Civil Writ - Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Consent of Husband Not Required – The petitioner, a 32-year-old woman, sought termination of her 18-week pregnancy without her husband's consent. She cited domestic violence, separation from her husband, and the impact on her mental and physical health. The Court held that marital consent is not required for termination under the MTP Act if the woman herself consents. The petitioner was deemed eligible for termination based on her circumstances 
Paras1−4,19−20.

Interpretation of "Change of Marital Status" – Rule 3(B)(c) of MTP Rules, 2003 – The Court gave a purposive interpretation to "change of marital status," holding that it includes women who have separated from their partners without formal divorce. The rationale extends beyond widowhood or divorce to recognize abandonment or separation as material changes affecting a woman's circumstances 
Paras13−16,19.

Reproductive Autonomy – Constitutional and Statutory Rights – The Court emphasized that reproductive autonomy, including the right to terminate a pregnancy, is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Citing judicial precedents, the Court recognized that a woman’s autonomy over her body and reproductive choices is fundamental to her dignity and liberty 
Paras17,18.

Decision – Petition Allowed – The Court allowed the petitioner to terminate her pregnancy, directing her to approach the Chief Medical Officer within three days for compliance with the MTP Act and Rules. The Court stressed timely action to avoid any procedural delay in terminating the pregnancy 
Paras20−21.
 

Maintenance to Children – Date of Maintenance – Uniformity in Awards – Section 20(1)(d), DV Act – Petition challenging the Sessions Court’s limitation of maintenance to minor children from the date of the order, instead of the date of the application. Held: Maintenance to be awarded from the date of the application to ensure financial sustenance of minors and adherence to Supreme Court precedent in Rajnesh v. Neha – Order of Sessions Court set aside, Trial Court’s order restored [Paras 11-13].

Residence Order – Post-Divorce Benefit – Section 19, DV Act – Question of whether a divorced woman is entitled to residence benefits under Section 19 of the DV Act. Held: A divorced woman cannot claim residence benefits if she is not living in a shared household. Residence order benefit limited to the period before the dissolution of marriage – Residence order quashed post-divorce [Paras 23-30].

Standard of Proof under DV Act – Section 19 – Protection orders (Section 18) may be issued on a prima facie basis, but residence orders under Section 19 require satisfaction that domestic violence has occurred. Held: Evidence of physical, verbal, and economic abuse supported by credible testimony satisfies the preponderance of probabilities standard – Residence order upheld for the period prior to divorce [Paras 20-21].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Sections 397-401 CrPC – Revisional power of High Court limited to addressing errors of jurisdiction, procedural irregularities, or perverse findings. Held: Unless the findings are grossly erroneous or arbitrary, the Revisional Court should not interfere – Orders by lower courts upheld except where explicitly modified [Paras 29-31].

Decision: Crl.R.P. No. 1577/2013 (By Wife) – Allowed in part. Maintenance for minor children restored from the date of application (18/12/2008).
Crl.R.P. No. 1173/2013 (By Husband) – Allowed in part. Residence order under Section 19 limited to the period before dissolution of marriage (08/04/2014).
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Fraudulent Land Transfers – Allegations of Sale of Government-Vested Land – Allegations of illegal transfer of government-vested land using fabricated powers of attorney – Petitioners include councilors, intermediaries, and witnesses – Held: Prima facie evidence of fraud, forgery, and conspiracy; investigation into large-scale transfer of government land on forged documents must continue; quashing of proceedings not permissible [Paras 11-16].

Fabrication of Power of Attorney – Legal Implications – A fabricated power of attorney created in the name of a fictitious individual was used to execute transactions – Held: Prima facie evidence of illegal execution of deeds; proper investigation required to ascertain the authenticity of documents and the role of petitioners [Para 12].

Role of Petitioners – Witnesses, Councilors, and Beneficiaries – Petitioners claimed they acted in good faith as witnesses and identifiers – Held: Mere denial of knowledge of the illegality is insufficient; culpability of all parties to be examined during investigation and trial [Paras 5-9].

Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Proceedings – Legal principles governing quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Held: High Court should exercise its power sparingly and only when complaints are frivolous or baseless; economic offences and public interest crimes demand a full-fledged investigation, not premature interference [Paras 13-15].

Economic Offences – Public Interest Implications – Fraudulent land transactions involving government-vested property constitute an economic offence affecting public interest – Held: Such offences have a serious societal impact; continuance of criminal proceedings is necessary for justice [Para 16].

Judicial Precedents – Limits of High Court’s Inherent Powers – Reliance on principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, and others – Held: Quashing not justified where serious allegations of fraud and public interest issues are involved [Paras 14-15].

Decision: CRR 3244 of 2023, CRR 4421 of 2023, CRR 1947 of 2024, and CRR 1950 of 2024 dismissed. Criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 304 of 2023 to continue.
 

