Motor Vehicles Act – Injury Claim – Minor Girl – Amputation of Right Leg Below Knee – Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.24,000 per annum and disability at 36% – Applied multiplier of 15 – Awarded Rs.8,77,000 – High Court held that minimum wages of Rs.5,750 per month prevailing in 2013 with 40% future prospects to be considered – Multiplier of 18 applicable – Functional disability to be assessed at 50% considering nature of amputation and impact on earning capacity – Compensation enhanced to Rs.21,19,400 – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 7, 9, 12-14, 17-18].

Compensation – Assessment of Income of Minor – Minimum Wages – Future Prospects – In light of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel and Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi principles – Even in case of minor, loss of earning capacity to be assessed on basis of minimum wages of skilled worker – 40% addition towards future prospects permissible – Monthly income computed at Rs.8,050 – Total loss of income Rs.17,38,800 – 50% functional disability applied [Paras 7, 12, 14].

Disability – Physical vs Functional Disability – Amputation Below Knee – Doctor assessed 36% whole body disability – Court held that functional disability must be independently assessed – Considering stump length of 6.5 cm below knee and inability to perform heavy work – 50% permanent functional disability appropriate – Tribunal erred in mechanically accepting 36% [Paras 13-14].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain, Shock and Suffering – Loss of Marriage Prospects – Loss of Amenities – Artificial Limb – Special Diet and Attendant Charges – Tribunal awarded meagre amounts – High Court, relying on Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Master Ayush, Sidram and Pappu Deo Yadav, emphasized need for just, liberal and humane approach in cases of severe disability of minors – Enhanced pain and suffering to Rs.5,00,000 – Loss of marriage prospects Rs.3,00,000 – Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000 – Artificial limb Rs.1,50,000 – Special diet, attendant and transportation Rs.1,00,000 [Paras 8, 10-11, 15-16].

Just Compensation – Duty of Tribunal – Sensitive and Humane Approach – Courts must consider lifelong deprivation, emotional trauma and loss of dignity under Article 21 – Compensation to be awarded once and for all and not as token damages – Nigardly approach deprecated [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Award modified from Rs.8,77,000 to Rs.21,19,400 – Appellant entitled to additional Rs.12,42,400 with proportionate costs and interest – Respondents directed to deposit enhanced amount within four weeks – Record remitted to Tribunal for disbursement.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Enhancement – Change in Circumstances – Divorced wife suffering from schizophrenia sought enhancement of maintenance – Husband, a Chartered Accountant employed in Dubai, earning substantial income – Wife unemployed, dependent on parents, and medically unfit to sustain herself – Held: Education does not equate to employability, particularly where mental illness is established – Husband who secured divorce on ground of wife’s mental illness cannot deny maintenance by asserting her earning capacity – Change in financial capacity of husband and rise in cost of living constitute valid grounds for enhancement [Paras 21–26, 34–36].

Maintenance – Quantum – Overseas Employment – Assessment of Income – Husband contended high cost of living in UAE and multiple liabilities – Court held voluntary liabilities such as personal loans and EMIs cannot override statutory obligation to maintain dependent spouse – Only mandatory deductions relevant – Cost of living abroad relevant but cannot be used to defeat wife’s right to dignified sustenance – Maintenance enhanced from ₹15,000/- to ₹20,000/- per month w.e.f. 12.07.2017 [Paras 29–36].

Maintenance – Date of Effect – Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Wife claimed enhancement should relate back to earlier Section 127 petition filed in 2007 which was dismissed on technical grounds – Held: Once earlier petition dismissed, even with liberty to file afresh, subsequent petition cannot relate back – Enhancement rightly granted from date of fresh application i.e. 13.01.2011 – No illegality in Family Court’s approach [Paras 37–45].

Execution Proceedings – Interpretation of Maintenance Order – Dispute whether maintenance was enhanced to ₹9,000/- or by ₹9,000/- per month for period prior to 12.07.2017 – Plain reading of operative portion showed substitution of amount, not addition – Family Court correctly held that ₹9,000/- per month was payable from 13.01.2011 till 12.07.2017 and ₹15,000/- thereafter – Execution rightly closed as satisfied with excess payment [Paras 46–51].

