Civil Law - Child Custody - Special Marriage Act 1954 - Section 28 - Modification of consent terms - Petitioner challenged the Family Court judgment modifying a consent decree for sole custody to joint parenting without conducting a full hearing or allowing evidence - High Court held that custody orders are never final and may be modified upon proof of change in circumstances - Held - impugned judgment passed without affording parties a meaningful opportunity for hearing or evidence is set aside and matter remanded for fresh adjudication - [Paras 1-63].

Civil Law - Joint Parenting - Family Courts Act 1984 - Section 7 - Procedural fairness - Absence of statutory recognition for joint parenting in Indian Law - High Court ruled that while shared parenting is a viable solution if it serves the child's welfare it cannot be imposed without a structured plan based on parental cooperation and a fair, adjudicatory hearing - Held - strict 50-50 split without inquiry is not a practical solution - [Paras 56-58].

Civil Law - Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order II Rule 2 - Bar on subsequent litigation - Mother withdrew initial custody petition but simultaneously filed for modification based on new circumstances - Court held that the bar of Order II Rule 2 does not apply to custody matters where the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration and changed circumstances are asserted - Held - plea of bar rejected - [Paras 53].

Civil Law - Practice and Procedure - Family Courts Act 1984 - Duty to record satisfaction - Court stressed that Family Courts must perform their duty to ensure that consent terms regarding children are in the best interest of the child before making them part of a decree - Held - judicial duty to scrutinize consent terms remains paramount over the parties' agreement - [Paras 35-36].

Decision: Petitions partly allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Case remanded to Family Court for fresh disposal – Interim arrangement for custody and access directed pending final decision – Contempt petition dismissed.

Civil Law - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) - Appellant-husband filed for divorce alleging cruelty and desertion by respondent-wife - Trial Court dismissed the petition finding the appellant failed to prove allegations while simultaneously observing that the appellant had himself committed cruelty against the respondent - Appellant contended desertion by wife since 2005 - High Court noted that the appellant admitted in cross-examination to the respondent providing care during his illness and that he failed to pay maintenance until ordered by the court - Evidence established that the respondent was driven out of the matrimonial home by the appellant - Held - Burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish cruelty and desertion which the appellant failed to discharge - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 3-31].

Civil Law - Desertion - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(ib) - Constructive desertion - Appellant claimed respondent left matrimonial home voluntarily - Respondent pleaded she was forced out of the house by the appellant - Evidence showed the appellant lacked interest in the welfare of the child and failed to support the respondent - Held - Where the spouse is forced to leave the matrimonial home due to the conduct of the other party the element of desertion by the leaving spouse is not established - [Paras 26-30].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13 - Standard of proof in matrimonial disputes - Appellant examined only himself and produced no cogent evidence to rebut respondent's testimonies - Respondent supported her defense through credible testimony of herself and independent witnesses - Held - Appellant failed to satisfy the court on the grounds of cruelty and desertion - [Paras 28-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Order of the Family Court affirmed - No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Transfer of Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 24 - Matrimonial dispute - Wife seeking transfer of divorce petition from Proddatur to Nandyal - Petitioner residing with parents at Nandyal having no independent income and dependent on parents for sustenance - Respondent already attending criminal case and maintenance proceedings at Nandyal - Respondent raising unsubstantiated claims of life threats and financial difficulty - High Court applying the principle that convenience of the wife is paramount in matrimonial transfer petitions when she has no sufficient means - Held - Transfer allowed to ensure justice and prevent conflicting findings - [Paras 11-15 19-20].

Civil Law - Virtual Appearance - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 24 - Use of technology to mitigate hardship - Respondent husband expressing difficulty in frequent travel due to financial constraints and care of aged parents - High Court directed the transferee court to dispense with respondent personal appearance on routine dates if represented by counsel and explore virtual appearance for specific proceedings - Held - Directions issued to balance convenience of both parties - [Paras 16-19].

Civil Law - Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Sections 23 and 28 - Interest on solatium - Petitioner challenged order of Executing Court granting interest on solatium from the date of the award - Court held that while solatium forms an integral part of compensation following the ratio in Sunder versus Union of India, interest on solatium cannot be claimed for the period prior to 19.09.2001 - The cut-off date of 19.09.2001 established in Gurpreet Singh versus Union of India applies to all cases where the decree/award did not specifically provide for interest on solatium - Execution Court erred in awarding interest from the date of the award - Order of Executing Court set aside - [Paras 1-14].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Powers of Executing Court - Where the Appellate Court's order grants statutory benefits but remains silent on interest on solatium, the Executing Court is empowered to apply the ratio of Sunder versus Union of India to grant interest, but must adhere to the sunrise clause/cut-off date of 19.09.2001 set by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh versus Union of India - Interest on solatium cannot be granted for any period prior to 19.09.2001 - Held - Order of Executing Court set aside as it erroneously allowed interest from 1994 - [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Impugned orders dated 16.08.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonipat, set aside – Interest on solatium held payable only with effect from 19.09.2001.

Writ Law - Practice and Procedure - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Systemic deficiencies in State litigation - Court observed that current mechanism for allocating cases to Government Counsel is mechanical and lacks application of mind as files are distributed in court without advance briefing - Practice of assigning drafting of counter-affidavits to a separate panel of counsel who never appear before the court leads to lack of accountability and ineffective representation - Held - Principal Secretary Law Department directed to file personal affidavit to explain the rationale for existing procedures and suggest reforms to ensure effective assistance to the court - [Paras 1-22].

Writ Law - Accountability of State Counsel - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Professional standards for Law Officers - Court emphasized that Government Counsel represent the State and not individual litigants and are obligated to be fully briefed with records and previous orders - Persistent failure to provide timely assistance causes avoidable adjournments and violates the spirit of judicial orders - Held - State must institutionalize a mechanism for advance case allocation and effective briefing of counsel to ensure fair and responsible representation - [Paras 14-18].

