Matrimonial Law - Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Proof and Appreciation of Evidence – Husband sought divorce alleging abnormal and violent behaviour of wife due to alleged psychiatric illness suppressed prior to marriage – Allegations of schizophrenia and violent conduct during honeymoon and matrimonial life – Held: Husband failed to prove that wife was suffering from psychiatric illness prior to marriage – No independent witnesses or documentary evidence adduced – Medical evidence only showed treatment for sleeplessness, restlessness and low mood during pregnancy – Family Court erred in presuming pre-marital mental illness – However, sustained matrimonial discord and conduct amounted to mental cruelty [Paras 11–15, 23–30].

Matrimonial Disputes – False or Failed Criminal Proceedings – Impact on Cruelty – Wife lodged complaints under Section 498-A IPC, DV Act and maintenance proceedings – Husband arrested, remanded, bail rejected and Look Out Circular issued – Criminal case ended in acquittal and no appeal preferred – Held: Repeated criminal litigation and its consequences constituted mental cruelty to husband – Relevant factor while granting divorce [Paras 16, 22, 25–27].

Evidence – Failure to Corroborate Serious Allegations – Allegations of physical violence, threats of suicide and assault on elderly relative not supported by testimony of parents, neighbours or independent witnesses – Mediator also not examined – Court held that uncorroborated serious allegations cannot be accepted mechanically [Paras 13–14, 18–21].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Relevance – Though irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground for divorce – Court entitled to consider prolonged separation, failed mediation and absence of possibility of reunion as relevant circumstances – Parties living separately since 2012 – Mediation failed – No scope of reconciliation [Paras 32–35].

Maintenance – Minor Child – Enhancement by Appellate Court – Family Court awarded ₹10,00,000/- towards maintenance of minor daughter – Appellate Court found amount inadequate considering child’s age, education, future marriage and financial capacity of father – Respondent had already paid ₹17,00,000/- earlier – Held: Ends of justice require enhancement – Directed payment of ₹80,00,000/- as full and final settlement towards maintenance and alimony for child by deposit in FDR – Wife not entitled to permanent alimony as she is gainfully employed [Paras 36–37].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Decree of divorce confirmed – Maintenance for minor child enhanced to ₹80,00,000/- payable within three months – Failure to comply to entitle appellant and child to take legal steps – All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Restoration of Appeal – Second Appeal dismissed on 25.11.2019 for non-removal of defects despite peremptory order dated 14.10.2019 – Petitioners filed application to condone delay of 2096 days in seeking restoration – Plea that mother was conducting litigation and failed to inform sons held implausible – Petitioner No.1 had earlier deposed as DW-1 stating he managed the case – Held: No sufficient cause shown for condoning long delay – Delay not condoned – Application dismissed [Paras 2–8]

Restoration – Dismissal for Default – Non-removal of Defects – Counsel for appellants was present and heard at time of dismissal – Case not dismissed for non-appearance but for failure to comply with Court’s directions – Plea that counsel’s name was missing from cause list rejected – Court found no justifiable explanation for non-compliance [Paras 5–6]

Litigation Conduct – Implausibility of Explanation – Petitioners’ claim that their elderly mother managed litigation without informing adult sons found baseless – Particularly in light of petitioner’s own prior admission under oath of conducting case himself – Held: Such justification cannot support condonation under law [Para 7]

Decision: Delay of 2096 days not condoned – Application for restoration dismissed – CMAPL also dismissed as consequence.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Protection under Section 197 CrPC – Custodial Violence Alleged – Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector, sought quashing of complaint citing absence of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Complaint alleged illegal detention, physical assault, custodial abuse, and humiliation of complainant and her brother by police inside the police station – Held: Acts of custodial violence are wholly unrelated to discharge of official duties – No reasonable nexus between impugned acts and official duty – Hence, protection under Section 197 CrPC not attracted – Complaint not barred for want of sanction [Paras 12–23]

Official Duty – Scope of Section 197 CrPC – Reasonable Connection Test – Law reiterated that for the protection under Section 197 CrPC to apply, the act must be reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty – Mere fact that the accused is a public servant is not sufficient – Assault, custodial beating, or abuse inside lock-up fall outside the ambit of official functions – No protection when police officer exceeds authority and commits abuse without lawful justification [Paras 14–22]

Judicial Precedent – Custodial Violence – Supreme Court Rulings – Reiterated that custodial violence is unconstitutional and not protected by Section 197 CrPC – Cited: P.P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty (2000) 8 SCC 131 – D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 – Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2016) 12 SCC 87 – Dr. S.M. Mansoori v. Surekha Parmar 2023 SCC OnLine SC 436 – Held: Protection under Section 197 does not extend to illegal acts of torture or abuse inside police station [Paras 16–20]

Magistrate's Power – Cognizance and Recall – Magistrate has no power to recall summoning order under Section 204 CrPC – No review jurisdiction under CrPC – Relief, if any, lies under Section 482 CrPC – Findings upheld in light of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal AIR 2004 SC 4674 and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC 4711 [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Complaint against petitioner not barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Trial to proceed as per law.

