Family Law – Appeal for Declaration of Matrimonial Status – Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act 1984 – The appellant, Smt. Hasina Bano, filed an appeal against the dismissal of the suit by the Family Court, Jhansi, seeking a declaration of her matrimonial status as "divorced" by mutual consent (mubara’at) under Muslim Personal Law – The trial court dismissed the suit for non-filing of the original 'Talaqnama' and for being filed after approximately 20 years from the dissolution of marriage – On appeal, the High Court condoned the delay, finding that the dissolution was undisputed and the suit was filed jointly by both parties – Held: No period of limitation is prescribed under the Family Courts Act for such suits – Appeal allowed, setting aside the trial court's order and decreeing the suit for declaration of divorce [Paras 24-28].

Witness Testimony – Admittance of Divorce – Both the appellant and respondent had mutually consented to divorce (mubara’at) and executed a 'Talaqnama Tehreer' dated 07.03.2000 – They lived separately since 16.07.1990, which was not disputed – The trial court’s dismissal of the suit on technical grounds, such as the non-availability of the original 'Talaqnama,' was found unwarranted under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – The divorce was mutually agreed upon and admitted by both parties – Held: Facts admitted need not be proved [Paras 19-22].

Legal Position on Mubara’at – The High Court elaborated on the concept of mubara’at under Muslim Personal Law, which allows for divorce by mutual consent without the need for a court's intervention – The Family Court is competent to declare such an extra-judicial divorce under Explanation (b) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act 1984 – Referred to the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Asbi K.N. v. Hashim M.U. – Held: Mubara’at is a valid mode of divorce under Muslim Personal Law and does not require a formal judicial process [Paras 14-18].

Limitation – Suit Not Barred by Limitation – The court clarified that no specific limitation period is prescribed under the Family Courts Act for suits seeking declaration of matrimonial status – Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963, explicitly states that nothing in the Act shall apply to any suit concerning marriage and divorce – The claim for a declaration of matrimonial status is of a recurring nature and must be assessed within a reasonable period, considering the conduct of parties and the case's circumstances – Held: The suit was not barred by limitation [Paras 23, 25-27].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The High Court set aside the trial court’s judgment dated 10.10.2023, and decree dated 19.10.2023 – The matrimonial status of the parties is declared as "divorced" – The suit for declaration was decreed – Registry directed to return the original 'Talaqnama Tehreer' to the appellant after retaining a photocopy – The parties were directed to bear their respective costs [Para 28].

Service Law – Inter-Cadre Deputation – Order of Central Administrative Tribunal Set Aside – The petitioner, an Indian Forest Service officer from the Manipur Cadre, sought an extension of his inter-cadre deputation to Kerala for an additional two years due to personal difficulties – His initial deputation was granted on grounds of his father's old-age ailments and his family's location in Kerala – Both the State of Kerala and State of Manipur provided no objections for the extension – However, the Government of India rejected the extension request, citing a lack of cogent reasons and delay in submission – The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the petitioner’s application for extension – On appeal, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a fresh decision on the request for extension – [Paras 1, 2, 4, 11, 13]

Guidelines and Personal Difficulties – According to clauses (c) and (d) of the inter-cadre deputation guidelines, an extension is based on personal difficulties and requires review – The maximum period for inter-cadre deputation is five years – The petitioner’s original deputation was based on his father's ailments and his family's location in Kerala, which the Government of India initially accepted – The petitioner argued that these reasons still existed with worsened impact, warranting an extension – [Paras 4, 8-9]

Decision and Reconsideration – The High Court noted that the CAT found the petitioner’s request for extension was submitted in time and disagreed with the Central Government's claim of delay – The Court observed that the reasons for the petitioner’s initial deputation were still valid and held that the matter required reconsideration by the competent authority – The Court directed the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s extension request, allowing him to continue in Kerala until a decision is made – [Paras 10, 12]

Order – Appeal Allowed – The High Court allowed the original petition, setting aside the CAT's order and the Central Government's rejection of the extension request – It directed a fresh decision on the petitioner’s request for a further two-year extension of inter-cadre deputation to Kerala, effective from June 26, 2023 – [Paras 13].a

Consumer Law – Writ Petitions under Article 227 – Jurisdiction – Challenge to NCDRC Orders – Multiple writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – Petitioners contended that the High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction as NCDRC is located in Delhi – Respondents argued that jurisdiction lies with the High Court where the cause of action arose, relying on Siddhartha S. Mookerjee case – Held: Jurisdiction for petitions under Article 227 lies with the High Court where the original cause of action arose, not merely based on the location of the NCDRC in Delhi – Court followed Supreme Court’s ruling in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee and other similar cases, emphasizing that jurisdiction should align with where the matter originated – Appeal dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction [Paras 1-76].

