Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence – Interim Monetary Relief – Section 23 of PWDV Act – Interim Relief Enhanced – The petitioner, wife of the opposite party, challenged the order of the Appellate Court granting interim relief of Rs. 50,000/- per month to her and Rs. 80,000/- per month to her daughter – Considering the opposite party’s annual income of Rs. 7.19 crores (2020-21) and petitioner’s meagre income, the Court held that the interim maintenance awarded was inadequate – Interim maintenance enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 2,50,000/- for the minor daughter from the date of filing under Section 23 – Directed the Trial Court to expedite the final disposal of the main application [Paras 24-26].

Maintenance – Standard of Living – Interpretation of “Accustomed” – Section 20(2) of PWDV Act – Held – The term “accustomed” refers to the standard of living the aggrieved person enjoyed during the marriage, not to the current wealth of the husband – The wife is entitled to be maintained in a manner consistent with her marital standard, but not an equalization of wealth – The Court balanced between exaggerated claims of the petitioner and the attempts by the husband to evade fair maintenance [Paras 20-22].

Equalization of Wealth – Not the Objective of Maintenance – Reiterated – Citing Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, the Court clarified that monetary relief under PWDV Act cannot be equated with equalization of wealth – Maintenance aims at preventing destitution and securing dignified living, not matching the wealth of the spouse [Para 21].

Independent Income of Wife – Whether Bar to Maintenance – Held – Even if the wife has some income, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance if the income is insufficient to sustain a lifestyle consistent with her status during marriage – The existence of modest earnings does not absolve the husband from his legal and moral obligation of maintenance [Para 22].

Allegation of Adultery – Prima Facie Irrelevant – No Bar to Maintenance – Held – Allegations of adultery based on media reports and public perception cannot be accepted without cogent legal proof – In absence of clear evidence, such allegations cannot be grounds to deny maintenance [Para 23].

Maintenance for Child – Child’s Education and Welfare – The Court held that Rs. 2,50,000/- per month for the child is justified considering the child’s educational needs and standard of living, with liberty to the father to voluntarily contribute more towards educational or special expenses [Para 25].

Decision – Interim Monetary Relief Modified – Interim maintenance enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the petitioner (wife) and Rs. 2,50,000/- per month for the minor daughter – Trial Court directed to dispose of the main application under Section 12 of PWDV Act expeditiously, preferably within 60 days – Petition disposed of [Paras 25-26].

Employment Law - Reservation for Persons with Disabilities – Identification of Posts – RPWD Act Sections 33 & 34 – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioners challenged recruitment panels under CEN 01/2019 alleging wrongful exclusion of 100% visually impaired candidates from posts reserved under Section 34 – Held: Section 34 provides for reservation based on vacancies, while Section 33 empowers identification of posts suitable for specific disabilities – Distinction between reservation (vacancy-based) and identification (post-based) is legally valid – Exercise of identifying certain posts as suitable only for persons with low vision but not for total blindness is permissible under Section 33 – Decision based on public interest as posts excluded involve operational safety – No violation of petitioners’ rights as no less meritorious candidate was appointed against posts suitable for blindness – Tribunal’s decision upheld [Paras 26.1-26.4, 27].

Estoppel – Challenge to Selection Process – Not Maintainable – Petitioners participated in the recruitment process with full knowledge of post-wise identification under Annexure A to CEN 01/2019 – Having failed selection, they are estopped from challenging the process – No mala fides or illegality shown in identification of posts – Courts cannot relax eligibility criteria based on functional requirements and safety concerns in railway operations [Paras 28].

Railway Recruitment – Applicability of Later Circular – Circular dated 16.12.2024 regarding diversion of vacancies not examined on merits as Tribunal had no occasion to consider it – Liberty granted to petitioners to approach the Railways for consideration under said circular without being prejudiced by this judgment [Para 30.2].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Tribunal’s decision upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 31-33].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted under Section 7 of the PC Act for allegedly demanding and accepting ₹2,500 as illegal gratification for issuing a no-dues certificate – The complainant (PW-1) turned hostile, denying any demand or acceptance of bribe and stating that CBI officers dictated the complaint and planted the trap – Shadow witness (PW-2) admitted he did not hear any demand, and the acceptance was not witnessed directly – Held: In absence of proof of demand, mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction under Section 7 – Conviction and sentence set aside – Acquittal.[Paras 1–2, 10–13, 32, 41, 45, 55–58, 67–68].

Hostile Witness – Legal Implication – Cannot Form Sole Basis for Conviction – Complainant (PW-1) and shadow witness (PW-2) turned hostile – PW-1 denied writing the complaint voluntarily and asserted the appellant never demanded bribe – PW-2 confirmed lack of direct hearing or witnessing of demand – Held: Evidence of hostile witnesses must be scrutinized for independent reliability – Here, the statements failed to establish foundational facts necessary for presumption under Section 20 of PC Act [Paras 10–13, 53–57].