Judicial Service Examination – Answer Key Dispute – Preliminary Examination – Petitioner secured 58 marks against qualifying mark of 60 – Objected to final key answers to Questions 86 and 98 – Court held Question 98 answer inconsistent as options A and C were accepted, but B (a part of C) was disallowed – Held: Denial of mark for option B unsustainable – Petitioner entitled to 1 mark [Paras 2(iii), 13, 17]

Vicarious Liability – Section 34 IPC – Misapplication in Answer Key – Question 86 asked which section reflects vicarious liability – Final answer was Section 34 IPC – Court held Section 34 deals with common intention and not vicarious liability – Based on Supreme Court ruling in Vasanth alias Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 337 – Held: Answer to Question 86 is incorrect – Petitioner entitled to 1 additional mark [Paras 2(v), 14, 17]

Examination Law – Judicial Review of Answer Keys – Though courts usually refrain from evaluating correctness of answers in academic matters, Court held that where questions involve legal reasoning and do not require expert academic insight, interference is permissible – Respondent’s reliance on Ran Vijay Singh, Vikesh Kumar Gupta, and Dr. Praveen Kumar I. Kusubi distinguished as those involved subjective or expert-based evaluations – Held: Legal interpretation of IPC provisions falls within court’s domain [Paras 11–12, 14]

Delay in Filing Objection – Procedural Fairness – Petitioner’s objection to Question 86 raised after prescribed deadline – Court held that delay of less than 48 hours cannot defeat right to fair evaluation – Time limit not statutory – Petitioner’s right to challenge incorrect answer key upheld despite procedural lapse [Para 14]

Relief – Grace Marks Awarded – Court awarded 2 grace marks for two disputed questions – Held: Petitioner to be treated as qualified for main examination – Respondent directed to allow petitioner to pay fees and appear for main written exam on 06.12.2025 and 07.12.2025 – Relief limited to petitioner alone to avoid disturbance of overall selection process [Paras 15, 17]

Decision: Petition allowed – Two marks awarded to petitioner – Respondent directed to permit him to appear for main written examination.

Anticipatory Bail – Sexual Offences Against Minor – Repeated Assault and Blackmail – Custodial Interrogation Required – Application Rejected – FIR alleged repeated sexual assault of a minor girl between 2023–2025, facilitated by threats using secretly recorded videos and conspiracy with a co-accused – FIR supported by CDR data, municipal records, and victim’s statements – Applicant sought anticipatory bail citing delay in FIR, alleged consensual adolescent relationship, and alternative age documents – Court held that consent of a minor is legally irrelevant – Allegations of coercion and digital exploitation require thorough custodial investigation – Held: Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would hinder investigation and defeat the statutory protection under POCSO [Paras 1–7, 13–15, 18–19].

Minor’s Consent – Irrelevant under POCSO – Age Dispute Must Be Tried at Trial Stage – Court reaffirmed settled position that consent of minor under 18 has no legal relevance under POCSO – Attempt to portray relationship as consensual adolescent interaction rejected – Reliance placed on multiple precedents affirming that courts cannot dilute POCSO rigour at bail stage – Alleged inconsistencies in age documents to be examined during trial – Not a ground to grant pre-arrest bail [Paras 8–12].

Digital Evidence – Disappearing Message Platforms – Need for Custodial Interrogation – Investigation at Nascent Stage – Allegations of blackmail through Snapchat and videos necessitate forensic analysis and metadata extraction – Devices yet to be recovered – Investigation in early stages, with risk of tampering and influence if bail granted – Court found custodial interrogation essential to secure evidence and protect minor victim [Paras 13–14, 21].

Precedents – Protective Approach in POCSO Cases – Anticipatory Bail to Be Exercised Sparingly – Court relied on Varun Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Javed v. State, Prince Kumar Sharma v. State, Ram Kumar v. State, and Saiful Khan v. State – Reiterated that anticipatory bail must not be granted routinely in cases involving minors – Granting bail would send harmful societal message and jeopardise investigation [Paras 10–17].