Alimony - Interim Maintenance - Husband's Suppression of Income – Interim alimony of Rs.1 lakh per month claimed by the wife – The husband disclosed monthly income of Rs.11,85,730/- in earlier court affidavits but now claims income of Rs.3 lakh plus fluctuating bonus – Held: Suppression of income by the husband established; monthly alimony awarded – The court rejected the husband's claims of reduced income and found the amount claimed by the wife justified [Paras 20-27, 34-36].

Determination of Alimony - Rule of Proportionality – Alimony to wife fixed at one-fifth of husband's disclosed income – Court emphasized the principle that alimony must account for the wife’s necessities and maintain her status commensurate with the husband’s financial position – The court clarified that interim maintenance cannot be determined solely based on the wife's limited resources [Paras 27-33].

Student Loans of Adult Sons - Husband's Liability – The husband argued that student loans for his adult sons constitute financial obligations – Held: No liability on the husband to pay student loans of sons who have attained majority – Sons are independently responsible for their loans; the husband cannot evade alimony payments on this ground [Paras 36-37].

Arrear Payments and Schedule of Compliance – The court directed the husband to clear arrears of Rs.1 lakh per month from September 2024 to January 2025 in two equal instalments – Future alimony to be paid by the 10th of each month, commencing February 2025 [Paras 38-40].

Relevance of Judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha – Court noted non-compliance with mandatory affidavit-of-assets as per Supreme Court guidelines – Husband failed to provide three years’ income tax returns and bank statements – These lapses reinforced the finding of suppression of income [Paras 8-9, 20].

Decision: CAN 2 of 2024 disposed of on contest – Husband directed to pay Rs.1 lakh per month as alimony, along with arrears, within prescribed timelines – Appeal to be listed for hearing in February 2025.
 

Cancellation of Letter of Intent - Unauthorized Use of Additional Land – The petitioner, selected as an LPG distributor, constructed the godown on additional plots of land (not approved in the LOI) and failed to inform Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) – Held: Construction on unauthorized plots without prior approval violates the terms of the LOI and brochure guidelines – LOI cancellation upheld [Paras 7, 11-12].

Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements - Land Classification and PESO License – The petitioner constructed the godown without converting the classification of LR Plot No. 4255 and failed to obtain a valid PESO license for all plots used – Held: Non-compliance with statutory requirements justified the cancellation of the LOI – LOI is not a firm offer and creates no vested rights in favor of the petitioner [Paras 6, 11].

Brochure Guidelines - Scope for Alternate Land – The guidelines allow for the use of alternate land during or after the field verification stage, subject to prior approval by the IOCL – Held: Petitioner failed to seek approval for alternate plots before commencing construction, violating the brochure's requirements – Equitable relief denied as petitioner violated tender conditions [Paras 8-11].

Equitable Relief - Denial Due to Breach of Tender Terms – Petitioner sought equitable relief despite violating the terms of the LOI and brochure – Held: Petitioner, having acted “de hors” the terms of the tender, is not entitled to equitable relief – The writ petition dismissed [Paras 11-12].

Decision:The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit – Cancellation of the LOI dated 02/05/2022 upheld – No legal infirmity found in the impugned action of the respondent IOCL.
 

Service Law - Compassionate Appointment – Rule 9(7) of 1990 Rules – Delayed Application – Application Rejected – Respondent applied for compassionate appointment in 2013, seven years after her father’s death in 2006, citing her mother’s medical unfitness – Rule 9(7) mandates that minors at the time of death of a government servant must apply within three years of attaining majority – Held: Respondent failed to meet the requirements of the rules, and compassionate appointment cannot be granted after 17 years – Appeal allowed, respondent’s application rejected [Paras 7, 18, 20-21].

Purpose of Compassionate Appointment – Immediacy of Financial Need – Appointment Denied – The scheme of compassionate appointment exists to address the immediate financial hardship caused by the death of a government servant – A prolonged delay (seven years in application, 17 years in total) defeats the purpose of the scheme – Held: Delayed claims cannot be entertained as compassionate appointment is not a matter of inheritance or vested right [Paras 10, 21].

Eligibility – Widow’s Medical Unfitness – Burden of Proof – Respondent relied on a medical certificate issued seven years after the death of her father, asserting that her mother was unfit for employment – Court held that the incapacity must be proven at the time of death, not at the time of the delayed application – Held: Respondent failed to prove that her mother was unfit at the relevant time [Paras 13, 20].

Case Law Distinction – Malaya Nanda Sethy Distinguished – Compassionate appointment in Malaya Nanda Sethy was granted where the widow was unfit and the son applied promptly – Court held that the respondent’s case is different as there was no immediate application, and the claim was unjustifiably delayed – Held: Malaya Nanda Sethy is factually inapplicable to the present case [Paras 12, 20].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Respondent’s Claim Rejected – The Single Judge’s judgment directing consideration of the respondent’s application for compassionate appointment was erroneous and contrary to the scheme's intent – Appeal allowed – Respondent’s writ petition dismissed [Paras 22-23].
 