Conduct of Litigant – Frivolous Re-interpretation of Orders – Petitioner accepted interpretation of maintenance order for years and later took inconsistent stand during execution – Attempt to reopen settled issues deprecated – Revision challenging execution order held frivolous [Paras 52–54].

Decision: CRL.REV.P. No. 950/2017 partly allowed – Maintenance enhanced to ₹20,000/- per month w.e.f. 12.07.2017 – No interference with date of enhancement fixed by Family Court – CRL.REV.P. No. 295/2021 dismissed – Execution order upheld – Costs of ₹10,000/- imposed, payable to Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence Act – Interim Maintenance – Allegation of Adultery – Revision Petition by husband challenging concurrent orders granting interim maintenance of ₹26,000/- per month to wife – Contention that wife living in adultery is not an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of PWDV Act – Held: At interim stage, unproven allegations of adultery cannot disentitle wife from interim maintenance – Genuineness of photographs alleging illicit relationship to be examined only after evidence – No express statutory bar under PWDV Act akin to Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Prima facie allegations of domestic violence sufficient to grant interim relief [Paras 10–24].

Domestic Violence – Scope of PWDV Act – Comparison with Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. expressly bars maintenance if wife living in adultery – PWDV Act contains no such bar – Conduct of parties relevant but requires adjudication on evidence – Interim orders to be based on prima facie satisfaction – Allegations of adultery are matters of trial [Paras 19–22].

Evidence – Photographs Alleging Adultery – Deepfakes and fabrication – Photographs disputed by wife as morphed – Courts below justified in deferring examination of genuineness till trial – Allegations by both spouses against each other involving extra-marital conduct raise disputed questions of fact – Cannot be conclusively decided at interim stage [Paras 15–18, 23].

Interim Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Bank Statements and ITRs – Husband claimed income of ₹25,000/- per month – Credit entries of ₹28,45,120/- over three years reflected in bank account – Explanation that credits were proceeds of PPF/FDs of parents not substantiated at interim stage – Concurrent findings of Magistrate and Sessions Court upheld – No perversity or illegality warranting interference in revision [Paras 25–27].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Concurrent findings on entitlement and quantum of interim maintenance – Revisional court not to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own assessment unless findings are perverse – Orders granting interim maintenance upheld [Paras 24–28].

Safeguard – Refund of Interim Maintenance – Direction that if wife is ultimately found living in adultery and disentitled to maintenance, she shall refund entire interim maintenance received with 6% interest – Undertaking to be filed by wife before Trial Court – Magistrate directed to decide main petition expeditiously within one year [Paras 29–31].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 31.10.2023 upheld – Interim maintenance of ₹26,000/- per month sustained – Directions issued for expeditious disposal and conditional refund mechanism.

Criminal Law – Pardon to Accomplice – Revocation under Section 308 CrPC – Whether automatic on Public Prosecutor’s certificate – Expression “may be tried” confers judicial discretion – Pardon granted by judicial order cannot be revoked solely on certificate without Court forming prima facie opinion – Court must hear approver and examine whether certificate discloses prima facie violation – Revocation not automatic – Trial Court empowered to judicially review certificate and reject prayer if no prima facie case made out [Paras 18-20, 25].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Inquiry under Section 308 CrPC – Limited scrutiny – Court to examine whether evidence under Section 164(1), Section 306(4) or during trial prima facie lacks full and true disclosure – Detailed trial not contemplated at this stage – Separate miscellaneous proceedings not required though approver, if tried, must be tried separately – Elaborate procedure adopted by Trial Court unnecessary though omission curable [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law – Tender of Pardon by Special Judge under PC Act – Applicability of Sections 306 and 307 CrPC – Whether examination under Section 306(4) mandatory – Where Special Judge competent to take cognizance and try offence tenders pardon under Section 307 – Examination under Section 306(4) not mandatory though permissible as prudent practice – Expression “same conditions” in Section 307 refers to conditions in Section 306(1) and not procedural mandate of sub-sections – No illegality in not recording statement under Section 306(4) [Paras 26-28].

