Recovery of Arrears of Maintenance – Enforcement against Deceased's Estate – Criminal Revision Petition challenging the first appellate court's decision to allow recovery of maintenance arrears from deceased's assets – Trial court dismissed maintenance enforcement against deceased – Appellate court allowed recovery from deceased’s assets, including service benefits – High Court upholds recovery right, but sets aside interest awarded on arrears. [Paras 1-19]

Enforcement of Interim Maintenance Order Against Deceased's Estate – Legal Position – Held – Interim maintenance order can be enforced against deceased’s estate – Entitlement of the widow to recover arrears of maintenance from husband's assets reaffirmed – Maintenance arrears deemed recoverable from husband’s service benefits or assets inherited from him. [Paras 13-14, 17]

Interest on Maintenance Arrears – Legal Consideration – High Court sets aside 12% interest on arrears of maintenance awarded by the appellate court – Considered the financial position and circumstances of the mother-in-law (respondent No.3), who has not received any service benefits and is at an advanced age – Interest deemed not legally sustainable. [Paras 18-19]

Final Decision – Partial Allowance of Revision Petition – High Court partially allows revision petition – Confirms entitlement of petitioner for maintenance arrears but sets aside grant of interest – Judgment and order of first appellate court modified accordingly.

Arbitration Agreement - Referral to Arbitration - Interpretation of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Petitioner sought reference to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the agreement governing their relationship - Trial Court rejected the application, citing failure to produce original or duly certified copy of the agreement - Petitioner contended that a duly certified copy of the agreement, attested by a Notary Public, was provided, fulfilling the statutory requirement - Held, Trial Court's refusal to refer the dispute to arbitration was erroneous - Section 8 mandates referral to arbitration upon satisfaction of specified conditions, including existence of an arbitration agreement and timely application by a party - Once prerequisites are met, Court has no discretion but to refer the parties to arbitration - Court must not delve into detailed analysis of agreement's terms, but ensure prima facie validity of arbitration clause - Compliance with Section 8(2) satisfied, rendering Court empowered to refer the matter to arbitration - Trial Court directed to refer the matter to arbitrator within specified timeframe - Revisional application allowed.

Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petition for grant of regular bail – Offences under Sections 21/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Petitioner found in possession of 950 intoxicating capsules – Allegation of Tramadol Hydrochloride weighing 608 grams – Petitioner contends discrepancies in signature language on notice under Section 50 NDPS Act and FIR – Respondent asserts typographical error – Court refrains from delving into veracity of notice but acknowledges signature mismatch – Petitioner's first-time offender status and concluded investigation considered – Bail granted with stringent conditions. [Paras 1-11]

Interpretation of Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act – Mismatch in language of petitioner's signature – Respondent explains typographical error by investigating officer – Court refrains from adjudicating on notice's authenticity but notes discrepancy – Signature language inconsistency observed. [Paras 4-7]

Grant of Bail – Considerations – Petitioner's incarceration period, first-time offender status, and concluded investigation weighed – Bail granted with stringent conditions to prevent misuse and ensure trial attendance – No expression of opinion on case merits. [Paras 8-11]

Live-in Relationship - Protection of Life and Liberty - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Entitlement to Protection: The petitioners, involved in a live-in relationship, seek protection of their life and liberty. The court acknowledges the right to life and liberty as enshrined in the Constitution, including the freedom to choose a partner, whether through marriage or a live-in relationship. Live-in relationships, though not universally accepted, are recognized by law and individuals involved are entitled to equal protection under the law. The court emphasizes that no citizen can take the law into their own hands. [Paras 10-11]

Protection Granted Regardless of Legal Status of Relationship: Despite the legal status of the relationship being questioned and criminal cases registered against the parties, the court emphasizes the paramount consideration of protecting life and liberty. Protection is granted by the court without delving into the legality of the relationship, ensuring that individuals fearing harm receive necessary safeguards. [Paras 12-14]

Directions to Authorities: The court directs respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioners' representation regarding threat perception and to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. However, the order does not preclude the initiation of legal proceedings against the petitioners if warranted. [Paras 15-17]

Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – FIR No. 46 Dated 11.05.2008 under Section 306/34 IPC – Suicide of Aruna Rani – FIR based on delayed statement of Paramjit Kaur citing harassment by 11 individuals – Suicide note in deceased’s handwriting but no direct evidence of abetment by named individuals – High Court finds no proximate link or clear mens rea for abetment – Held, continuation of proceedings constitutes abuse of legal process – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed. [Paras 1-30]

Ingredients of Section 306/107 IPC – Abetment of Suicide – Analysis of legal requirements – Court finds absence of intentional instigation or aiding in the commission of suicide – Marriage disputes and subsequent events not leading to a direct conclusion of abetment by the petitioners – Suicide note insufficient to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC. [Paras 10-29]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Related Proceedings – Considering the facts and absence of clear mens rea or instigation for suicide – FIR No. 46 dated 11.05.2008 under Section 306/34 IPC and all consequent proceedings against petitioners quashed – Petitions allowed. [Para 30]

Criminal Law - Assault Incident due to Old Enmity – Conviction of Bhola under Sections 323/34 IPC by the Special Judge SC/ST Act for assaulting complainant Ramu due to old village enmity and political differences – Incident allegedly involving lathi beating [Paras 3, 4, 9]

Factual Background and Lower Court Proceedings – FIR lodged against Bhola for assaulting a Scheduled Caste individual, leading to trial and conviction. Charges included Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. Trial court convicted under Section 323/34 IPC with a fine and additional imprisonment in default. [Paras 3-8]

