Maintenance – Restoration of Application – Family Court dismissed restoration application after maintenance petition was dismissed for non-prosecution – Petitioners argued no lack of diligence on their part – Court examined whether Family Court retained jurisdiction to recall orders in maintenance cases [Paras 1-11].

Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Magistrate's Jurisdiction – Statutory provisions indicate Magistrate may pass orders from time to time – Magistrate not functus officio post-final order in maintenance cases – Maintenance orders intended to provide immediate relief and prevent destitution [Paras 17-20, 37-38].

Section 362 Cr.P.C. – Embargo on Altering Judgments – Relaxation in maintenance proceedings – Family Court can entertain recall applications in maintenance cases under Sections 125-127 Cr.P.C. – Embargo of Section 362 Cr.P.C. does not apply strictly in maintenance cases due to their social welfare objective [Paras 21-23, 43-44].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order by Family Court set aside – Matter remitted for fresh decision on restoration application – Emphasis on beneficent and purposive interpretation of maintenance provisions to achieve social justice [Paras 45-48].

Service Law – Pension – Petitioner sought pension entitlement from the date of retirement – Contention that extension period post-retirement should be included in qualifying service – High Court held that the service rendered during the session-end benefit period must be calculated towards regular service, thereby meeting the qualifying service requirement for pension – Respondents’ stance that reappointment does not count towards pension dismissed – Mandamus issued to fix and release the pension with arrears from the due date [Paras 1-15].

Government Orders – Interpretation – The Court examined Government Orders to determine if session-end benefit should be treated as continuation of service – Government Order dated 28.02.2012 treated service as continuous, leading to the fulfillment of the qualifying service period for pension – Contradictory Government Order portions declared ultravires and set aside for violating Article 14 [Paras 4-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner entitled to pension – Service during session-end benefit considered regular service – Pension and arrears to be paid forthwith [Paras 14-15].

Property Law – Ownership and Possession – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of disputed property through sale-deeds, sought declaration and permanent injunction – Trial court decreed in favor of plaintiffs – Defendants claimed property was state-owned, reserved for Kumbh Mela, and not identifiable – Appeal dismissed, trial court’s decree upheld, plaintiffs held to be rightful owners in possession [Paras 1-39].

Evidentiary Standards – Commission Reports and Boundaries – Plaintiffs provided sale-deeds with clear boundaries, supported by Commission reports and Survey Commissioner’s report – Defendants failed to prove claims of state ownership or that property was unsettled land – Court emphasized preponderance of probabilities standard, upheld plaintiffs’ evidence [Paras 20-37].

Procedural Defenses – Defendants’ objections under Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC rejected – Court found no procedural bar to the suit – Detailed analysis of property records and witness testimonies confirmed plaintiffs’ claims [Paras 15-19, 32-36].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court confirmed the plaintiffs’ ownership and possession of disputed property – Defendants’ appeal found without merit, trial court’s judgment and decree affirmed [Paras 38-39].
 

Criminal Law – Unauthorized Abortion – Conviction under Section 314 IPC – Appellant accused of conducting an abortion leading to the death of the victim – Trial court’s conviction based on witness testimony and medical evidence – Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. challenging conviction and sentence – High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence considering the appellant’s age, lack of criminal antecedents, and societal position [Paras 1-11].

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Application of Section 4 – Appellant’s request for probation based on her first offence, poor socio-economic background, and the trauma of prolonged trial – State counsel did not object to the application of probation – High Court granted probation, releasing the appellant on a bond of good conduct for two years with conditions [Paras 12-20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction affirmed but sentence modified – Appellant released on probation for two years with specific conditions and directed to deposit the fine imposed by the trial court – Failure to comply with conditions would result in the execution of the original sentence [Para 21].
 

Taxation Law – DTVSV Act – Eligibility for Settlement – Petitioner’s appeal before CIT(A) dismissed for delay – Appeal pending before ITAT as on specified date under DTVSV Act – Rejection of application for settlement under DTVSV Act challenged – High Court held petitioner eligible for benefits as time for filing appeal before ITAT had not expired on specified date – Legislative intent of DTVSV Act to reduce litigation and expedite tax arrears collection emphasized – Revenue's interpretation contrary to objectives of DTVSV Act – Orders rejecting settlement benefits set aside [Paras 1-47].

Fiscal Policy – Legislative Intent – DTVSV Act – Objective to resolve tax disputes and expedite revenue collection – High Court affirmed liberal and purposive interpretation of beneficial legislation – Settled law that remedial statutes to be construed broadly to provide complete remedy – Reliance on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments supporting liberal construction of fiscal statutes for achieving legislative goals [Paras 12-29, 36-45].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Rejection of Forms 1 and 2 under DTVSV Act set aside – Petitioner permitted to file Form-4 – Revenue directed to proceed with application in accordance with DTVSV Act – Emphasis on objective of timely revenue collection and reducing litigation backlog [Paras 46-47].