Writ Jurisdiction – Cause of Action – Petitioners claimed that the NCDRC’s location in Delhi vested jurisdiction in the Delhi High Court – Court disagreed, holding that the cause of action determines jurisdiction, not the location of the appellate or revisional tribunal – The cause of action for each petition had arisen outside Delhi, and the petitions should have been filed in the respective jurisdictional High Courts – Situs of the tribunal not a decisive factor for jurisdiction [Paras 13-65].

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Regional Benches and Jurisdiction – NCDRC, as a national-level tribunal, exercises jurisdiction across multiple states – Petitions challenging its orders must be filed in the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the original cause of action – Establishment of regional benches by the central government could further guide jurisdictional filings – [Paras 49-56].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction – Petitioners directed to pursue remedies in the appropriate jurisdictional High Courts – Delhi High Court cannot entertain petitions solely based on the situs of the NCDRC [Paras 73-76].

Constitutional Law – Citizenship – Cessation of Citizenship – The appellant was disqualified from the post of Mukhiya on the ground of having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Nepal, resulting in the cessation of his Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – The appellant contended that the State Election Commission lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter, which should have been referred to the Central Government under the Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Held: The Election Commission does not have the authority to adjudicate on the cessation of citizenship; such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Government – The decision of the Election Commission was set aside, and the matter was directed to be referred to the Central Government [Paras 11-13, 15].

Election Law – Disqualification – Jurisdiction of State Election Commission – The State Election Commission disqualified the appellant for alleged foreign citizenship – Held: As per the Full Bench decision in Rajani Kumari v. State Election Commission, the State Election Commission can consider disqualification issues based on unimpeachable materials, provided it is not purely an election dispute – However, contentious issues, especially those concerning citizenship cessation, should be decided by a competent court or the Central Government, not the Election Commission [Paras 14-20].

Procedural Law – Referral to Central Government – The court directed the State Election Commission to refer the dispute to the Central Government to determine whether the appellant had acquired foreign citizenship voluntarily, which could lead to the cessation of Indian citizenship under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1955 [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The order of the State Election Commission and the judgment of the learned Single Judge were set aside – The State Election Commission was directed to refer the matter to the Central Government for determination – The appellant is entitled to continue in the post of Mukhiya until the Central Government's decision is made [Para 16].

Contract Law – Coal Supply Dispute – Appeal Dismissed – Coal Pricing – Colliery Control Order 2000 – Imposition of Add-on Charges - CCL imposed add-on charges over the base price of coal, which the appellant paid under protest. The appellant contended that under the Colliery Control Order 2000, only CIL was authorized to fix coal prices and that CCL had no power to impose such charges - Held: The appellant unconditionally agreed to pay the enhanced price, and there was no evidence to suggest that CCL's demand for a 30% premium was for profiteering - Writ petitions were dismissed as no violation of Article 14 or profiteering was established [Paras 29-32].

Contractual Disputes – Maintainability of Writ Petitions - The respondents argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the dispute pertained to a commercial contract without any public law element. The appellant argued that the exercise of powers by the authorities under the statutes governing coal supply was being questioned - Held: The writ petitions were maintainable as they involved the exercise of statutory powers under the Essential Commodities Act and Colliery Control Order 2000 [Paras 35-37].

Price Fixation – Article 14 and Fair Pricing - The appellant claimed that the imposition of add-on charges violated Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing that no other subsidiaries of CIL imposed such charges. The respondents maintained that coal pricing involved various factors, and the appellant enjoyed the benefits of source-specific coal - Held: No evidence suggested that the price fixation was arbitrary or aimed at profiteering - Price fixation must ensure a fair price for the consumer while allowing for reasonable profit, but not profiteering [Paras 43-46].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The learned Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petitions was upheld – No relief granted to the appellant regarding the refund of add-on charges/source-specific premium charges – Costs were not awarded [Paras 49-50].

Criminal Law – Quashing -  Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC – Whether the absence of a dead body (corpus delicti) nullifies the charges of dowry death – Held, the lack of recovery of a body does not invalidate the case, and sufficient circumstantial evidence, including the applicant's illicit relationship and the victim's harassment, supports a prima facie case – [Paras 40-70].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Charge-Sheet – Section 482 CrPC – Whether the charge sheet and summoning orders should be quashed due to lack of conclusive evidence of death – Held, the charge sheet cannot be quashed at this stage, as the evidence provided forms a prima facie case, and the applicants may raise their defenses during trial – [Paras 55-85].