Presumption Under Section 20 – Foundational Facts Absent – No Legal Presumption Drawn – The trial court presumed guilt based on recovery alone despite lack of direct proof of demand – Held: The presumption under Section 20 can be raised only when demand and acceptance are proved – Cited judgments including B. Jayaraj, Satyanarayana Murthy, Neeraj Dutta clarified that demand is sine qua non – Since prosecution failed to prove demand, no presumption under Section 20 could arise [Paras 41, 43–45, 55–58, 66–67].

Failure to Examine Material Witness – Adverse Inference Drawn Against Prosecution – Statement of Jagdish Singh, cited in the charge sheet as corroborative, was not brought as prosecution witness but later examined as DW-4 – He denied having given the prosecution statement – Held: As per Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, adverse inference must be drawn against the party who withholds a key witness – Supports appellant’s claim of false implication [Paras 62–65].

Trap Evidence – Circumstantial and Contradictory – Not Sufficient for Conviction – Witnesses DW-5 and DW-7 who were present during the trap stated that money was planted by CBI officers and appellant was beaten and falsely implicated – Their testimony remained consistent and unshaken in cross-examination – Held: Circumstances raised grave doubts about the integrity of the trap and undermined prosecution’s case [Paras 24–25, 60–61].

Final Judgment – Conviction Unsustainable – Appeal Allowed – The High Court found that prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not legally sustainable – The appellant was acquitted and fine amount ordered to be refunded [Paras 67–68].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Bail Cancellation – Section 528 of BNSS - Cancellation of Bail Due to Non-Appearance – Order Set Aside – Petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court on 08.07.2024 due to noting the wrong date – Trial Court cancelled bail, forfeited bail/surety bonds, and issued non-bailable warrants – Held: Non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional – The explanation provided is justified – Extreme action of bail cancellation unjustified in absence of wilful default – Order cancelling bail quashed [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Procedure – Fairness and Liberty – Article 21 of Constitution – While maintaining law and order is essential, any curtailment of personal liberty must align with fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution – The issuance of non-bailable warrants is solely to secure presence, not punitive in nature – Once the accused comes forward voluntarily and undertakes to appear, liberty must be balanced with procedural fairness [Para 8].

Non-Bailable Warrants – Objective and Remedy – The purpose of issuing non-bailable warrants is to ensure the appearance of the accused – Where the accused voluntarily approaches the Court and offers a reasonable explanation with an undertaking to appear in future, the extreme remedy of warrant issuance and bail cancellation is unwarranted – Cancellation order set aside with direction to surrender within two weeks [Paras 9-10].

Relief – Bail Restored with Costs – Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 08.07.2024 cancelling bail, forfeiting bonds, and issuing warrants quashed – Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks and furnish fresh bail/surety bonds – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed to be deposited with PGIMER Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh – Bail to be granted only after submission of cost receipt [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Interim protection to continue subject to surrender within two weeks – Failure to surrender will result in vacation of protection [Paras 11-13].

Civil Law - Trademark – Prior User Rights – Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act – Interim Injunction Refused – The plaintiff claimed rights over the mark ‘STELLADEXIN’ based on trademark registration and an exclusive agency agreement with defendant no. 5 (Chinese manufacturer) – Held: Defendant no. 5 is the prior adopter and continuous user of the marks ‘STELLA’, ‘STELLADEXIN’ and related device marks since 2013 in India, predating the plaintiff’s claimed use from 2015 – Defendant no. 5 entitled to protection under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act – No infringement made out against defendants [Paras 12-17].

Trademark Infringement – International Exhaustion – Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act – Sale of Genuine Goods Not Infringement – Defendant no. 2 was importing and reselling original goods manufactured by defendant no. 5 under authorization – Held: Sale of genuine products under an authorized distribution arrangement does not amount to infringement – Applied principle of international exhaustion as upheld in Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics and Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International [Paras 18-19].

Exclusive Agency Agreement – Effect of Termination – The exclusive agency agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 5 was terminated vide letter dated 13.11.2024 – Held: Post termination, the plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity over the mark in India – Plaintiff’s claim of monopoly over ‘STELLADEXIN’ not tenable when defendant no. 5 continues to be the rightful owner and prior user [Paras 10.7, 16-17].

Interim Relief – Balance of Convenience – Prima Facie Case Not Made Out – Interim injunction order dated 27.08.2024 vacated – Held: Balance of convenience lies in favour of defendants who were prior users – Grant of injunction would unfairly restrain the defendants from dealing in products they have lawfully sold in India since 2013 – Plaintiff merely an importer cannot claim monopoly over goods of defendant no. 5 [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Applications for interim injunction (I.A. 37339/2024 and I.A. 49076/2024) dismissed – Application by defendant no. 2 (I.A. 41504/2024) seeking vacation of interim injunction allowed – Observations confined to interim stage without prejudice to the final outcome of the suit [Paras 22-24].