Customs Law – Burden of Proof – Seizure of Gold and Currency – Voluntariness of Statements – Section 123 of Customs Act – Appeal by Revenue challenging CESTAT order which reversed confiscation of gold and Indian currency from respondent – Tribunal held the seized gold to be made from old jewellery and not smuggled – Tribunal accepted respondent’s retraction of statements made under Section 108 of Customs Act – Supreme Court’s principles on burden of proof and voluntariness of retracted statements examined – High Court reinstates adjudicating authority’s order, confirming confiscation and penalties, as respondent failed to prove lawful acquisition of seized gold and currency – Tribunal’s findings held to be perverse and contrary to Section 123. [Paras 1-27]

Statements under Section 108 of Customs Act – Retraction and Evidentiary Value – Analysis – Tribunal erred in dismissing respondent’s initial statements as involuntary without proper examination of retraction timing and consistency – Statements recorded in vernacular by respondent were voluntary – Reliance on Vinod Solanki’s case regarding the examination of retractions – Held, Tribunal’s acceptance of retraction without thorough scrutiny flawed. [Paras 17, 21-25]

Decision – Confiscation and Penalty – Upheld -  Restoration of Adjudicating Authority’s Order – High Court allows Revenue’s appeal – Sets aside Tribunal’s order – Restores the adjudicating authority’s order of confiscation and penalties – Confirms substantial questions of law in favor of Revenue – Respondent’s claim of gold sourced from old jewellery deemed unsubstantiated. [Para 27]

Income Tax Law – Appeal against ITAT order – Submission of Audit Report – High Court dismisses Revenue's appeal challenging ITAT's decision to allow assessee's exemption under Section 11 of Income Tax Act despite late filing of audit report in Form 10B – Tribunal's reliance on CBDT Circulars clarifying deadlines for returns accepted – No substantial question of law found.

Exemption Eligibility – Filing Deadline – CBDT Circulars F. No.173/193/2019-ITA-I and Circular No. 8 of 2021 provided extensions for filing belated and revised returns – Tribunal's application of Circulars upheld by High Court – Held: Assessee entitled to exemption despite late filing as Tribunal's decision aligned with CBDT guidelines .

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Appeal by Revenue dismissed – Tribunal's decision to treat return as filed within time affirmed – Stay application also dismissed – High Court concurs with Tribunal's interpretation of CBDT Circulars and concludes no substantial question of law arises for consideration .

Maintenance – Revision of Maintenance Order – Petitioner challenged the Family Court’s order to pay Rs. 30,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife – Contention included existing maintenance obligations totaling Rs. 22,000 per month and his deteriorating health and income capacity – High Court modified the maintenance to Rs. 15,000 per month – Emphasized the need to consider all existing maintenance orders and petitioner’s age and health [Paras 1-17].

Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance – Assessment – Court noted the Family Court’s failure to consider existing maintenance orders from other proceedings – Highlighted guidelines from Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. 2021 (2) SCC 324 on maintenance assessment – Directed consolidation of all maintenance amounts to ensure fair evaluation of petitioner’s obligations [Paras 3, 16].

Age and Health Considerations – Maintenance – Court acknowledged the petitioner’s age (over 70 years) and health issues – Reduced maintenance amount in light of his diminished income capacity – Reinforced the need to balance the petitioner’s financial ability with the dependent’s needs [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Revision allowed in part – Family Court’s order modified to reduce maintenance to Rs. 15,000 per month – Directed adjustment of amounts already paid – Ensured compliance with principles of fair maintenance assessment [Paras 15-17].

Section 498A IPC – Cruelty by Husband – Petitioner convicted for subjecting his wife to cruelty demanding additional dowry – Trial court sentenced petitioner to 2 years R.I., reduced to 1 year R.I. on appeal – High Court finds prosecution evidence contradictory and insufficient – Petitioner’s conviction set aside and acquitted [Paras 1-20].

Burden of Proof – Section 498A IPC – Prosecution failed to prove specific instances of cruelty or demand for dowry – High Court emphasized need for precise evidence to establish cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Conviction based on vague allegations without corroborative evidence deemed unsustainable [Paras 14-20].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner’s Examination – High Court criticized lower courts for posing general questions in Section 313 examination – Omnibus questions without detailing specific acts of cruelty insufficient to sustain conviction – Courts must ensure thorough examination to afford fair opportunity to accused [Paras 20-21].

Decision:

Criminal Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC set aside – Petitioner acquitted and discharged from bail bond liabilities [Paras 20-21].