Corpus Delicti – Necessity in Criminal Prosecutions – It is not essential to establish the recovery of the dead body in dowry death cases if there is strong circumstantial evidence pointing to the victim's death under unnatural circumstances – [Paras 75-80].

Decision: The application was rejected, and the court upheld the charge sheet, cognizance, and summoning orders. The applicants were directed to pursue their discharge applications before the trial court.

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Conviction Upheld – Minor Victims – The appellant, a close relative of the complainant, was accused of sexually assaulting five minor girls aged 8 to 13 years over two years. The victims were residents of the same village as the appellant. The trial court convicted the appellant based on consistent and corroborative evidence from the survivors, an eyewitness (PW6), and medical reports. The High Court found no infirmity in the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Held: Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 1, 2, and concluding remarks].

Evidence – Medical Examination – Corroboration – The medical examination of the survivors indicated evidence of chronic and recent vaginal penetration, corroborating the testimonies of the victims. The appellant did not challenge the ages of the survivors, confirming they were minors at the relevant time. Held: Medical evidence corroborated the victims' accounts, substantiating the appellant's guilt [Paras 8].

Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) – Presumption Under Section 29 – Rebuttal – The appellant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The consistent testimonies of the victims and medical evidence sufficed to uphold the appellant's conviction. Held: The presumption under Section 29 was not rebutted, supporting the conviction [Concluding remarks].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence by the trial court upheld – The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 376(f) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and 2 years under Section 506 IPC. The appellant was directed to pay compensation to the survivors [Concluding remarks].

Criminal Law – Discharge - Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Whether sufficient prima facie evidence exists to proceed against the accused for abetment of suicide – Held, based on the viscera report indicating poisoning and evidence of the applicant's conduct before and after the death, there is more than a prima facie case to proceed under Section 306 IPC – [Paras 45-65].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge Application – Sections 227 and 239 CrPC – The applicant argued for discharge on the ground that the death was due to natural causes (heart attack) – Held, the evidence, including forensic reports, raises sufficient suspicion to justify trial, and the trial court was correct in rejecting the discharge application – [Paras 60-75].

Criminal Law – Alteration of Charges – Section 216 CrPC – Whether the charges should be altered from Section 306 IPC to Section 302 IPC and Section 328 IPC – Held, the trial court has the liberty to alter the charges during the course of the trial if the material on record justifies it, but no alteration was ordered at this stage – [Paras 75-85].

Decision: The application for discharge (U/S 482 No. 6045 of 2020) was rejected, affirming the trial court's decision to proceed with the charges under Section 306 IPC. The application for challenging the framing of charges (U/S 482 No. 8645 of 2021) was also dismissed. The application to alter charges (U/S 482 No. 16035 of 2021) was disposed of, granting the trial court liberty to consider charge alteration if further material supports it.

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal Upheld – Eyewitness Testimonies – The prosecution’s case relied on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses, PW 11 Sudip Mukhopadhyay and PW 12 Abdul Rashid, along with circumstantial evidence – PW 11 initially claimed to have seen the respondent firing the shots but contradicted himself during cross-examination, stating that he only saw the respondent being caught by others while attempting to cock his rifle – PW 12’s testimony conflicted with the site plan and contained discrepancies regarding the number of shots fired – Both testimonies lacked corroborative evidence, rendering them unreliable – Held: The trial court’s decision to acquit the respondent was upheld due to these inconsistencies and the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – [Paras 33-37, 40].

Evidence – Seizure of Weapon – Procedural Inconsistencies – The prosecution alleged that the respondent was apprehended with his service rifle used in the crime – Conflicting testimonies from witnesses regarding the seizure of the rifle and its condition raised doubts about the prosecution’s claims – Additionally, the investigation officer’s account did not align with the evidence presented, diminishing the significance of the seized weapon – Held: The inconsistencies in the seizure process weakened the prosecution’s case – [Paras 38, 39].

Delay in FIR Forwarding – Impact on Prosecution’s Case – The copy of the FIR was sent to the Magistrate two days after the occurrence, with no valid explanation for the delay – This delay undermined the transparency of the investigation and raised questions about the possibility of false implication – Held: The delay was detrimental to the prosecution’s case, as it questioned the authenticity of the investigation process – [Paras 42-44].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The High Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the trial court’s judgment acquitting the respondent – The evidence presented was insufficient to prove the respondent's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – [Para 51].