Motor Accident Law - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 168 - Determination of just compensation - Tribunal awarded lifetime attendant charges for 40 percent disability without medical evidence of permanent dependency - Appellate Court held that lifetime attendant charges are not justified for 40 percent functional disability where no evidence exists of dependency for daily activities - Held - Award for lifetime attendant charges set aside and substituted with reasonable sum for recuperation period - [Paras 38-43].Motor Accident Law - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 168 - Quantum reduction in appeal - Insurance Company challenged award as excessive while claimants sought enhancement - Held - Under Section 168 of the Act the Court is mandated to award only just compensation - Therefore where a head of compensation is found legally unsustainable the Appellate Court is empowered to reduce the total award notwithstanding the claimant's appeal for enhancement - [Paras 53-54].Motor Accident Law - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 168 - Future earning capacity of minor - Tribunal applied unskilled labourer income for 16-year-old student with amputation - Appellate Court held that minimum wages for skilled worker should be adopted for school-going child as per Supreme Court precedents - Added 40 percent future prospects and applied multiplier 18 to determine loss of earning capacity - [Paras 21-28].Motor Accident Law - Consortium - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 168 - Parental consortium - Following precedents of Supreme Court in Satinder Kaur and Magma General Insurance - Held - Claimants are entitled to parental consortium for each child in addition to spousal consortium and conventional heads - [Paras 15-17].Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 168 - Contributory negligence and validity of driving licence - Insurance Company failed to lead evidence regarding alleged invalidity of licence or contributory negligence of deceased - Eyewitness testimony remained unrebutted - Held - Tribunal's findings on negligence and liability of insurer affirmed - [Paras 5-7].

Criminal Law - Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 58 - Constitutional violation - Petitioners were apprehended by Excise officials on 23.08.2025 during patrolling but were shown to be arrested on 24.08.2025 at 1.50 AM and 2.00 AM respectively - Overwriting in arrest memos and discrepancies in official reports indicated detention began much earlier than the recorded time - Petitioners produced before the Magistrate at 7.30 PM on 24.08.2025 - Court held that factoring in travel time from the spot of occurrence the production before the Magistrate was well beyond the 24-hour limit prescribed by Article 22(2) - Vitiation of arrest and remand - Held - Arrest and subsequent remand of petitioners stand vitiated due to non-compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards - Petitioners granted bail - [Paras 3-7].

Criminal Law - Arrest and Custody - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 43 - Definition of arrest - Arresting officer touched or confined the bodies of the accused during detection which constitutes arrest under Section 43 - Court held that custody and arrest are distinct but detention begins when a person is under duress of a law enforcement agency - Protection of personal liberty under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India is absolute - Failure to produce within 24 hours exclusive of journey time renders the detention and subsequent remand illegal - Held - Mandatory nature of constitutional safeguard requires strict adherence - [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Bail applications allowed – Petitioners directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court – Directions issued for immediate communication of order to the concerned Jail via e-mail.

Tax Law - Sales Tax - Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1957 - Limitation - Revisional jurisdiction - Original assessment order passed on 21.12.2001 - Reassessment order confined strictly to sales tax exemption on goods supplied to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams passed on 09.07.2002 - Revisional authority attempted to revise rate of tax on laminated paper through an order dated 07.07.2006 - Court held that since the reassessment order did not address the rate of tax or modify the original assessment regarding that issue there was no merger of the original assessment into the reassessment - Limitation for revision began from original order and had expired - Held - Revisional order is time-barred and unsustainable - [Paras 1-11].

Tax Law - Doctrine of Merger - Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1957 - Limitation - Scope of reassessment - Doctrine of merger applies only when a subsequent order deals with the specific issue considered in the earlier order and modifies or confirms the view taken - Mere passing of a partial reassessment order does not extend the limitation period for the entire original assessment order if the specific tax issue was not reopened - Held - Entire assessment order does not merge into the reassessment order - [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Tax Revision Case dismissed - No order as to costs - Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Arbitration Law - Arbitrability of Disputes - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 11(6) - Petitioner sought appointment of Arbitrator for specific performance of sale agreement - Agreement involved lands owned by third parties who were not signatories to the arbitration clause - Respondents raised objections regarding non-arbitrability of title disputes and absence of signatures of one respondent on the agreement - High Court held that while specific performance is generally an action in personam and arbitrable, the present dispute involves complex title issues and rights of third-party owners who are not privy to the arbitration agreement - Such matters require centralized adjudication that cannot be circumvented through arbitration - Application dismissed with liberty to approach competent civil court - [Paras 1-29].

Arbitration Law - Scope of Reference - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 11 - Arbitrability test - Referring court must evaluate whether the dispute affects third-party rights or has erga omnes effect - Where subject matter requires crystallization of title against non-parties, the dispute is non-arbitrable - Held - Appointment of Arbitrator would be a futile exercise if the core dispute involves the title of persons not bound by the arbitration agreement - [Paras 18-21].

Evidence Law - Procedural Integrity - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Applicability - Arbitration proceedings - Arbitrator cannot circumvent substantive statutes like Specific Relief Act and Transfer of Property Act or procedural safeguards - Where the nature of the dispute requires application of substantive law to determine title and validity of transfer, the civil court is the appropriate forum - [Paras 24-25].

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 20 - Discretionary relief - While specific performance is a contractual right, the exercise of judicial discretion in granting such relief and determining title in the absence of a registered conveyance deed is better suited for civil courts when it involves third-party interests - [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Application dismissed – Petitioner granted liberty to take recourse to law for adjudication of the dispute before the competent civil court.