Evidence – Cross-Examination of Approver – Allegation of pressure by CBI while recording Section 164 statement – Mere assertion in cross-examination that earlier statement was under inducement does not ipso facto amount to violation of pardon conditions – If allegation true, approver narrating truth cannot be penalised – If false, prosecution must seek sanction/leave of High Court to prosecute for false evidence under proviso to Section 308(1) – Absence of such leave fatal to present application [Paras 47-48, 58].

Criminal Law – Approver’s Evidence – Consistency regarding material facts – PW-1 consistently maintained collection of ₹5,000 and payment to Customs officials in Section 164 statement, examination-in-chief and cross-examination – PW-2 consistently maintained he did not collect money but maintained bill records – No material suppression or deviation regarding core transaction – No wilful concealment of essential facts concerning offence or principal offenders established – Conditions of pardon not violated [Paras 35, 40-41, 49-51].

Evidence Act – Scope of Cross-Examination and Re-Examination – Section 138 Evidence Act – Cross-examination not confined to matters in examination-in-chief – New facts in cross-examination do not automatically amount to breach of pardon – Prosecution had liberty to re-examine to clarify alleged inconsistencies but failed to do so – Cannot invoke Section 308 merely because evidence not favourable [Paras 52-55].

Criminal Procedure – Statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded prior to tender of pardon – Conditions of pardon imposed subsequently – Alleged non-disclosure of inducement at time of Section 164 statement does not constitute breach of later-imposed conditions – Pardon granted by Special Judge, not Magistrate who recorded confession – Suppression, if any, anterior to tender of pardon not per se violation of its terms [Paras 43-45, 57].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – Order rejecting application under Section 308 CrPC upheld – Liberty reserved to prosecution to seek leave of High Court to prosecute approvers for false evidence, if so advised – No opinion expressed on veracity of statements regarding alleged inducement.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Prosecution Sanction – Refusal by Competent Authority – Subsequent Grant by Another Authority – Validity – Petitioner, Assistant Grade-II in Municipal Council, faced prosecution under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) PC Act – President-in-Council, being competent authority under Section 19(1) PC Act, refused sanction – State Department suo motu set aside refusal and Commissioner granted sanction relying on amended Rule 51 – Held: Once competent authority refuses sanction, same cannot be reviewed or overridden in absence of express statutory power – Subsequent sanction held without jurisdiction [Paras 11–15].

Municipal Law – Section 323, M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 – Scope and Limitations – Power under Section 323 confined to suspension or prohibition of unlawful municipal resolutions – Does not confer power of review or reversal of an order refusing prosecution sanction under a Central enactment – State cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction over orders passed under Section 19 PC Act – Impugned order passed in excess of statutory authority [Paras 12–14].

Special Act vs. State Legislation – Prevailing Effect of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – PC Act being a special Central legislation prevails over State Municipal law – Orders under Section 19(3) PC Act cannot be nullified by invoking Section 323 of the Act of 1961 – Sanction regime under PC Act held exclusive and exhaustive [Paras 12–14].

Service Rules – Amendment with Prospective Operation – No Retrospective Sanction Power – Amendment to Rule 51 dated 15.12.2022 enlarging sanctioning authority – Cannot be applied retrospectively to overturn refusal already made by competent authority – Commissioner lacked competence to grant sanction de hors earlier refusal [Paras 14–15].

Administrative Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Non-delegable Function – Grant or refusal of sanction is an administrative act requiring independent application of mind – Sanction cannot be granted on directions of another authority nor on the basis of a report – Concurrent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to nullify an earlier valid decision [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Both writ petitions allowed – Orders dated 30.05.2023, 17.07.2023 and 24.04.2024 set aside – Prosecution sanction quashed – All consequential proceedings annulled – No order as to costs.

Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Allegation of Loan Transaction – Dismissal of Second Appeal – Defendant contended that agreement of sale dated 13.08.2004 was fabricated and intended only as security for loan – No contemporaneous complaint or reply to legal notice disputing execution – Silence of defendant for years held fatal – Held: Findings of trial court and first appellate court based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity warranting interference [Paras 4–14].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Scope – Questions raised relating to alleged loan transaction, family property and sister’s share – Concurrent findings of fact against defendant – No substantial question of law arising – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 9–14].

