Civil Law – Impleadment – Necessary Party – Order 1 Rule 10 CPC – In a suit for partition and declaration, trial court allowed application for impleadment of Opposite Party No.1, claiming rights as legatee under a registered Will executed by a former co-sharer – Trial court held that remaining properties not covered in prior compromise decree are subject matter of present suit and presence of legatee is necessary for effective adjudication – Held: No infirmity in trial court’s reasoning – Right to be heard must be preserved where claim has a legal basis – Impleadment justified [Paras 2-4, 9]

Partition Suit – Effect of Prior Compromise Decree – Malati Mahar had received ‘B’ Schedule property in T.S. No.3/1989 through compromise – Present suit involves other properties not included in that decree – Opposite Party No.1 claiming through Malati via Will – Held: Entitlement to be tested at trial, but impleadment cannot be rejected at threshold – Earlier decree does not bar fresh adjudication of remaining unpartitioned properties [Paras 4, 9]

Plaintiff’s Autonomy – Dominus Litis – Scope – Though plaintiff is dominus litis, in partition suits strict segregation of parties is not determinative – Presence of interested persons may be necessary for complete and effective adjudication – Sudhamayee Pattnaik case distinguished – Trial court rightly exercised discretion in allowing impleadment [Paras 6, 9]

Decision: CMP dismissed – No interference warranted under Article 227 – Trial court directed to expedite disposal of suit pending since 2013 and conclude proceedings preferably within six months [Para 10]

Injunction – Matrimonial Dispute – Void Marriage – Appellate court reversed trial court order and granted temporary injunction restraining petitioner from representing herself as respondent’s wife – Marriage between petitioner and respondent held void under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as respondent’s first marriage was subsisting – ‘Daan Patra’ and ‘Shapath Patra’ relied on by petitioner were found irrelevant in law and insufficient to confer spousal status – Held: Appellate court rightly granted injunction to protect respondent’s legal marital status – No interference called for under Article 227 [Paras 5–7]

Misrepresentation – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioner alleged deception, abuse, and fraud by respondent – Cited Supreme Court rulings in Dalpat Kumar and Wander Ltd. – Held: Petitioner failed to establish any prima facie legal right due to the subsistence of respondent’s earlier marriage – No relief can be granted to a party not approaching the court with clean hands – Appellate court's findings upheld [Paras 4–6]

Article 227 – Judicial Review – Interference under supervisory jurisdiction not warranted where appellate court has exercised lawful discretion and committed no jurisdictional error – Petition dismissed [Para 7]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Injunction granted by appellate court upheld – Petitioner has no enforceable legal right to claim status of respondent’s wife.

Criminal Law – Murder – Identification of Accused – Acquittal – Appellant Bhola convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly firing at deceased Rakesh Kumar during a late-night assault – FIR did not name Bhola – Appellant identified after two-month delay in test identification parade – Held: Test identification not reliable due to unexplained delay and prior acquaintance between witnesses and accused – Conviction based solely on such identification is unsafe – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 14–29]

Evidence Law – Delay in Test Identification Parade – Appellant arrested 36 days after incident – TIP held two months post-arrest without explanation – Witnesses familiar with accused from nearby village – No corroborating evidence or motive established – Held: Delay vitiates credibility of TIP, making it insufficient for conviction [Paras 18–23, 26–27]

Criminal Trial – Acquittal of Co-accused – No Specific Allegations – Other co-accused named in FIR and against whom motive was alleged were acquitted – Appellant not named, no motive proved – Held: Conviction of appellant alone without consistent or independent proof unsustainable – Trial court erred in relying on doubtful testimony and inconclusive identification [Paras 7–11, 14–16, 28]

Precedent – Supreme Court Guidance – Applied ratio of Harinath v. State of U.P., (1988) 1 SCC 14 – Held: Identification of accused known to witnesses, residing in nearby village, after significant delay, without explaining such delay, renders TIP unreliable – Applied in acquitting appellant [Paras 24, 28]

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant Bhola under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted by extending benefit of doubt – Bail bond cancelled – Sureties discharged [Paras 30–31]

Muslim Law – Remarriage with Divorced Husband – Halala – Respondent claimed to have remarried petitioner after prior divorce – Evidence revealed existence of intervening marriage with another man, but no proof of its dissolution was provided – Under Muslim law, remarriage with divorced husband is void unless intervening marriage is consummated and lawfully dissolved (Nikah Halala) – Held: In absence of legal dissolution of intervening marriage, alleged remarriage with petitioner is void and hit by doctrine of Halala – Respondent disqualified from claiming maintenance as wife [Paras 7–10, 14–15]

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Presumption of Marriage – Long Cohabitation – Respondent relied on continuous cohabitation to claim presumption of valid marriage – Held: Presumption of marriage based on cohabitation arises only where no legal impediment exists – Since respondent’s prior marriage with another man was not proved to be dissolved, she remained legally married and could not validly remarry petitioner – No legal status as ‘wife’ – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be granted [Paras 13–15]

Burden of Proof – Remarriage – When marriage is denied, burden lies on party asserting it – Respondent failed to prove essential elements of Nikah including presence of witnesses and performance by authorised Khatib – Neither mosque register nor witnesses examined – Evidence held insufficient to establish valid Muslim marriage [Paras 11–12]

Procedure – Summary Nature of Section 125 Proceedings – Evidence Requirement – Court held that despite the summary nature of Section 125 CrPC, basic legal prerequisites for spousal status must be established – Maintenance claim under Section 125 cannot succeed in absence of legal proof of marital status [Para 16]

Remand – Opportunity to Adduce Evidence – Considering impact of maintenance order on marital status, court remanded case for fresh decision – Held: Family Court to allow both parties to adduce further evidence on dissolution of intervening marriage and validity of alleged remarriage – Maintenance order set aside [Para 16]

Decision: Impugned maintenance order set aside – Case remanded to Family Court, Malappuram for fresh disposal – Parties to be given opportunity to adduce further evidence – To be decided within three months.

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].