Civil Procedure – Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree – Civil Revision against lower court orders dismissing application to set aside ex-parte judgment and decree – Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell against the petitioner – Ex-parte decree passed – Application to set aside ex-parte decree on grounds of non-service at correct address dismissed by trial court and appellate court – High Court held that the petitioner had knowledge of the decree as of 14.05.2012 but filed the application on 17.05.2013 – No explanation for delay provided – Application dismissed for lack of merit – Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 1-7]

Service of Summons – Address Discrepancy – Analysis – Held – Summons were served at the same address as mentioned in the execution petition, which the petitioner acknowledged – Petitioner’s contention of incorrect address found baseless – Delay in filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC not justified by any evidence. [Paras 3-6]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Court found no illegality or irregularity in the orders of the trial and appellate courts – Revision petition dismissed – No merit found in petitioner’s claims. [Paras 7]

Family Law – Dissolution of Marriage – Appellant-husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty and desertion by the respondent-wife – Family Court dismissed the petition – High Court upheld the dismissal, finding no substantial evidence of cruelty or desertion [Paras 1-30].

Cruelty and Desertion – Insufficient Evidence – Allegations of cruelty included harassment on petty issues, false accusations, and police complaints – Respondent alleged dowry demands, physical abuse, and forced abortions – High Court found both parties’ claims lacked corroborative evidence – No specific instances of cruelty or desertion substantiated by credible testimony [Paras 10-20].

Mediation and Settlement Attempts – Case referred to Mediation Centre, unsuccessful mediation – Despite prolonged separation and appellant’s offer of monetary settlement, irretrievable breakdown of marriage not recognized as a ground for divorce under current law [Paras 15, 27, 29].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Appellant failed to prove allegations of cruelty and desertion with specific instances – Family Court’s order upheld – No error found in the Family Court’s detailed reasoning and judgment [Paras 30].

Service Law – Reinstatement – Concealment of Material Facts – Appeal by the State against reinstatement order granted to respondent who had resigned under alleged threat. Court finds material concealment by respondent regarding previous writ petition dismissals and rejections of representation by Police Headquarters – Appeal allowed, setting aside impugned judgment – Observations on litigant’s duty to disclose all material facts and consequences of suppression [Paras 1-17].

Litigant Conduct – Duty of Disclosure – Emphasizes the importance of full and honest disclosure by litigants seeking equitable relief from writ courts – Misrepresentation or suppression of facts seen as abuse of judicial process – Cites Supreme Court rulings highlighting consequences for misleading the court [Paras 13-16].

Equitable Jurisdiction – Principles – Discusses the equitable nature of writ remedy and the requirement for clean hands by petitioners – Court underscores that litigants must present all relevant facts truthfully and fully to seek court’s intervention [Paras 16-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Directions for the State to consider the respondent’s engagement against a suitable post considering her background and previous service [Para 19].

Professional Misconduct – Complaint Locus – Petitioner challenges the complaint filed by the judgment debtor alleging professional misconduct – The Court held that the complainant, being the judgment debtor and not the petitioner’s client, lacked the locus to file the complaint – Section 35 of the Advocates Act mandates that complaints of professional misconduct must come from those with a legal right or interest in the matter – Complaint quashed on grounds of lack of locus and absence of engagement by the complainant [Paras 1-14].

Section 35 of the Advocates Act – Reason to Believe – Statutory requirement for the Bar Council to have reasons to believe professional misconduct based on relevant materials – The Court emphasized that the State Bar Council must apply its mind to determine the existence of such reasons, avoiding arbitrary or irrational actions – The complainant did not meet the criteria for initiating proceedings under Section 35, rendering the Bar Council’s actions invalid [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Notice dated 22-07-2023 issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council quashed – Complaint found to lack maintainability as the complainant did not have locus to file against the petitioner – Proceedings invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements for establishing misconduct [Para 15].
 

Family Law – Customary Divorce – Defendant claimed to have divorced first wife Stella by customary practice and subsequently married the deceased Margarette Arulmozhi – Court held that Indian Christian Marriage Act does not recognize customary divorce – First marriage subsisting at the time of alleged second marriage, making the latter invalid [Paras 14-17].

Nomination in Service Records – Defendant nominated as beneficiary in deceased’s service records – Court ruled that nomination for benefits does not equate to legal heirship or marital status – Defendant not considered legally wedded husband based on nomination [Paras 21-22].

