Live-In Relationship – Domestic Violence – Maintenance Awarded – The applicant challenged the award of maintenance granted to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 (a child) under the DV Act – Supreme Court held: The relationship between the applicant and respondent No. 1 fell within the definition of "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act, as they lived together and a child was born from their relationship – The courts below were correct in awarding maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000 per month to respondent No. 2 [Paras 6-12].

Domestic Relationship – Knowledge of Prior Marriage – The applicant argued that respondent No. 1 was aware of his prior marriage, disqualifying her from claiming maintenance – Court rejected this argument, noting that respondent No. 1 had testified she was unaware of the applicant’s marital status – The courts below correctly held the relationship as one "in the nature of marriage," entitling her to relief under the DV Act.

Quantum of Maintenance – Reasonableness of Award – The applicant, a government employee earning Rs. 32,000 per month, was ordered to pay Rs. 6,000 total in maintenance – The Court found this award to be reasonable given the financial circumstances of both parties, and there was no perversity in the lower court’s decision .

Decision – Revision dismissed – The findings of the lower courts were upheld, including the award of maintenance and compensation under the Domestic Violence Act .

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide and Cruelty – Quashing of Complaint – Lack of Specific Instigating Act – Application under Section 482 of CrPC – Petition by Accused No. 4 to quash the complaint in S.C. No. 539/2021, involving charges under Sections 498(A), 306 read with 34 IPC, alleging that petitioner, along with her family, subjected the victim to cruelty which ultimately led to her suicide – Petitioner claimed innocence, stating she resided abroad and had no active role in instigating the victim – Court examined specific evidence and allegations for abetment, finding no conclusive instigating act attributable to petitioner – Held: General allegations of familial disapproval are insufficient to constitute abetment or cruelty without clear evidence of direct or proximate instigation; no prima facie case made out against petitioner – Quashing petition allowed [Paras 1, 5, 6, 12].

Abetment – Requirement for Specific Instigation Under Section 306 IPC – Mens Rea and Proximity – High Court analyzed criteria for abetment of suicide, emphasizing that instigation under Section 306 IPC requires intentional acts or words directly motivating the victim’s suicide – Reviewed relevant case law, noting that mere familial discontent or indirect acts without clear incitement do not satisfy the requirements for abetment – Held: Allegations failed to demonstrate proximate instigation or any mens rea on petitioner’s part; charges for abetment not sustainable at pre-trial stage [Paras 11, 13, 16, 20].

Decision: Petition allowed – Quashing granted for offenses under Sections 498(A), 306 read with Section 34 IPC – Proceedings against petitioner dismissed at pre-trial stage – Stay order vacated [Para 12].

Writ of Mandamus – Permission for Preparatory Arrangements for Public Festivities – The petitioners, devotees and members of Navajagran Public Durga Puja Samithi, sought permission to enter Bannappa Park Playground for preparatory work ahead of Durga Puja, scheduled from 09.10.2024 to 13.10.2024 – Held: The respondents had already granted permission for the Puja, and it was deemed essential for the petitioners to undertake necessary preparations such as erecting pandals, building a stage, and ensuring public safety prior to the event – The Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioners to perform preparatory work from 06.10.2024 onwards, while adhering to legal norms [Paras 6-12]​.

Public Interest – Religious Festivities and Civic Permissions – The Court emphasized the need for balancing public interest in religious festivities with civic responsibilities. Since the BBMP had no objections to the preparatory works, the petition was disposed of with appropriate directions [Paras 10-12]​.

Decision – Petition allowed – Respondents directed to permit the petitioners to carry out preparatory works for the Durga Puja from 06.10.2024 to 08.10.2024​.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Illegal Extraction of Minerals – The petitioner was charged under Sections 379, 411, and 414 of the IPC and under the Mines and Minerals Act for alleged illegal extraction of brick earth – Held: The FIR and the subsequent proceedings were quashed as the petitioner had paid all dues for royalty, land revenue, and cess as demanded by the authorities – The issuance of a ‘No Due Certificate’ demonstrated compliance with statutory requirements, rendering the charges baseless [Paras 7-12]​.

Abuse of Process of Law – Absence of Essential Ingredients for Theft – The Court found no prima facie case for theft or illegal extraction of minerals as there was no seizure of brick earth or minerals from the petitioner’s premises – The seizure of empty trucks and earth removers did not constitute evidence of theft or illegal mining – The continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 13-18]​.

Inherent Powers of Court – Quashing of Proceedings – The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, citing the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal to quash the proceedings – The criminal case was instituted with a mala fide intent, and the ingredients of the offences were not made out [Paras 20-22]​.

Decision – Petition allowed – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed – Case disposed of​.

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR Registration – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after being accused of theft under Section 380 IPC. The Court observed that there was an inordinate delay in registering the FIR, which was explained by the de-facto complainant on the grounds that the petitioner’s mother had promised to return the stolen ATM card and money – Held: The delay did not affect the credibility of the FIR as the explanation was prima facie satisfactory [Paras 6-7]​.

