Family Law – Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty – Appeal under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act – The appellant, Shweta Singh, sought a divorce on grounds of cruelty, alleging that the respondent demanded dowry, assaulted her, and refused to consummate the marriage – The trial court dismissed the divorce petition, stating that the allegations did not meet the legal criterion for cruelty – On appeal, the High Court found that the respondent failed to appear in court, indicating non-cooperation and neglect toward the matrimonial relationship – Held: Cruelty was established based on the appellant's testimony and corroborating evidence – The marriage was dissolved [Paras 18-19].

Witness Testimony – Evidence of Cruelty – The appellant and her father testified to the respondent's demand for dowry, harassment, and non-consummation of marriage – The appellant stated that she was assaulted and mentally harassed, leading her to live separately since 20.03.2015 – The respondent's non-appearance in court was seen as further neglect – Held: The testimony provided sufficient evidence of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 14-17].

Legal Interpretation of Cruelty – The High Court referred to Supreme Court judgments in N.G. Dastane vs. S. Dastane and V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat to define cruelty as conduct causing danger to life, limb, or health, including mental health – Emphasized that cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional, and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis – Held: The respondent's conduct amounted to cruelty within the meaning of the law [Paras 21-24, 26].

Decision: Divorce Granted – The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment dated 01.05.2023 and decree dated 09.05.2023 – The marriage between the appellant and the respondent, solemnized on 30.11.2014, was dissolved – The divorce was granted based on the ground of cruelty, considering the long period of separation and the respondent's neglectful attitude – Ordered preparation of the divorce decree accordingly

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].

NDPS - Possession and Conscious Possession – Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act – The appellant was convicted for possessing 208 kg of ganja, which was seized from a private vehicle he was driving – Held: The court observed that possession includes both physical custody and mental awareness – The standard for conscious possession varies depending on whether the vehicle is public or private – In this case, since the vehicle was private and the contraband was found inside it, the presumption of conscious possession applied – The appellant's role as the driver did not absolve him of liability; rather, he was required to establish that he was unaware of the possession, which he failed to do [Paras 12-13].

Independent Witnesses – Non-Availability and Impact on Prosecution – The appellant argued that no independent witnesses were examined, and the case relied solely on official witnesses – Held: The court held that the absence of independent witnesses does not necessarily vitiate the prosecution’s case if the evidence of official witnesses is reliable and consistent – Citing Hari Obula Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was emphasized that testimony of interested witnesses cannot be discarded merely for lack of independent corroboration [Para 10].

Procedural Compliance – Seizure and Forensic Analysis – The appellant contended procedural lapses, such as an empty seizure column in the FIR and failure to draw samples from each packet of ganja – Held: The court noted that P.W.8, the Circle Inspector, had followed the necessary procedures for seizure and sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory – Even though the images lacked the Magistrate’s seal, the presence of the Magistrate in the images was sufficient to establish adherence to the prescribed procedure – The trial court's finding on compliance with procedure was upheld [Paras 9, 16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction Upheld – The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act – It was held that the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the sentence imposed by the trial court was commensurate with the quantity of contraband seized [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law – Pre-Arrest Bail – Dismissed - Exercise of Extraordinary Power – The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for offenses under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC – The deceased had given a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. alleging harassment by the petitioners – The Court found that the petitioners were prima facie involved in the offenses and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the circumstances leading to the deceased's suicide – Held: The power to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, particularly in serious cases where custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the truth – Petitions dismissed [Paras 25, 67, 83].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Investigation – The Court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in cases involving serious allegations like abetment to suicide – Held: Effective interrogation of a suspect is crucial and may be rendered ineffective if the suspect is granted pre-arrest bail – The need for custodial interrogation outweighs the liberty of the individual in this case [Paras 67, 83].

Consideration for Grant of Anticipatory Bail – The Court referred to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which highlight the necessity to balance individual rights, public interest, and fair investigation while considering pre-arrest bail – The grant of pre-arrest bail is not a rule but an exception and should be granted only when the court is convinced of exceptional circumstances [Paras 21, 25].

Decision:

Petitions for pre-arrest bail dismissed – The nature of the offense and the necessity for custodial interrogation disentitled the petitioners from the concession of bail – Observations made are confined to the disposal of these petitions and shall not impact the merits of the case [Para 83].