Suo Moto PIL – Protection of Right to Food, Right to Health and Addressing Malnutrition, Obesity and Mental Health Issues – Sections 4, 5, 6 of the National Food Security Act, 2013 – Section 16 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Article 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India – Suo moto proceedings initiated to address alarming issues of malnutrition and obesity affecting minor children, women and citizens – Court emphasized that the Right to Food and Right to Health are integral to the Right to Life under Article 21 – Noted serious failures by both Central and State authorities in effective implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Highlighted the harmful impacts of junk food, carbonated drinks, and excessive use of mobile phones on physical and mental health of children – Directed governments to submit detailed reports on compliance with statutory obligations, strengthen Anganwadi centres, enforce food safety standards in and around schools, restrict junk food, promote traditional healthy diets, and incorporate awareness in educational curriculums – Issued notices to Union of India, State of Rajasthan, FSSAI, and related authorities – Matter listed for further hearing [Paras 1-33].

Right to Food and Right to Health – Fundamental Rights under Article 21 – State’s Statutory Obligation – The Court held that the right to food and right to health are interconnected and integral parts of the right to life under Article 21 – Failure of State to ensure adequate nutrition constitutes violation of fundamental rights – Emphasis placed on constitutional mandate under Article 47 and international obligations [Paras 2-6, 13-14].

Malnutrition – Implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013 – Sections 4, 5 and 6 – Failure to comply – The Court noted gross inadequacies in the implementation of nutritional entitlements for pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children under the Act – Directed the State and Union authorities to submit reports detailing steps taken to comply with statutory obligations under the Act, including adherence to nutritional standards specified in Schedule II [Paras 9-15].

Anganwadi Centres – Essential Role in Child Nutrition – Non-functioning Anganwadis – The Court stressed that the effective functioning of Anganwadi Centres is crucial for the implementation of welfare schemes under the National Food Security Act – Directed authorities to ensure full operational status of Anganwadi Centres to combat malnutrition [Paras 14-15].

Junk Food and Carbonated Drinks – Harmful Effects on Children – Duty under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – The Court observed that junk food and sugary drinks significantly contribute to obesity and mental health issues among children – Noted failure of authorities to monitor and regulate sale of such food items – Referred to FSSAI Guidelines on restricting HFSS (High in Fat, Salt, Sugar) foods in and around schools – Emphasized the duty of FSSAI and State under Section 16 of the FSS Act to enforce food safety standards [Paras 16-21].

Mobile Phones – Impact on Children’s Mental and Physical Health – The Court raised serious concerns over excessive use of mobile phones by children – Held that it hinders physical growth, mental development, and intellectual abilities – Suggested that governments incorporate guidelines restricting mobile usage in educational curriculums and raise awareness among parents and teachers [Para 24-25].

Curriculum Changes – Promotion of Healthy Lifestyle – Directed Education Boards to introduce syllabus content promoting healthy eating, dangers of junk food, ill-effects of carbonated drinks, and risks of mobile overuse – Also stressed revival of traditional food habits and importance of homemade “Dadi-Nani” recipes for promoting well-being [Paras 25-27].

Government Accountability – Statutory Failure – Court expressed anguish over failure of authorities to implement the National Food Security Act and Food Safety laws in their true spirit – Held that this failure directly contributes to widespread malnutrition and obesity impacting mental health of the future generation – Issued notice to Union of India, State of Rajasthan, FSSAI, and other departments to submit reports on remedial measures – Directed the matter to be listed for further hearing [Paras 28-33].

Criminal Law  – Cognizance Based on Magistrate’s Own Knowledge – Section 210(1)(c) BNSS – Valid Mode of Taking Cognizance – Challenge Rejected – Petitioners, police officials, challenged summons issued under Section 227(1)(b) BNSS on basis of judicial inquiry conducted under Section 196 into alleged custodial death – Held: Magistrate’s power under Section 210(1)(c) to take cognizance on own knowledge or on information other than police report is independent and exclusive – Procedure under Chapter XVI applicable only to complaint cases under Section 210(1)(a) – Summons issued were valid [Paras 13–15, 19].

Judicial Inquiry – Magistrate Competent to Take Cognizance After Conducting Inquiry – No Infirmity in Magistrate Issuing Process – Petitioners contended that the Magistrate who conducted the inquiry could not take cognizance himself – Rejected – Held: Section 196 judicial inquiry is broader in scope and distinct from investigation – Magistrate’s satisfaction drawn from sworn depositions recorded during inquiry – No legal bar to same Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 210(1)(c) [Paras 22–23].

