Civil Law - Validity of Sale Deeds – Protection of Rustic Village Widows – Application of Legal Test – The appellant, an illiterate widow, alleged that the respondents fraudulently obtained four sale deeds from her under the pretext of executing a power of attorney – The trial court declared the sale deeds void due to misrepresentation, but the first appellate court reversed this decision based solely on the Sub-Registrar’s endorsement – Held: Courts must apply the legal test laid down in Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai, which requires proving that an illiterate woman understood the nature of the transaction – The first appellate court erred in failing to apply this test and blindly relying on the Sub-Registrar’s endorsement [Paras 21-23, 35].

Burden of Proof – Onus on Beneficiary of Transaction with Illiterate Woman – The Supreme Court and Privy Council have consistently held that in transactions involving illiterate women, the burden lies on the party benefiting from the document to prove it was executed with full knowledge and free consent – The respondents failed to produce material witnesses, including the deed writer and attesting witnesses – Held: As per Hemchandra Roy Chowdhury v. Suradhoni Chowdhurani and Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai, mere registration of a document does not establish its validity if the executant is an illiterate, rustic widow – The failure of the respondents to discharge this burden strengthens the appellant’s claim [Paras 24-26, 31-33].

Counterclaim – Procedural Deficiency and Lack of Court Fee Payment – The respondents filed a counterclaim seeking recovery of possession but failed to pay the requisite court fees, and the appellant was not given an opportunity to file a written statement – The first appellate court erroneously granted relief based on this procedurally defective counterclaim – Held: As per Order VIII Rule 6(A) CPC, a counterclaim must be treated as a plaint, and failure to comply with procedural requirements renders it unsustainable [Paras 12-14].

Presumption of Title – Record of Rights Does Not Confer Ownership – The first appellate court granted title to the respondents based on entries in the Record of Rights – The High Court held that such entries are only prima facie evidence of possession and do not establish ownership – Held: The first appellate court’s reliance on revenue records to determine ownership was legally flawed [Paras 19, 35].

Decision: Second appeal allowed. The judgment of the first appellate court was set aside, and the trial court’s decree declaring the sale deeds void was restored.

RERA Jurisdiction – Complaint maintainability against unregistered projects – Jurisdiction of RERA upheld - Petitioners contended that in the absence of registration under Section 3 of the RERA Act, the authority could not entertain complaints – Held that Section 31 vests jurisdiction in RERA to entertain complaints even against promoters of unregistered projects – Further held that registration is not a condition precedent for RERA's jurisdiction, especially when the statutory duties under Section 31, read with the definition of “promoter” under Section 2(zk), are wide enough to cover such promoters – Petition dismissed [Paras 2-28].

Alternative Remedy – Availability of Statutory Appeal under Section 43(5) of RERA Act – Writ Petition Not Maintainable - Court held that the proper remedy available to the petitioners was to file a statutory appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 43(5) – Writ jurisdiction refused, as statutory appeal is the efficacious remedy [Paras 24-28].

Promoter Definition – Government Bodies and Statutory Authorities are also Promoters under RERA – Provisions Explained - The Court clarified that State Government agencies like Improvement Trusts, Development Authorities (HSVP, GMADA, PUDA) are deemed promoters under Section 2(zk)(iii) of the Act – Therefore, complaints against such authorities are maintainable before RERA [Paras 6-10].

Retroactivity of RERA – Applicability to ongoing projects - Supreme Court in “Newtech Promoters” approved retroactive application - Held that projects without completion certificate prior to RERA enforcement are subject to the Act – Ongoing projects covered under RERA even if commenced before the Act [Paras 12].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed - The Court rejected the petition challenging RERA’s jurisdiction – Petitioners given liberty to prefer statutory appeal under Section 43(5) with possible benefit under Section 14 of Limitation Act for exclusion of time spent in writ proceedings [Paras 28-29].
 

Criminal Law – Rape – Appeal against conviction – Delay in FIR and Unexplained Silence – Conviction Set Aside – The prosecutrix reported repeated sexual assault months after the alleged incidents, only after pregnancy was discovered – No complaint made earlier despite residing with family – Held: Unexplained delay in filing complaint and absence of disclosure affects prosecution's credibility [Paras 27–29, 36–37].

Consent and Relationship – Affection and Voluntary Visits Undermine Coercion – Prosecutrix admitted to continued visits and developing feelings for appellant – First mention of threats came during deposition, absent in FIR and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement – Held: Improvements in testimony and lack of contemporaneous fear suggest possibility of consensual relationship [Paras 13–15, 31–34].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Paternity Established but Not Rape – DNA proved appellant was father of child but did not establish non-consensual intercourse – No signs of force or injury found – Held: Proof of intercourse without proving lack of consent insufficient for conviction under Section 376 IPC [Paras 35, 38].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – No Allegation in Initial Statements – Threats alleged for first time at trial – Held: Uncorroborated improved statements lacking contemporaneous evidence not sufficient for conviction – Section 506 charge unsustainable [Paras 40–43].