Bail Jurisprudence – Liberty v. Investigation – Custodial Interrogation More Effective – Precedents emphasised that anticipatory bail differs fundamentally from post-arrest bail – Liberty of accused must be balanced against seriousness of offence and need for free, fair investigation – Courts must protect integrity of probe in sensitive POCSO matters [Paras 17, 22].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Court finds no ground to grant pre-arrest bail considering the seriousness of allegations, minor victim’s age, and need for custodial interrogation – Investigation must proceed without interference [Paras 18–19].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Acquittal – Appellant Raj Bala convicted under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC for allegedly firing at injured Kailash during a group assault where another accused had fired fatal shot – Trial court relied on ocular evidence but injury report (Exh. Ka-20) showed no firearm injury – Medical evidence inconsistent with prosecution’s version – Held: Common intention not proved – No evidence of premeditation, meeting of minds or active participation by appellant – Conviction under Section 34 IPC unsustainable [Paras 14–20, 25–30]

Evidence Law – Contradiction between Medical and Ocular Evidence – Medical report by PW-7 showed injuries were simple, caused by hard and blunt object – No X-ray report submitted for injury kept under observation – Doctor not certain about firearm involvement – Court held this contradiction casts serious doubt on prosecution’s case and undermines charge of firing by appellant [Paras 19–21, 26]

Presumption of Guilt – Mere Presence at Scene – Trial court erred in holding appellant guilty solely on her presence at the crime scene and alleged relationship with co-accused – Supreme Court precedents cited (Surendra Singh, Chandra Pratap Singh) reiterate that presence alone, without proven common intention, is not enough to invoke Section 34 IPC [Paras 15, 24, 27–30]

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Court found prosecution failed to establish key ingredients for vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC – Absence of overt act, lack of evidence of firearm use by appellant, and doubt regarding motive led to acquittal – Court set aside conviction and sentence, extended benefit of doubt to appellant [Paras 33–38]

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant Raj Bala under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bond cancelled – Sureties discharged [Paras 36–39]

Taxation Law - International Taxation – Service Permanent Establishment (PE) – Calculation of Threshold Period – Article 5(6)(a) of India-Singapore DTAA – Assessee, a Singapore legal firm, had employees present in India for 120 days – Assessee claimed exclusion of vacation days (36), business development days (35), and common days (5) – Held: To constitute a Service PE, services must be "furnished within" the contracting state. Vacation days where no work is performed, and business development days where no billable services are rendered to clients, must be excluded from the threshold calculation. Excluding these, the period was 84 days, falling below the 90-day threshold. No Service PE constituted. [Paras 38-40]

International Taxation – Virtual Service PE – Interpretation of Treaty – Revenue argued for "Virtual Service PE" due to remote services provided from outside India – Held: The concept of "Virtual Service PE" is not expressly provided in the India-Singapore DTAA. Article 5(6) requires services to be furnished "within" India "through employees present". Courts cannot read new concepts into the treaty which are not explicitly included. Until the treaty is renegotiated to include virtual services, existing provisions must be strictly interpreted. [Paras 42-46, 49]

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Questions of law answered in favour of the Assessee. [Para 62]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Corruption/Misappropriation of Public Funds – MGNREGA Scheme – Petitioners (vendors) accused of conspiring with officials to divert funds meant for chicken coops, wells, and cattle sheds by falsifying records – Total misappropriation approx. Rs. 2 Crores – Held: In serious offences involving corruption and misappropriation of public funds, anticipatory bail is granted only in exceptional circumstances. Custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the money trail and recover misappropriated amounts. Granting pre-arrest bail would hamper the investigation. [Paras 33-34]

Criminal Law – Re-transfer of Misappropriated Money – Effect on Bail – One accused argued he re-transferred money to the prime accused, showing bonafides – Held: Re-transferring money to the prime accused indicates continuation of the conspiracy and sharing of proceeds, rather than innocence. It is an aggravating factor. [Para 31]

Decision: Bail applications dismissed. Petitioners directed to surrender. [Para 35]

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Disqualification of Member of Parliament – Effect of Stay of Conviction – Petitioner sought Quo Warranto against Respondent No. 1 (Rahul Gandhi) on the ground of disqualification under Article 102 r/w Section 8(3) of the RP Act due to conviction in a defamation case – Held: Once the conviction is stayed by the Appellate Court (Supreme Court in this case), the disqualification arising out of such conviction ceases to operate from the date of the stay order. The conviction becomes non-operative, and the bar under Section 8(3) does not apply during the pendency of the appeal. – Writ Petition dismissed. [Paras 13, 16-17]

Election Law – Disqualification upon Conviction – Distinction between Stay of Sentence and Stay of Conviction – Held: There is a fundamental distinction between the stay of execution of sentence and the stay of conviction. Mere stay of sentence/bail does not wipe out the disqualification. However, when the conviction itself is stayed by the High Court or Supreme Court under Section 389 CrPC or inherent powers, the disqualification is kept in abeyance and the individual is not debarred from holding public office. [Para 13]

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. [Para 20]