Settlement Deed – Validity – Defendant executed settlement deed in favor of Margarette Arulmozhi, later unilaterally cancelled after her death – Court held unilateral cancellation invalid – Deceased’s father entitled to property as per Indian Succession Act [Paras 10-13, 23].

Live-in Relationship – Legal Status – Court distinguished between live-in relationship and legal marriage – Defendant’s relationship with deceased considered non-marital due to subsisting first marriage – Legal consequences of marriage not applicable to live-in relationships [Paras 26-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment affirmed – Declaration of title and possession granted to the plaintiff – Plaintiff entitled to succeed property as legal heir under Indian Succession Act [Paras 31-32].

Pre-Arrest Bail – Custodial Death Allegations – Seriousness of Offences – Petitioner, a police officer, sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of wrongful confinement, assault, and custodial death of complainant’s mother. Judicial inquiry suggested suicide, but conflicting evidence, including post-mortem reports showing multiple injuries, led to the denial of bail – High Court emphasized severity of allegations and upheld judicial finding of prima facie case – Application for anticipatory bail dismissed [Paras 2-14].

Custodial Torture – Judicial Inquiry and Evidence – Inquiry by ACJM-II found evidence of suicide but complainant’s deposition and medical evidence indicated custodial torture – Court noted multiple anti-mortem injuries and contradictions in the inquiry report – Highlighted need for thorough investigation and accountability in custodial death cases [Paras 5-12].

Decision- Applications for pre-arrest bail are dismissed. Petitioners may seek regular bail upon surrender within four weeks, to be considered on merits without prejudice from this order [Para 16].

Rent Control – Sub-Tenancy – Kudikidappu Rights – Petitioner challenged eviction order claiming kudikidappu rights – Original tenant sub-leased property without landlord’s consent – Land Tribunal dismissed kudikidappu application – Concurrent findings by Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority upheld – High Court emphasized limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [Paras 2-16].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – High Court reiterated that revisional powers under Section 20 are confined to jurisdictional errors and not to re-appreciation of evidence – No interference warranted as findings were based on sufficient evidence – Eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) confirmed [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed. High Court found no jurisdictional error in the orders of the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority, which justified the eviction based on the sub-tenancy and rejection of kudikidappu rights.
 

Appointment of Commissioner – Importance in Property Disputes – Petitioners challenged the order of the trial court dismissing their application for deferring the suit trial until a decision on changing the surveyor was made – Court stressed the necessity of commissioner’s report for property identification – Emphasized the need for thorough hearing before proceeding with the trial [Paras 1-5].

Joint Trial and Procedural Fairness – The trial court's decision to list the suit for trial despite the pending application for changing the surveyor deemed premature – Supreme Court directed the trial court to dispose of the application expeditiously and proceed with the trial only after ensuring proper identification of the property through the commissioner's report [Paras 3-5].

Decision:

Original Petition allowed – Trial court’s order set aside – Directed to dispose of IA No. 1/2020 within two weeks and proceed with the trial thereafter.

Transfer of Matrimonial Cases – Jurisdiction and Convenience – Husband and wife filed petitions for divorce and maintenance in Family Courts at Muvattupuzha and Thalassery respectively – Transfer petitions filed by both parties were disposed of by a Single Judge – Appeal by husband challenging the jurisdiction of Family Court, Thalassery, was dismissed – Appeals against transfer orders held proper considering balance of convenience in favor of wife [Paras 1-20].

Jurisdiction under Divorce Act, 1869 – Section 3(3) – Interpretation – Appellant contested that Family Court, Thalassery lacked jurisdiction as per Section 3(3) – Court held that jurisdiction under Section 3(3) pertains to the institution of petitions – Transfer of cases within competent Family Courts under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure permissible [Paras 11-14].

Section 24 of CPC – General Power of Transfer – Court’s discretion to transfer cases to any subordinate court competent to try – Competence refers to court’s status, not territorial jurisdiction – Family Court, Thalassery found competent to try transferred cases [Paras 13-18].

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 7(1) – Powers of Family Courts to exercise jurisdiction of District Courts – Family Court, Thalassery competent to try divorce and maintenance petitions – Convenience of wife justified transfer [Paras 14, 19].

Balance of Convenience – Consideration of Wife’s Circumstances – Court noted wife is residing abroad with minor daughter in care of parents – Balance of convenience supported transfer to Family Court, Thalassery [Para 19].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Orders of Single Judge upheld – Transfer of petitions from Family Court, Muvattupuzha to Family Court, Thalassery found justified [Para 20].