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].

Eviction Notice – Validity and Service – Plaintiff issued an eviction notice dated 18.06.1994, which was returned with the postal endorsement “refused” on 07.07.1994. The court below held that the notice did not comply with the statutory requirement of one month’s notice expiring with the month of tenancy, as the notice period fell short by eight days. The High Court, however, emphasized that the landlord had taken all necessary steps to serve the notice, and it should be deemed valid under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act [Paras 23-28].

Reasonable Requirement – Bona Fide Need of the Landlord – The trial court’s finding that the landlord required the premises for starting a motor parts business for his son was overturned by the appellate court. The High Court reinstated the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that the landlord’s intention and absence of alternative suitable accommodation were adequately proved. The tenant’s contention regarding the availability of other properties was found baseless [Paras 29-31].

Effect of Subsequent Events – Applicability of WBPT Act, 1997 – The High Court noted that the death of the original tenant and the provisions of Section 2(g) of the WBPT Act, 1997 rendered the respondents trespassers after five years from the tenant’s death, making them liable for eviction. This was in line with judgments like Goutam Dey v. Jyotsna Chatterjee and M/S Mangalic Enterprise v. Swapan Kumar Das [Paras 32-33].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Midnapore, in Other Appeal no. 54 of 2000, dated 24.07.2002, were set aside, and the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2000 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Contai, in T.S. No. 277 of 1994, were affirmed.
 

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].

Marriage and Divorce – Desertion – Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition – Appellant claims wife deserted him and was in an adulterous relationship – Trial court dismissed suit finding no evidence of desertion or adultery – Appellant failed to prove allegations with substantive evidence – Desertion requires animus deserendi and absence of reasonable cause – Allegations of dowry demand and ill-treatment beyond pleading – No criminal complaint or substantive evidence provided – Findings of trial court affirmed [Paras 1-16].

Cruelty – Mental and Physical Torture – Appellant alleged mental and physical cruelty – No substantial evidence to support claims – Respondent denied allegations and stated she was sent away by appellant – No proof of continuous and willful conduct constituting cruelty – Trial court’s findings upheld [Paras 6-9].

Adultery – Allegation and Evidence – Appellant’s claim of wife’s adultery with co-respondent – Trial court found no proof of adultery – Appellant conceded ground of adultery during appeal – Court found no evidence to support claims – Findings of trial court affirmed [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – No interference with trial court’s judgment – Appellant failed to prove grounds of divorce – Allegations of desertion, cruelty, and adultery not substantiated with evidence – Judgment and decree of trial court affirmed [Paras 13-16].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 420, 323, 341 IPC affirmed – Challenge in High Court against appellate court’s decision maintaining trial court’s conviction of the accused for cheating, causing hurt, and wrongful restraint – The court examined the credibility of the evidence, including the accused’s role in inducing the complainant to invest in a fraudulent scheme – Despite contentions of innocence and claims of being a victim himself, the court found the petitioner guilty based on concurrent findings by lower courts – Sentence modified in light of prolonged legal proceedings and partial imprisonment already served [Paras 1-16].

Evidence Evaluation – The High Court found substantial corroboration in the complainant’s allegations and documentary evidence despite the petitioner’s claims – Concurrent findings by trial and appellate courts upheld, demonstrating the credibility of prosecution’s case and confirming the petitioner’s guilt [Paras 3-10].

Sentence Modification – Considering the time elapsed since the incident (22 years) and partial imprisonment already served by the petitioner, the High Court modified the sentence to imprisonment already undergone – The petitioner’s appeal on merits dismissed but granted relief in terms of sentence modification due to prolonged litigation and substantial punishment served [Paras 11-14].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision – Held – The criminal revision is dismissed on merits but the sentence is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner, acknowledging the extended duration of the trial and appeal process – The petitioner is discharged from the liability of bail bond [Paras 14-16].
 

Non-Bailable Warrant – Issuance Without Execution Report – Petitioners challenged the orders issuing non-bailable warrants without the execution report of previously issued bailable warrants – High Court held that the Magistrate should have insisted on the execution report before issuing non-bailable warrants – Orders set aside [Paras 1-8].

Proclamation Under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Requirements – Petitioners contended the proclamation was issued without satisfying the statutory requirements – High Court emphasized the need for recording satisfaction that accused are absconding or concealing to evade arrest and fixing the time and place for appearance – Orders quashed [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Allowed – Orders for issuance of non-bailable warrants and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. quashed – Directed fresh orders in accordance with law [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Procedure – Restoration of Complaint – Petitioners challenged restoration of complaint dismissed for non-appearance of the respondent – High Court ruled that once a complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution, the trial court becomes functus officio and cannot restore the complaint – No provision in Cr.P.C. allows such restoration – Reference made to Supreme Court’s decision in A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur – Orders of restoration and summoning set aside [Paras 1-19].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court has inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and to ensure justice – Subordinate courts do not possess such inherent powers – Orders restoring dismissed complaints by trial courts without jurisdiction are nullities – Inherent powers do not extend to such restorations by trial courts [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Orders dated 13.08.2019 and 16.04.2022 set aside – Restoration and summoning deemed without jurisdiction – Liberty granted to respondent to seek appropriate remedy under law [Paras 19-20].

Income Tax – Assessment Order – Natural Justice – Petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 7th March 2024 and the demand notice issued under the Income Tax Act – Contended that the assessment was based on evidence from third parties without allowing the petitioner to cross-examine them – Court observed that the petitioner had responded to the notices and participated in proceedings but did not make a specific request for summoning the third party for cross-examination – Held that mere statement in response without formal application for cross-examination does not vitiate the order – Appeal before the appellate authority was considered an adequate remedy despite the delay caused by the writ petition – Directions issued to the appellate authority to consider the appeal and the request for cross-examination based on Supreme Court precedents [Paras 1-16].

Opportunity to Cross-Examine – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner claimed violation of natural justice as the authorities did not allow cross-examination of Amit Kumar Agarwal, whose statements were crucial for the assessment – Court noted that petitioner did not specifically request issuance of summons for cross-examination during the assessment proceedings – Held that failure to specifically request cross-examination cannot invalidate the assessment order, but the appellate authority should consider such request in light of Supreme Court guidelines [Paras 10-13].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal – Despite the availability of an appellate remedy, petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction citing denial of natural justice – Court permitted petitioner to approach the appellate authority within 15 days, condoning the delay due to pendency of writ petition – Appellate authority directed to consider the appeal on merits and decide on the cross-examination request [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed of – Petitioner allowed to file appeal with appellate authority – Directions to appellate authority to consider appeal and request for cross-examination in accordance with law and precedents [Paras 14-16].
 

Property Law – Redemption of Mortgage – Appeal challenging the judgment reversing the trial court's decision on the respondents' suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding property mortgaged in 1946 – Respondents claimed the property and challenged its mutation as evacuee property – Trial Court dismissed the suit, ruling the property vested in the custodian after the mortgagee's migration – Appellate Court reversed, declaring respondents' ownership due to non-redemption within 30 years and no limitation on redemption – High Court upheld Appellate Court's decision, citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of usufructuary mortgage rights under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act [Paras 1-11].

Mortgage Redemption – Limitation – Conflicting judicial views on redemption rights under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act – High Court affirmed no limitation period applies for redemption under usufructuary mortgages where possession remains with the mortgagee until mortgage money is recovered – Appellants' right to auction property as per Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act dismissed [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – First appellate court's decree upheld – Respondents declared owners in possession of the suit property – Mutations in favor of custodian department invalid [Para 11].