Specific Performance – Family Property – Agreement Executed by One Co-sharer – Defendant failed to establish that suit property could not be subject matter of agreement of sale – Mere plea of sister’s share without supporting evidence insufficient – Agreement extent consistent with pleadings and evidence [Paras 5–7, 10].

Evidence – Conduct of Party – Silence After Legal Notice – Defendant failed to reply to notice seeking execution of sale deed and did not initiate criminal proceedings alleging fabrication – Conduct weighed against defendant – Adverse inference drawn [Paras 10–13].

Execution Proceedings – Challenge under Article 227 – Consequence of Dismissal of Second Appeal – Sale deed executed and possession delivered pursuant to decree – Civil Revision Petitions challenging execution and delivery warrant rendered infructuous – No ground for interference once decree upheld [Paras 15–16].

Civil Revision – Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – Executing court acted in accordance with decree – No jurisdictional error or material irregularity shown – Revisions dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Second Appeal and Civil Revision Petitions Dismissed – Decree for specific performance confirmed – No costs – All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Domestic Violence – Expeditious Disposal – Section 12(5) of D.V. Act – Directive Issued – Husband-Petitioner filed CRLMP seeking direction to J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar to conclude CMC No. 40 of 2022 within 45 days on a day-to-day basis – Wife-Opposite Party had filed the original application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act claiming reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 – Status report revealed "Both the parties are filing multiple petitions on almost every date of adjournment... the case gets lingered for disposal of the petitions" – Held: The J.M.F.C. is directed to make endeavour to dispose of CMC No. 40 of 2022 within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order – Unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted to either party [Paras 1-4, 10-11].

"Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied" – Salutary Object of Section 12(5) of D.V. Act – Time Limit for Disposal – Section 12(5) mandates that "the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing" – The Court observed that while strict compliance within 60 days may not always be practical, the legislative intent behind the provision is for expeditious disposal – "It may not be possible or practical to dispose of the application within 60 days, but endeavour should be made for expeditious disposal, without depriving any of the parties of effective hearing" – Dilatory tactics by either party cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose of the D.V. Act [Paras 8-9].

Women's Protection – Constitutional Mandate – Object of D.V. Act – The Court reaffirmed that "The D.V. Act has been enacted with the object of providing effective rights of protection to the women guaranteed under Article 15 of the Constitution of India, who are victim of any kind of violence within the family" – Section 12(5) was specifically inserted with the intention of ensuring expeditious disposal of applications filed by aggrieved women – Any prolonged pendency on account of unnecessary adjournments runs contrary to the constitutional guarantee and the protective object of the statute [Para 8].

Adjournments – Abuse of Process – Multiple Interlocutory Petitions – The status report from the J.M.F.C. revealed a pattern of procedural abuse wherein "Before disposal of one petition, another 2 to 3 petitions get added for consideration" – The case had been consistently adjourned at the instance of the Opposite Party or her counsel after the file was transferred to J.M.F.C. on 02.07.2025 – The Court found that such multiplicity of petitions and repeated adjournments were causing hardship and defeating the expeditious disposal mandated under the D.V. Act – "If unnecessary or long adjournments are granted, to either party, the case will continue to linger" [Paras 3-4, 9].

Notice – Dispensation – Ex-Parte Order – In view of the limited nature of relief and the directions proposed, the Court held that "notice of this application is not required to be issued to the Opp. Party, before disposing of the application" – The CRLMP was accordingly disposed of ex-parte with directions to the trial court, and a copy of the order was directed to be forwarded by the Registry to the J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar forthwith [Paras 7, 11-12].

Decision: CRLMP disposed of – J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar directed to make endeavour to dispose of CMC No. 40 of 2022 within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order – Unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted to the parties – Copy of order to be sent to J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar forthwith.

Mandatory Injunction – Licensor–Licensee Relationship – Maintainability – Suit for mandatory injunction filed by husband and subsequent purchaser against wife occupying flat – Wife claimed to be trespasser post revocation of licence – Held: Where defendant occupies premises as a licensee and licence is terminated, suit for mandatory injunction for recovery of possession is maintainable – Not barred under Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act – Reliance placed on Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh and Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma [Paras 14–18].