Pre-Arrest Bail – Exceptional Circumstances Required – Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only in exceptional cases where the applicant demonstrates clear misuse of the process of law – The petitioner’s custodial interrogation was deemed necessary for recovering the stolen items, and thus, anticipatory bail was denied [Paras 10-12]​.

Decision – Bail application dismissed – Custodial interrogation and recovery needed for proper investigation​.

Contempt of Court – Non-compliance with Court Orders – The petitioners were denied marks for their National Trade Certificates despite a clear High Court order directing the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) to consider these certificates for recruitment as Shramiks – Held: APSRTC's failure to comply with the Court’s order constituted contempt – The respondent's reasons for rejecting the marks were unfounded and contrary to the Court’s directives – A fine of ₹2000 was imposed on the second respondent, with a default sentence of two weeks' simple imprisonment [Paras 7-12]​.

Employment Law – Recruitment Criteria – Awarding of Marks – The Court clarified that the awarding of 30 marks for National Trade Certificates was mandated by the Court’s previous order, and APSRTC had no discretion to deviate from this directive – The contention that additional marks should be awarded for both National Trade and National Apprenticeship Certificates was rejected as unjustified and speculative [Paras 8-9]​.

Decision – Contempt petition allowed – Fine of ₹2000 imposed on the second respondent, with a default sentence of two weeks' simple imprisonment [Para 12]​.

Constitutional Law – Writ Petition Against Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) – Availability of Statutory Remedies – The petitioner filed a writ petition against the PAO issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the expiration of the 30-day statutory period for raising objections before the Adjudicating Authority – Held: The writ petition is premature as the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies available under Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA, which provide adequate safeguards and opportunities to challenge the attachment – Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to approach the Adjudicating Authority [Paras 1.1, 3.1, 3.6].

Provisional Attachment Under PMLA – Judicial Review – The petitioner’s challenge to the PAO, asserting a lack of connection with the proceeds of crime, was found unsustainable – The PAO is subject to review and confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority within 180 days as per Section 5(5) of the PMLA – The court found that statutory remedies must be exhausted unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case – Reliance placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) SCC Online SC 929 to emphasize procedural safeguards provided under the Act [Paras 3.1, 3.6].

Exceptions to Exhaustion of Remedies – When Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked – The petitioner failed to establish that the PAO was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or amounted to an abuse of process, which are the grounds for bypassing statutory remedies – Court reiterated the principles laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499 regarding the limited exceptions to the rule of exhausting remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 3.2, 3.6].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to avail statutory remedy by approaching the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA – No observation on the merits of the case made – The Adjudicating Authority is directed to expedite the matter [Paras 4.1-4.2].

Bail in NDPS Cases – Medical Grounds – Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail Granted with Conditions - The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS, citing critical health conditions requiring care outside the prison setting, while the prosecution opposed the application due to the commercial quantity involved and alleged serious misconduct involving misuse of position by police personnel. Given the petitioner’s critical medical needs, the court held that stringent conditions on release could meet the justice requirements and balance the health needs – Bail was granted, overriding Section 37’s rigor in this context, with specific restrictive and rehabilitative conditions on the petitioner [Paras 9-12].

Stringent Bail Conditions – Ensuring Fair Trial and Prevention of Offense Repetition - The court imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to submit detailed identification records and barred possession of firearms, emphasizing the significance of rehabilitation and reform as part of bail considerations – These conditions reflect the judiciary's intent to mitigate risks of witness tampering and recurrence of offenses, balancing bail with public safety concerns [Paras 14-19].

Discretion in Bail for Medical Reasons – Role of Proportionality and Necessity - Emphasizing the necessity for proportionality in bail conditions, the court aligned with Supreme Court observations that bail restrictions should not infringe rights disproportionately – The petitioner was held eligible for bail on medical grounds, subject to compliance with conditions supporting public and individual safety [Para 19].

Decision – Bail Granted – Given the petitioner’s critical medical condition and satisfaction of initial Section 37 conditions, the court granted bail with stringent restrictions to safeguard public safety and ensure the petitioner’s compliance.

Labour Law - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Minimum Wages Act vs. Industrial Disputes Act - The petitioner challenged the Labour Court’s direction to pay differential minimum wages to a workman engaged through a contractor, arguing the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to determine disputed wage claims. Held: The Minimum Wages Act provides an exclusive remedy under Section 20 for wage disputes, making the Labour Court’s order under Section 33-C(2) ultra vires [Paras 8-9].

Principal Employer Liability - Contract Labour - The Court held that the Labour Court erred in directing the principal employer to pay differential wages without recourse to the prescribed process under the Minimum Wages Act. The workman must approach authorities under the Minimum Wages Act for such claims [Paras 3-4].

Relief and Directions - The Court set aside the Labour Court’s order, granting liberty to the workman to seek remedies under the Minimum Wages Act, with guidance that time spent in proceedings before the Labour Court and High Court would be considered regarding limitation [Para 9].

Decision: The petitions are allowed, and the Labour Court's order is set aside. The respondent-workmen are directed to pursue remedies under the Minimum Wages Act.