Evidence Analysis – Hostile Witnesses and Contradictions – Multiple prosecution witnesses turned hostile, contradicting the FIR’s allegations. Medical evidence indicated injuries were minor and not as severe as alleged. The appellant's involvement in the alleged assault remained unproven. [Paras 6, 9, 17-18, 21-22]

Legal Principles and Application – Emphasizes the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Hostile witnesses’ testimonies scrutinized, revealing unreliable and contradictory statements. [Paras 15, 17-20]

High Court’s Reasoning and Decision – High Court finds trial court’s judgment flawed due to reliance on inconsistent and hostile witness testimonies. Acknowledges the necessity to separate 'grain from chaff' in witness accounts, leading to the conclusion that evidence against Bhola was insufficient. [Paras 22-24]

Conclusion – Acquittal of Appellant – High Court reverses Trial Court’s judgment. Bhola acquitted due to lack of reliable evidence proving his involvement in the assault. [Para 24]

Decision – High Court allows appeal, setting aside trial court’s judgment – Bhola acquitted of charges under Section 323/34 IPC – Appellant’s bonds and sureties discharged [Para 24]

Allegations of Fraud in Sub-Lease Agreement – Petitioner and complainant (Reliance Corporate IT Park Limited) entered into a sub-lease agreement with assurances of uninterrupted electricity supply – Complainant accused petitioner of not maintaining promises, leading to disconnection of electricity and demanding additional money or property purchase – Alleged criminal intent to deceive and cheat [Paras 2, 18-19, 32-33]

Petitioner’s Defense – Petitioner claims fulfillment of all obligations, including payment of dues to DPL under a Bank Guarantee – Contends allegations as civil disputes and not criminal fraud or cheating [Paras 3-6]

Civil Nature of Dispute – Complaint’s allegations primarily related to contractual obligations and financial transactions – Absence of prima facie criminal intent or fraudulent inducement at inception of agreement [Paras 9, 32, 33, 35].

Arbitrability of Dispute – Presence of arbitration clause in agreement – Dispute suited for resolution through arbitration rather than criminal proceedings [Paras 26, 27, 34].

Legal Principles Applied – Supreme Court judgments emphasizing non-arbitrability of disputes involving serious allegations of fraud – However, simple allegations of fraud related to internal affairs of parties can be subject to arbitration [Paras 34, 36-37]

Decision – Revision petition allowed – Proceedings against the petitioner in the aforementioned case quashed – Held that continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process of law [Paras 36-38]

Marriage and Divorce - Appeal challenging Family Court's decision on property ownership - Facts surrounding the purchase of disputed Juhu Flat and tenancy of Cuffe Parade Flat - Family Court's dismissal of Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh's judicial separation petition and decree of divorce in favor of Respondent, based on grounds under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Circumstances leading to breakdown of marriage considered. [Paras 1-2]

Property Ownership Dispute - Contest over the ownership of Flat No. 404, Marina Apartments, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai – Respondent’s claim of sole ownership based on exclusive financial contribution upheld – Original Appellant’s (Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh) name added for convenience without monetary contribution, negating her claim for 50% share. [Paras 6, 8, 30-31, 33, 36]

Benami Transaction Act Non-Applicability - Arguments regarding the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 rejected – No evidence to establish that the Juhu Flat was purchased for the benefit of the Original Appellant, Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh. [Paras 22-24, 30-32, 34-36]

Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act - Original Appellant’s claim under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, for full ownership due to presumed limited ownership, rejected – Section 14 found inapplicable as the Original Appellant neither had a limited ownership nor contributed financially to the Juhu Flat. [Paras 37-49]

Limitation Act Defense - Defense based on the Limitation Act, 1963, upheld – Limitation Act does not bar defenses in legal proceedings, despite the expiry of statutory limitation period for filing a suit or appeal. [Paras 51-54]

Interim Order Extension - Post-judgment interim order preventing the creation of third-party rights in the Juhu Flat extended for four weeks, providing the Appellant time to appeal to the Supreme Court. [Paras 59-60]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The High Court upholds the Family Court's decision on the sole ownership of the Juhu Flat favoring the Respondent, Mahesh Vennalakanti. An interim order regarding the Juhu Flat is extended for four weeks. No order as to costs. [Paras 56, 60]

Appeal Against Tribunal Award – The New India Assurance Company Limited challenges the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, regarding compensation for the death of Ajay in a road accident involving a motorcycle and a tractor [Para 1].

Factual Background – On 23.06.2020, Ajay and Parveen met with an accident caused by a tractor, resulting in Ajay’s death and the initiation of FIR No.171 under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 IPC at Police Station Madhuban, Karnal [Paras 2, 3].

Tribunal’s Compensation Assessment – Tribunal assesses deceased’s income based on Deputy Commissioner rates, leading to a total compensation of Rs. 35,49,112 [Para 3].

Insurance Company’s Appeal – The appellant contends contributory negligence and argues for income assessment based on minimum wages, not DC rates [Para 5].

Rejection of Contributory Negligence Argument – Court notes the argument was not raised before the Tribunal, and hence, rejects it [Para 7].

Income Assessment Based on DC Rates Justified – Court upholds the use of Deputy Commissioner rates over minimum wages for income assessment, referring to the case National Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Devi & Ors. And other precedents [Paras 7-12].

Dismissal of Appeal – Considering the circumstances, including the young age of the widow and minor children, the Court finds the Tribunal’s award just and appropriate, dismissing the appeal [Para 13].