Ownership of Property – Exclusive Title – Stridhan Plea – Wife claimed joint ownership alleging contribution of stridhan and personal assets – Lease deed and allotment documents stood solely in husband’s name – No documentary proof of contribution produced – Affidavit filed by wife not subjected to cross-examination – Held: Burden of proving joint ownership lay on wife and remained undischarged – Trial court rightly held husband to be sole owner [Paras 19–26].

Evidence – Affidavit Without Cross-Examination – Evidentiary Value – Wife failed to appear for cross-examination despite repeated opportunities – Held: Affidavit in evidence without cross-examination cannot be relied upon – Trial court justified in discarding such evidence [Paras 21–24].

Transfer of Property – Sale During Pendency of Suit – Section 52 TPA – Lis Pendens – Sale deed executed in favour of subsequent purchaser during pendency of litigation – Necessary permissions obtained from NOIDA and builder – Indemnity bond executed – Mere pendency of matrimonial or domestic violence proceedings does not invalidate transfer – Purchaser acted in good faith after due diligence – Sale deed held valid [Paras 27–32].

Domestic Violence Act – Right of Residence – Shared Household – Scope – Wife claimed right of residence under PWDV Act – Evidence showed existence of more than one household – Held: Act contemplates right in one shared household only – Disputed flat could not be treated as shared household once licence stood terminated and alternate residence existed [Paras 31–32].

Mesne Profits – Assessment – Quantum – Trial court awarded damages @ ₹60,000 per month based on admitted prior rental value – Claim of low maintenance by wife irrelevant for determining mesne profits payable to lawful owner – Award held reasonable and supported by evidence [Paras 33–34].

Appellate Interference – Findings of Fact – Ownership and Possession – High Court reiterated that findings of fact by trial court should not be interfered with unless perverse – No perversity or illegality shown – Decree affirmed [Paras 36–37].

Decision: Both First Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 affirmed – Mandatory injunction, declaration of ownership in favour of purchaser, and award of mesne profits upheld.

Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Execution through Father – Subsequent Ratification – Plaintiff residing abroad – Agreement dated 11.03.1985 executed by father on his behalf – Power of attorney executed on 04.06.1985 prior to target date for execution of sale deed – Subsequent ratification vide power of attorney dated 08.06.1987 – Doctrine of relation back applies – Held: Ratification validates earlier act from date of original transaction and agreement not void for want of prior authority [Paras 8, 9, 12].

Stamp Act – Unstamped/Insufficiently Stamped Power of Attorney – Admissibility vs Validity – Objection regarding stamping and authentication raised – Supreme Court in Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements and Indian Stamp Act (2024) 6 SCC 1 relied upon – Non-stamping renders document inadmissible but not void – Defect curable on payment of duty and endorsement – Held: Subsequent duly embossed power of attorney cured defect in earlier instrument and document could be acted upon [Paras 11, 12].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Photocopy of Power of Attorney – Objection not raised before First Appellate Court regarding mode of proof – Held: In absence of specific objection at appellate stage, appellant barred from challenging admissibility in second appeal – Allowing additional evidence did not amount to filling lacuna but to clarify authority and ratification [Para 10].

Readiness and Willingness – Proof – Bank Draft Prepared – Notices Issued – Plaintiff issued notices dated 09.05.1985 and 21.05.1985 – Appeared before Sub-Registrar – Bank draft prepared for balance consideration as proved by Bank Officer (PW-4) – Defendant failed to turn up and did not initiate criminal proceedings alleging fraud – Held: Continuous readiness and willingness established [Paras 9, 13].

Agreement to Sell – Vagueness – Absence of Specific Khasra Numbers – Land described as approximately 28 kanals with stipulation of proportionate adjustment – Non-availability of jamabandi with defendant – Execution proved by scribe and attesting witnesses – Held: Agreement not vague or unenforceable [Para 14].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act – Framing of Substantial Question of Law – Not mandatory for Punjab and Haryana High Court – No perversity or illegality in First Appellate Court judgment – Held: No interference warranted – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15, 16].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court granting specific performance upheld – Pending applications disposed of.