Compensation – Death Due to Negligence – Maintainability Under Article 226 – The petitioners sought compensation for the death of their minor son caused by the alleged negligence of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in maintaining its premises – Held: The High Court can entertain writ petitions under Article 226 for compensation in cases of violation of fundamental rights, including Article 21, where the State's negligence is evident – The Court found sufficient evidence of negligence by MCD in failing to maintain the premises, leading to the death – The writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 15-18].

Res Ipsa Loquitur – Application in Public Law Remedy – The Court applied the maxim 'Res Ipsa Loquitur,' presuming negligence on the part of MCD – It was established that the falling of a slab from the MCD-owned premises caused the death, indicating clear negligence in maintaining a safe environment for the public – Held: The principle allows for the presumption of negligence based on the circumstances surrounding the case, justifying the awarding of compensation [Paras 19-21].

Quantum of Compensation – Calculation – The petitioners sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 – The Court applied principles from prior judgments, considering factors such as the age of the deceased, potential future prospects, and minimum wage rates – The Court awarded Rs. 10,00,000 along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of death until realization – The compensation was computed based on loss of dependency and pecuniary losses, with the amount being adjusted for inflation [Paras 22-34].

Decision – Compensation Awarded – The Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of death – In case of non-compliance, the petitioners would be entitled to an additional simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum – The writ petition was disposed of with these directions [Paras 34-35].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation – Negligence Not Established – The Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal’s findings of negligence and liability on the grounds that the deceased driver of the motorcycle had consumed alcohol at the time of the accident – Held: Merely detecting alcohol in the stomach during the post-mortem is insufficient to prove intoxication or negligence – No other evidence was presented to establish that the driver was under the influence of alcohol or driving negligently at the time of the accident – Tribunal’s decision upheld regarding the liability of the Insurance Company [Paras 22-23, 30].

Insurance Policy Conditions – Occupant of Tractor Not Covered – The claim regarding the injury suffered by the respondent traveling on the tractor-trolley, which was insured under a "Farmer's Package Policy," was challenged on the grounds that the insurance did not cover the occupant as no premium was charged for such coverage – Held: The insurance was specific to agricultural use, and the policy covered only the driver – Occupant not covered under the policy – Insurance Company’s liability exonerated [Paras 24-26, 31].

Policy Violation – Tractor Used for Agricultural Purpose – The Insurance Company argued that the tractor was not being used for agricultural purposes at the time of the accident – Held: The Tribunal found that the tractor was being used to carry bricks for constructing a farm wall, which falls under agricultural purposes – Insurance Company liable for claims arising from the tractor’s use [Paras 26, 30].

Contributory Negligence – Multiple Riders on Motorcycle – The argument that having four persons on a motorcycle contributed to the accident was dismissed, as there was no evidence connecting the number of riders to the cause of the accident – Motorcycle collided with the tractor due to the latter’s negligence [Paras 28-29].

Interest on Compensation – Higher Rate as Penalty – The higher interest rate imposed by the Tribunal in case of delayed payment by the Insurance Company was found to be inconsistent with established legal principles – Interest adjusted to the standard rate of 6% p.a. [Para 32].

Family Law – Divorce by Mutual Consent (Mubara'at) – Appeal allowed – Appellant sought declaration of her divorce by mutual consent (Mubara'at) under Muslim Personal Law – The marriage was solemnized in 1984, with mutual separation occurring in 1990 – The couple mutually agreed to divorce in 1999 and executed a notarized “Talaqnama Tehreer” in 2000 – Family Court dismissed the suit for non-submission of original Talaqnama and delayed filing – Held: The delay in filing the suit was not a valid ground for dismissal as no limitation period applies to matrimonial status declarations under the Family Courts Act, 1984 – Suit decreed, and parties’ matrimonial status declared as divorced [Paras 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30].

Limitation Act – Applicability to Divorce Cases – The Family Courts Act, 1984 does not prescribe any limitation period for suits declaring matrimonial status – The Family Court erroneously applied the Limitation Act – Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act exempts matrimonial cases from limitation restrictions – Delay in filing the suit was not a valid reason for dismissal, especially when the fact of divorce was undisputed, and the cause of action was recurring – Held: Family Court’s finding on delay was legally unsustainable, and the suit was filed within a reasonable time [Paras 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30].