Decision: Appeal – Standard of Proof – Conviction Not Sustainable – Cumulative inconsistencies, unexplained delay, and absence of corroborative medical or forensic evidence raised serious doubts – Held: Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant – Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges [Paras 44–48].
 

Family Law – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Mental and Physical Harassment – Divorce Upheld – Respondent-husband alleged harassment, multiple false criminal cases, physical violence, and forcible ouster of parents by appellant-wife – Family Court found repeated acts of cruelty including 45 FIRs, threats, assaults, and financial control – Divorce decree affirmed – Appellant’s plea of filing restitution petition not sufficient to negate cruelty – Repeated litigation used as tool for harassment not a bona fide exercise of legal rights [Paras 1-25].

Mental Cruelty – Standard for Assessment – Persistent harassment, humiliation, emotional abuse, and threats constitute mental cruelty – Mere filing of restitution of conjugal rights petition by wife did not absolve cruelty proved by overwhelming evidence – Supreme Court precedents in K. Srinivas Rao, Samar Ghosh, and V. Bhagat applied to hold that cumulative acts crossed the threshold of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 9-18].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long-standing Estrangement – Divorce Justified – Marriage had irretrievably broken down – Continuous acts of violence, harassment, and financial manipulation destroyed marital peace – Court held that forced continuation of marriage would cause injustice – Irretrievable breakdown considered a relevant circumstance though not a statutory ground [Paras 17-20].

Permanent Alimony – Quantum – Permanent alimony of ₹63,00,000/- granted considering husband's financial capacity, wife’s needs, and prolonged litigation – Challenge to adequacy rejected – Court found amount just and equitable [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Divorce confirmed – Permanent alimony maintained – High Court upheld Family Court’s judgment granting divorce and dismissing restitution of conjugal rights [Paras 24-26].

Education Law - Grant-in-Aid – Repeal of GIA Order, 1994 – No Vested Right to Apply Post-Repeal – Tribunal Orders Partially Set Aside – Court held: In terms of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anup Kumar Senapati, no right to seek benefits under the repealed 1994 Order survives unless aid was already being received or the case was duly recommended before 01.01.2004 – Institutions merely eligible, without formal approval or recommendation prior to repeal, cannot claim relief [Paras 3.2, 4.2, 6.1, 6.3].

Recommendation Prior to Repeal – RTI Data Considered – Relief Permissible on Case-by-Case Basis – Where recommendations by Directorate of Secondary Education were made before repeal, claims held not barred – Held: These cases require verification; such claims may be allowed if eligibility and recommendation are confirmed [Paras 5.4–5.6, 6.1, 6.3].

Doctrine of Equality – Parity Claimed with Other Beneficiaries – Accepted – Citing Apex Court’s dismissal of SLPs and review petitions in identical cases, Court held that similarly situated employees cannot be discriminated against – Reference made to orders in Balaram Mohanta, Arnada Prasad Tripathy, Sucharita Jena, etc. [Paras 5.7–5.14, 6.2, 6.4].

Binding Precedent – Anup Kumar Senapati – Not Absolute Bar – Explained – Court clarified that Anup Kumar Senapati applies where claims arose post-repeal without earlier recommendations – Where recommendations existed or earlier orders were implemented, benefit cannot be denied [Paras 5.2, 5.19, 6.3].

Decision: Appeals by the State against orders granting benefit under GIA Order, 1994 – Dismissed where prior recommendations existed – Appeals by employees against rejection of claims – Allowed subject to verification of eligibility and recommendation prior to repeal of GIA Order – State directed to complete verification within 6 months [Paras 6.3–6.4, 7].

Bail – Rape – Promise to Marry – Absence of Misconception of Fact – The petitioner was accused of repeatedly engaging in sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant under the pretext of marriage and later refusing to marry her – The Court examined whether the alleged act constituted rape due to vitiation of consent – Held: In light of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921], sexual relations based on a promise to marry do not constitute rape unless it can be shown that the promise was false from the outset and was the sole reason for consent – Bail granted [Paras 8-9].

Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception – Principle Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated the well-established principle that bail should be granted unless there are strong reasons to deny it – Referring to P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870] and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431], the Court emphasized that denying bail in deserving cases would violate Article 21 of the Constitution – Held: The petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and there were no compelling reasons to continue detention [Paras 10-11].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguards Against Witness Intimidation and Flight Risk – The Court imposed stringent conditions, including restrictions on travel, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation with the investigation – Held: Bail granted subject to strict compliance with conditions [Paras 12].

Decision: Bail granted. The petitioner shall be released on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer as required, non-interference with witnesses, restriction on foreign travel, and prohibition from committing similar offences. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to seek cancellation of bail in case of any violation of the conditions.

Bail in Murder Case – Change in Charges Justifies Bail Consideration – The petitioner was initially charged under Section 302 IPC but was later charged under Sections 304(1), 308, and 34 IPC – The Court noted that the trial court had already dropped the murder charge, indicating the absence of premeditation – Held: Since the allegations now pertain to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, bail considerations must be assessed accordingly [Paras 5-6].

