence of the contract – Application to lead additional evidence was also dismissed – Held: No illegality or perversity in Trial Court’s judgment – Appeal and pending applications dismissed [Paras 1–2, 36–39, 53–59].

Letter of Credit – Separate Contract Doctrine – Buyer Cannot Refuse Delivery Based on Bank’s Objection – Appeal Dismissed – The Court reiterated that obligations under an LoC are independent from those under the sale contract – Appellant’s reliance on discrepancies raised by issuing bank to justify non-acceptance was misplaced – Held: Discrepancies did not impact buyer-seller contract; LoC rejection irrelevant to buyer’s liability [Paras 45–49].

Time of Shipment – Time Not Essence – Delay of Two Days Not Fatal – Conduct Shows Waiver – Appellant had accepted previous late shipments and failed to raise prompt objection upon receipt of goods – Held: Minor delay in shipment of third order did not justify cancellation – Contract did not treat time as essence – Performance deemed within reasonable time [Paras 27–44].

Additional Evidence – Negligence of Counsel Not a Ground – Application under Order XLI Rule 27 Rejected – Appellant’s plea that its previous counsel failed to conduct cross-examination or file affidavit was not accepted – Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting additional evidence at appellate stage – Corporate litigant expected to be vigilant [Paras 53–55].

Electronic Records – Section 65-B Certificate – Procedural Requirement Curable at Appellate Stage – Objection to admissibility of emails raised for first time in appeal – Respondent furnished Section 65-B certificate during hearing – Held: Certificate admissible; appeal being continuation of suit, defect was cured [Paras 50–52].

Standard of Review – No Interference Where Findings are Plausible – Appellate Court's Scope Limited – Trial Court’s findings based on evidence and consistent with legal principles – Held: No perversity or illegality warranting interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 56–57].

Final Relief – Appeal and Applications Dismissed – Decretal Amount to Be Released – No merit found – Appellant’s deposit to be released to Respondent No. 1 with accrued interest – All pending applications also dismissed [Para 59].

NDPS Offence – Bail Application – Section 20(b)(ii)(B) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act – Bail Granted – The petitioner, arraigned as the second accused, was alleged to have conspired with the first accused in transporting 2 kg of ganja using a vehicle allegedly hired by him – No contraband was recovered from the petitioner’s possession – The vehicle was not registered in his name – Investigation was mostly complete and the petitioner had already spent a reasonable period in custody – Held: Section 37 of the NDPS Act not attracted due to intermediate quantity – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1–6].

Sales Tax – Exemption on Inter-State Sale – G.O. 3602 dated 28.12.1963 – Claim Rejected – Petitioner purchased gingelly seeds within Tamil Nadu (tax-paid) and from other States; claimed exemption on inter-State sale of locally purchased seeds – Assessing authority found stock mingled on inspection; Tribunal upheld denial of exemption – Held: Mere maintenance of separate accounts insufficient when physical mingling established – Exemption rightly denied – Writ dismissed [Paras 2–10].

Scope of Judicial Review – Article 226 – Court cannot reappreciate factual findings of tax authorities where inspection reports conclusively show mingling of goods – Tribunal’s decision based on evidence upheld – Writ Court’s role limited to examining decision-making process, not merits [Paras 7–9].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Orders of Assessing Authority and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Confirmed – No costs [Para 10].