Matrimonial Appeal – Dissolution of Marriage and Compensation Claims – Appellant husband's plea for dissolution of marriage on grounds of respondent wife's alleged impotency dismissed – Counter claim by respondent wife for restitution of conjugal rights upheld – Awarded compensation and maintenance by Family Court, Kollam. [Para 1-3]

Marital Torts and Compensation – Allegations of impotency and unknown disease against respondent wife deemed false, baseless, and defamatory – Entitlement of the victim to general damages for injuries sustained – Quantum of compensation and maintenance reviewed and modified. [Para 5-6, 10-11]

Assessment of Maintenance and Compensation – Consideration of income, assets, and living standards of parties – Monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- upheld, but compensation for marital tort reduced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. [Para 7-8, 11]

Retroactive Maintenance – Past maintenance rate modified from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month for the period from 01.11.2003 to 30.10.2006, considering respondent wife's initial claim. [Para 20-22]

Final Decision – High Court modifies the trial court's judgment regarding compensation and past maintenance – Appeals allowed in part, without cost. [Para 23]

Writ Petition – Delay and Laches – Challenging of Disciplinary Action:

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. C.D. Ramaiah & Ors. – Petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal’s award setting aside disciplinary action – Tribunal’s award based on delay condonation overruled due to substantial delay and laches in raising the dispute – Original disciplinary action confirmed. [Paras 2, 6-8]

Industrial Dispute – Adjudication of Delayed Claims:

Consideration of the delay in raising industrial disputes – Reference to the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another – Emphasis on the existence of an industrial dispute and the need for timely raising of disputes to avoid stale claims. [Paras 5-6]

Tribunal Award – Validity and Judicial Review:

Judicial scrutiny of the Industrial Tribunal’s decision – Tribunal’s condonation of delay in raising dispute found unjustified based on the Apex Court’s guidelines in Prabhakar’s case – Tribunal’s award set aside, confirming the original order of punishment. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Confirmation of Disciplinary Action:

High Court set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal – Order of punishment dated 18.03.2003 against the respondent confirmed – Writ petition allowed in favor of the petitioner (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation). [Para 8]

Criminal Proceedings – Compromise and Quashing of FIR – Application for quashing of FIR based on compromise between accused and aggrieved persons – FIR related to various IPC sections including 388, 389, 411, 170, 171, 120-B – Petitioners seeking quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings post-compromise. [Para 1-3, 12-13]

Judicial Analysis – Examination of compromise – The court’s analysis focused on the genuineness of the compromise, absence of coercion, and the nature of offences involved – Emphasis on the reformatory nature of criminal jurisprudence and securing ends of justice – Inherent power of the court under Section 482 CrPC considered suitable for quashing FIR in the present case. [Para 5, 6, 13]

Legal Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court Judgments – The court cited various judgments including Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika, Parbatbhai Aahir v State of Gujarat, and Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh – Principles laid down in these judgments guided the decision to quash the FIR and proceedings in the current case. [Para 7-9, 11]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – The High Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings – Bail bonds of petitioners discharged – Petition allowed based on the compromise and peculiar facts of the case. [Para 13]

Limitation Period – Bar of Limitation Applicable to Criminal Complaints – Complaint filed for offences under the Insecticides Act, 1968, challenged for being barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. – Accused argued that the complaint, filed after over 5 years from the date of the Public Analyst's report, exceeded the three-year limitation period for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to two years – Reliance placed on Supreme Court's decision in M/s Cheminova India Ltd. vs State of Punjab and another, and similar High Court precedents. [Para 3(i), 10, 13, 19]

Criminal Procedure – Computation of Limitation Period – Exclusion of time for obtaining government sanction under Section 470 Cr.P.C. considered – Limitation period still exceeded even after exclusion – No evidence of delay condonation by the court as required under Section 473 Cr.P.C. [Para 12, 16, 17, 18]

Liability of Dealers and Marketers under Insecticides Act – Petitioners, being dealers or marketers and not manufacturers, argued non-liability for misbranding of insecticide – Sample drawn from original sealed packing without evidence of tampering by petitioners – Relying on precedent, court held dealers/marketers not vicariously liable for misbranding by manufacturers. [Para 4, 21]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Complaint, summoning order, and all subsequent proceedings quashed due to being barred by limitation and non-applicability of misbranding liability to the petitioners as dealers/marketers. [Para 20, 22]