Delay in Arrest – Weak Evidentiary Link – The petitioner was not named in the FIR or in the statements recorded immediately after the incident – His arrest was based on an eyewitness statement recorded more than two months after the event – Held: Unexplained delay in naming the accused raises concerns regarding reliability, warranting bail [Paras 11, 19].

CCTV Footage – No Direct Evidence of Assault – The prosecution argued that CCTV footage placed the petitioner at the crime scene, but the defense contended that he was merely a passerby – The Court found that while the petitioner was present, there was no clear evidence of him assaulting the deceased – Held: Mere presence at the scene does not establish guilt beyond doubt, making bail appropriate [Paras 8, 21].

Parity with Co-Accused – Consistency in Bail Decisions – The co-accused, Aqdas, was granted bail on 04/03/2025 based on the trial court’s finding that there was no premeditation – The Court held that the petitioner’s role was not significantly different from that of Aqdas – Held: Bail should not be denied solely based on the severity of the offence when a similarly placed co-accused has been granted relief [Paras 12, 23].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards Against Interference with Trial – Bail was granted subject to conditions ensuring the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and regular police reporting – Held: Stringent conditions mitigate the risk of tampering with evidence or absconding [Para 24].

Decision: Bail granted. The petitioner shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including reporting to the police station weekly, restriction on travel, and prohibition from contacting prosecution witnesses.

Matrimonial Law - Interim Maintenance – Financial Independence of Wife – Rejection Justified – The petitioner, a highly qualified woman with a Master’s degree in International Business from the University of Wollongong, Australia, sought interim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC – The Family Court denied maintenance, citing her previous employment history, LinkedIn profile, and WhatsApp conversations indicating a deliberate effort to remain unemployed for financial benefits – Held: A qualified wife with a proven employment record cannot claim maintenance solely based on unemployment, especially if there is evidence suggesting intentional avoidance of work [Paras 28-31] – Decision: The Family Court's decision rejecting interim maintenance was upheld, as the petitioner failed to prove genuine financial hardship.

Interim Maintenance – Prima Facie Assessment – Judicial Discretion – The Court examined WhatsApp chats where the petitioner and her mother allegedly discussed avoiding employment to claim maintenance – The Family Court's reliance on these messages, along with her employment history, was upheld – Held: While WhatsApp conversations need detailed scrutiny at trial, they can be considered at the interim stage if they prima facie suggest mala fides in claiming maintenance [Paras 32-33, 43] – Decision: The Court found no error in the Family Court’s reliance on prima facie evidence to deny interim maintenance.

Legal Principles – Capable of Earning vs. Actual Earning – The petitioner argued that mere capability to earn does not bar maintenance – The Court distinguished between cases where wives are unable to earn and cases where they intentionally avoid employment – Held: If a wife is qualified and has a history of gainful employment, she cannot remain idle and claim maintenance merely on the basis of unemployment [Paras 36-38, 46] – Decision: The petitioner’s plea was rejected as there was sufficient evidence of her previous employment and deliberate avoidance of work.

Husband’s Financial Status – Relevance in Maintenance Claims – The petitioner contended that the respondent, despite claiming unemployment, had undisclosed income – The respondent produced a termination letter to substantiate his lack of earnings – Held: A husband’s financial status is relevant but does not override the requirement that the wife must demonstrate genuine financial need for maintenance [Paras 45, 47] – Decision: The petitioner failed to establish a financial necessity for interim maintenance, and the claim was dismissed.

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – The petitioner challenged the Family Court’s order under the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court – The Court reaffirmed that revisional power is limited to cases of palpable error or arbitrary exercise of discretion – Held: The Family Court’s order was based on sound reasoning and did not warrant interference [Paras 33, 50-51] – Decision: The High Court refused to interfere, upholding the Family Court’s findings and dismissing the revision petition.
 

Prevention of Corruption – Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – The trial court acquitted the respondent, a public servant, of bribery charges under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – The prosecution contended that the accused was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- and that there was sufficient evidence to convict him – Held: Since the prosecution raised substantial grounds, the Court granted leave to appeal and listed the case for final arguments [Paras 4-7].

Appreciation of Evidence – Alleged Failure by Trial Court – The State argued that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence, including the complainant’s testimony, trap proceedings, and the validity of sanction – The Court found prima facie merit in the State’s contention that the acquittal required reconsideration – Held: The issue of evidentiary appreciation warranted full appellate scrutiny [Paras 4-5].

Sanction for Prosecution – Compliance with Legal Requirements – The prosecution submitted that proper sanction had been obtained before initiating proceedings – The Court noted that this aspect required a detailed examination in the appeal – Held: The question of whether the sanction was valid and properly considered by the trial court would be reviewed in the appeal [Para 5].

Decision: Leave to appeal granted. The matter was converted into a criminal appeal and listed for arguments on 24/03/2025.