Evidence – Admissibility of “Talaqnama” – Original Talaqnama submitted as additional evidence before the High Court – Family Court’s insistence on the original document was unwarranted as the fact of divorce was admitted and undisputed by the respondent – Under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, facts admitted need not be proven – Held: Family Court’s rejection of the suit on technical grounds of non-submission of original Talaqnama was erroneous [Paras 9, 20, 21, 23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Family Court’s judgment set aside – Divorce by mutual consent (Mubara'at) confirmed – Matrimonial status declared as divorced – No costs imposed on either party – Original Talaqnama to be returned to the appellant [Paras 30, Order].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC – Appellants convicted for dowry death and cruelty towards the deceased (Paramjit Kaur) – Trial court sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC and 1 year under Section 498-A IPC – Appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the dying declaration was unreliable and there was no evidence of cruelty or demand for dowry – Held: The prosecution proved that the deceased died due to poisoning within 7 years of marriage, and there was credible evidence of harassment and demand for dowry – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-32].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – The deceased, Paramjit Kaur, made a dying declaration implicating her husband (Mohinder Singh), father-in-law (Amrik Singh), and other relatives for harassment and dowry demands – The appellants argued that the dying declaration lacked a doctor’s fitness certificate – Held: The declaration, recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, was found credible and supported by other evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports – The absence of a doctor's certificate did not invalidate the declaration [Paras 8-10, 30].

Presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act – Dowry Death – The deceased died within 7 years of marriage and was subjected to harassment related to dowry – The court applied the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden of proof onto the accused – The appellants failed to rebut this presumption, and the prosecution’s evidence supported the conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 11-12, 26-31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – The post-mortem and chemical analysis confirmed that the deceased died of poisoning by aluminium phosphide – The medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case that the death was unnatural and related to dowry demands – No discrepancies in the medical testimony were found [Paras 19-21, 29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC upheld – Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of [Paras 32-33].

Murder Case – Conviction under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC – Discrepancies in FIR and Witness Statements – Conviction Upheld - The appellants were convicted for murder based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and evidence linking the blood-stained weapons recovered from the appellants to the deceased. The defense argued discrepancies in the timing of the FIR, contradictions in the accident register, and doubts over the presence of eyewitnesses. Held: The conviction was upheld, as the prosecution established the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the discrepancies were deemed minor and insignificant [Paras 12-13, 19].

Credibility of Injured Witnesses – High Reliability – Duty to Discredit through Concrete Evidence – The appellants contended that the injured witnesses were unreliable, particularly regarding their failure to help the deceased and the alleged contradictions in their testimony. Held: Injured witnesses are generally considered highly reliable, and the defense failed to provide concrete evidence to discredit their testimony. Minor inconsistencies did not affect the core of the prosecution's case [Paras 15, 19].

Discovery of Weapons – Link with the Crime – Matching Blood Groups – The appellants argued that the recovery of weapons was unreliable due to the presence of blood of different groups on the knives. Held: The prosecution proved the connection between the recovered weapons and the crime, as the blood found on the knives matched the deceased's blood group. The presence of an additional blood group was consistent with the injuries sustained by the witnesses [Paras 16-17].

Delay in FIR Filing – No Impact on Prosecution's Case – The defense highlighted a delay of 3 hours in the registration of the FIR and discrepancies in the accident register, where the injuries were allegedly caused by "unknown persons." Held: The FIR was registered promptly and reached the court prior to the preparation of the accident register, rendering the discrepancy in the register irrelevant [Paras 12-13].

Minor Contradictions in Witness Statements – No Ground for Acquittal – The appellants argued that minor contradictions in witness statements about the timing and sequence of events should lead to their acquittal. Held: Minor contradictions did not affect the core issue of the case. The testimony of multiple eyewitnesses was consistent and corroborated by forensic evidence [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The court upheld the conviction and sentences passed by the Trial Court in SC No. 10 of 2016. Both appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and fines under Sections 302 r/w 34, 341, and 323 of the IPC [Paras 20-21].