Accused’s Right to Raise Objection – Remedy Under Section 211 BNSS Available – High Court Declines to Interfere – Petition Premature – Held: Under Section 211, accused have statutory right to seek inquiry/trial before another Magistrate if bias is apprehended – Petitioners failed to avail such remedy before challenging summoning order – Court found no merit in bypassing the statutory mechanism provided in BNSS [Paras 11, 20, 24].

Issue of Process – Sufficiency of Material – No Need for Fresh Witness Examination – Section 231 Compliance Not Required at This Stage – Petitioners argued that statements or list of witnesses not provided under Section 231 – Held: Process was issued only after judicial inquiry with 20+ depositions – Statements recorded on oath during inquiry sufficient for satisfaction of Magistrate – Section 231 compliance arises at trial stage and cannot be presumed to be violated prematurely [Paras 10, 20–21].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Summoning Order Upheld – Liberty Given to Petitioners to Approach Magistrate Under Section 211 BNSS – Court upheld impugned order dated 18.02.2025 and dismissed petition with liberty to petitioners to raise objections before the concerned Magistrate as per law [Paras 23–24].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonor – Proprietorship Concern – Liability under Section 138 – Acquittal Upheld – A cheque drawn on the account of M/s Udai Continentals was dishonored – Appellant failed to prove that Respondent No. 2 (D.P. Singh) was the proprietor of Udai Continentals – Evidence established that the actual proprietor was Ms. Sarika Singh Kuchhawaha, who was not arraigned as an accused – Held: For proprietorship concerns, only the proprietor can be held liable – No vicarious liability arises under Section 141 of NI Act for proprietorships – Complaint against Respondent No. 2 dismissed [Paras 28-38].

Proprietorship Concern – Distinction from Companies and Firms – Jurisprudence – A proprietorship firm has no separate legal entity from its proprietor – Cited Supreme Court judgment in Raghu Lakshminarayanan vs. Fine Tubes (2007) 5 SCC 103 and Delhi High Court in M.M. Lal vs. State NCT of Delhi 2012 (4) JCC 284 – Held: Only the sole proprietor can be held responsible under Section 138 of NI Act – Vicarious liability does not extend to non-proprietors even if they are related or involved in the business [Paras 30-34].

Cheque Dishonor – Demand Notice – Discrepancy in Amount – The court rejected the appellant’s contention that demand notice claiming Rs. 62,000 (including interest) for a dishonored cheque of Rs. 60,000 was valid – Observed that the cheque liability must match the amount demanded under Section 138 – However, the core reason for acquittal remained the appellant’s failure to establish that the respondent was the drawer or proprietor [Paras 21, 38].

Misrepresentation – Proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Allegation that Respondent No.2 misrepresented himself as proprietor – Trial Court rightly dismissed application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – High Court affirmed that no material supported claim that Respondent No.2 was the proprietor – Observed that evidence from the bank clearly identified Ms. Sarika Singh Kuchhawaha as proprietor – Held: Appellant’s failure to implead the correct person was fatal [Paras 12, 35-37].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal of Respondent No. 2 under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Appellant failed to establish the basic requirement of the drawer-proprietor relationship – Complaint suffered from fatal defects in impleadment of parties – No interference warranted in the trial court’s acquittal order dated 24.09.2011 [Paras 38-39].

Taxation Law - Reassessment – Change of Opinion – Section 147 of the Income Tax Act – Reopening Set Aside – The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 alleging escapement of income on issues of foreign exchange gains, capitalisation of lump sum technical know-how payments and deduction under Section 80HHC – The assessee challenged the reassessment stating all relevant facts had been fully disclosed during original assessment proceedings which concluded under Section 143(3) – Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held the reopening invalid – Dismissing the Department's appeal, the High Court upheld these findings, ruling that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material and therefore impermissible under law [Paras 1-11].

Reassessment – Query and Consideration in Original Assessment – Reopening Invalid – The High Court reiterated that where detailed queries were raised during scrutiny and assessee provided due replies, it amounts to proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer – The fact that certain matters are not discussed in the final assessment order does not negate their consideration – Held: Raising the same points in reassessment constitutes change of opinion, thus vitiating reassessment proceedings [Paras 6-10].

Limitation Period – Reassessment within Four Years – Invalid Despite Timeline Compliance – The Court clarified that reassessment within four years must still satisfy the threshold of ‘reason to believe’ – In this case, as facts were fully disclosed and already considered, reassessment was not sustainable even though it was within four years [Paras 5,9].

Binding Precedents – Application of Aroni Commercials Principle – Following the ruling in Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court), the High Court held that once a query is raised and replied to during original assessment, revisiting the same issue later without fresh material amounts to mere change of opinion, which cannot justify reassessment under Section 147 [Para 10].

Final Outcome – Appeal Dismissed – Upholding CIT(A) and ITAT orders, the Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal, answering both substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee – Reassessment proceedings quashed as invalid under law [Para 11].