Land Revenue – Mutation Proceedings – Will/Testament – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – Mutation was certified by Tahasildar on the basis of a disputed Will and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner – Deputy Commissioner in revision under Section 136(3) KLR Act set aside mutation and directed entry in favour of natural heirs – Held: Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate validity of a Will – Claims based on Will or testamentary succession must be decided only by Civil Court – Mutation based on disputed Will is impermissible [Paras 8–10].

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 – Section 136(3) – Scope of Revisional Power – Deputy Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction to correct erroneous mutation based on Will – Order held to be in consonance with settled legal position – No infirmity or jurisdictional error found – Interference under Articles 226 & 227 declined [Paras 2–4, 10].

Title and Possession – Remedy under Section 135 KLR Act – Bar of Suits and Proviso – Section 135 bars suits against State regarding mutation entries – Proviso enables aggrieved party to institute comprehensive civil suit for declaration of title and possession – Disputes relating to title or possession arising from mutation must be resolved by Civil Court – Revenue entries subject to outcome of civil suit [Paras 12–15].

Mutation Proceedings – Parallel Remedies – Multiplicity of Litigation – Court noted repeated filing of appeals, revisions and writ petitions against mutation orders despite availability of civil remedy – Such proceedings result in parallel and sequential litigation without conclusive adjudication – Revenue proceedings under Chapter XI are inherently subject to decision of Civil Court – Practice leads to avoidable delay and burden on courts [Paras 16–21, 25].

Need for Legislative Reform – Absence of Power to Grant Interim Relief in Civil Suit – Court observed lacuna in statutory scheme as Civil Courts lack express power to stay operation of mutation orders under Chapter XI during pendency of civil suits – This deficiency compels parties to approach revenue authorities and High Court for interim protection – Recommendation made for legislative intervention to empower Civil Courts and reduce multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 19–24, 26–27].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Order of Deputy Commissioner upheld – Registry directed to forward judgment to Karnataka State Law Commission and concerned Departments for consideration of legislative reforms.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(n) – Allegation of Repeated Rape – Quashing of Offence – Accused (Circle Inspector) alleged to have had a physical relationship with complainant (wife of a constable) from 2017 to 2021 – Complaint alleges force, fraud, and coercion to obtain consent – Evidence suggests a consensual relationship over four years – Held: Prolonged consensual acts cannot be categorized as rape, even if the relationship turned hostile later – Offence under Section 376(2)(n) quashed – Cited judgments emphasize distinction between rape and consensual sex [Paras 9, 11, 13, 14].

Offences of Assault, Threats, and Attempt to Murder – Sections 307, 355, 323, 504, and 506 IPC – Violent Incident on 11-11-2021: Accused allegedly assaulted the complainant after taking her to a hotel – Medical evidence and witness statements corroborate injuries sustained by complainant – Held: Prima facie case established for these offences – These charges sustained for trial [Paras 9, 12, 14].

Consent and Misuse of Authority – Allegation of Dominance: Held: No evidence that complainant’s consent was obtained through fraud or dominance – Relationship between complainant and accused deemed consensual – However, consensual acts cannot justify assault or violent behavior – Trial for remaining charges necessary [Paras 9, 11, 13].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Section 376(2)(n) IPC quashed – Remaining charges under Sections 368, 342, 307, 355, 323, 504, and 506 IPC sustained – Observations limited to Section 482 CrPC proceedings and will not influence trial [Para 14].
 

Civil Law - Injunction – Fraud Allegations – No Prima Facie Case by Respondent – Injunction Set Aside – Respondent claimed fraud in execution of supplementary LLP agreements and misuse of digital signatures to remove him as a designated partner – High Court held that the respondent failed to produce evidence to support allegations of fraud or misrepresentation – Respondent had acknowledged execution of resignation documents and consented to uploading changes with statutory authorities – Held: No prima facie case in favor of respondent, and Trial Court erred in granting temporary injunction – Appeal allowed, injunction order set aside, and application for temporary injunction dismissed [Paras 16-21].

Evidence – Resignation and Consent Letters – Admissions Support Appellants – Respondent’s resignation letter, consent to upload changes to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), and subsequent communications confirmed the validity of transactions and changes in LLP partnership – High Court noted that respondent did not challenge the resignation letter and failed to substantiate claims of fraud – Held: Material on record supports the appellants’ case; no fraud established [Paras 17-20].

Balance of Convenience – Impact on Business Operations – Injunction Denied – High Court observed that restraining the appellants from alienating or dealing with the suit property would cause irreparable loss to the appellants and disrupt business operations – Balance of convenience found in favor of the appellants, not the respondent – Held: Injunction order unsustainable [Para 20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Trial Court Order – Justified – High Court interfered with the Trial Court’s order as the findings on fraud and prima facie case were contrary to the material evidence – Held: Injunction order set aside, and application for temporary injunction dismissed [Paras 19-21].