Bail Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for Regular Bail – Petitioner seeking regular bail in case of FIR No. 49 for offences under IPC sections 148, 149, 201, 323, 325, 307, 379-B, 452, 506 & Arms Act Section 25 – Allegations of violent assault with weapons and theft. [Para 1]

FIR Details and Allegations – FIR alleges the petitioner and others attacked complainant with weapons, causing injuries and theft – FIR details a violent brawl at complainant's residence. [Para 2]

Petitioner's Defense and Co-Accused's Bail – Petitioner claims non-participation in the incident, citing bail granted to co-accused Satish under similar circumstances – Argument on petitioner's non-involvement and completion of investigation. [Para 3]

Opposition to Bail by State and Complainant – State and complainant counsel oppose bail, highlighting the severity of allegations and injuries inflicted – Emphasis on specific role attributed to the petitioner. [Para 4]

Decision – Court notes completion of investigation and challan presentation – Considering petitioner's incarceration duration, bail granted with conditions – Bail to be furnished to satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. [Para 6]

Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C Interpretation – Maintenance Default – Sentencing Duration – Upholding Family Court's decision to sentence petitioner to ten months imprisonment for 28 months of maintenance arrears - Discussion on interpretations of Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C regarding imprisonment duration for maintenance default - Affirmation that a month's imprisonment for every month's default is the maximum under Section 125(3). [Paras 9-14, 16-24, 26-28]

Procedural Aspects under Section 421 of Cr.P.C – Evaluation of Family Court's adherence to Section 421 of Cr.P.C procedures prior to sentencing - Reference to procedural changes post-Rajnesh v. Neha judgment - Justification for non-application of Section 421 procedures due to respondent's no property declaration. [Paras 29-34, 37]

Decision – Dismissal of the revision petition - Confirmation of the imprisonment sentence by the Family Court - Clarification that payment of full arrears before sentence completion leads to release. [Para 38]

Bail – NDPS Act: Regular Bail in FIR No. 325 under Sections 22(c) of the NDPS Act – Petitioner’s bail application considered in light of prolonged incarceration and fundamental rights under Article 21. [Para 1-4]

Supreme Court Precedents: Reference to various Supreme Court judgments highlighting the importance of considering prolonged incarceration for bail under NDPS Act despite the statutory bar under Section 37. [Para 5-9]

Decision – Grant of Bail: Petitioner released on bail considering the period already spent in custody, subject to specific conditions for compliance. [Para 10-12]

Judicial Discretion: Emphasis on the exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters without commenting on the merits of the case. [Para 13]

Management of Religious Institution – Gurudwara Gurdarshan Parkash – Dispute over management rights of Dera Baba Jawahar Dass Ji – Management initially by Gram Panchayat, then handed over to Damdami Taksal and registered as a Charitable Trust – Challenge by defendants claiming prior rights and mismanagement by plaintiffs – Plaintiffs maintaining proper management and religious practices as per Sikh tenets. [Para 1-5, 14]

Appointment of Receiver – Injunction against defendants – Trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction upheld by Appellate Court – Interim arrangement by Appellate Court appointing SDM, Hoshiarpur as Receiver-cum-Administrator to manage Dera during pendency of suit – Decision based on apprehension of law and order issues. [Para 11, 17, 20]

Legal Standing and Management Rights – Plaintiffs' management rights originating from Gram Panchayat resolution – Dispute over validity and implementation of prior resolutions and committee arrangements – Ownership and management rights of religious property under scrutiny – Plaintiffs’ claim to manage Dera as per Sikh tenements. [Para 13, 14, 19]

Decision – High Court sets aside lower courts' decisions – Plaintiffs allowed to continue management of Dera – Restrains defendants from interference except in due course of law – SDM directed not to interfere based on prior order of appointment as Receiver – Plaintiffs required to maintain and submit regular financial records during suit pendency. [Para 20-25]

Transfer Application – Matrimonial Case – Application under Section 24 CPC for transfer of case filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Consideration of petitioner-wife’s socio-economic hardships and convenience for transfer of case from Bhiwani to Jind. [Para 1-2, 7-9]

Judicial Principles – Transfer Petitions in Matrimonial Disputes – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the convenience of the wife in matrimonial transfer petitions, considering socio-economic conditions and potential misuse of leniency. [Para 4-6]

Directions Issued – Transfer of case to Sessions Division Jind with specific directions for mediation, hearing schedules, and conditions for respondent-husband to contest the transfer. [Para 9-10]

Procedural Compliance – Disposal of transfer petition without notice to respondent, ensuring parties’ appearance, and disposal of any pending miscellaneous applications. [Para 11]