Contempt of Court – Government Officials – Delay in Compliance – Unconditional Apology – Writ Court directed respondents 2 and 3 in W.P. No. 33879 of 2022 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 24.08.2022 and 10.10.2022 for encashment of earned leave for 300 days and other pensionary benefits within four weeks from receipt of the order – Order received on 09.11.2022, compliance due by 08.12.2022 – Appellants failed to comply within time; thereafter rejected the petitioner's representation by order dated 19.04.2023 during pendency of contempt case – Learned Single Judge convicted the contemnors and imposed fine of Rs. 100/- each with default sentence of one week's simple imprisonment – Held: Although there was a delay of four months and compliance was not in true letter and spirit, unconditional apology tendered by the appellants accepted with stricture – Punishment of fine set aside – Contempt appeals allowed [Paras 2-15].

Scope of Contempt Proceedings – Points Determinable – A Court dealing with a contempt case can only verify whether the order was properly communicated and when, whether the contemnor was in a position to understand and comply with it, whether the contemnor acted diligently within authority to comply in true letter and spirit, and whether there was wilful laches and disobedience – A contempt court cannot go into jurisdiction of the court passing directions, merit of the matter or direction, or any question determinable only by an appellate court [Para 10-11].

Scope of Contempt Appeal – An appellate court in a contempt appeal can verify only the correctness of points determinable by the court passing the punishment order, whether the order is appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and the correctness of the extent and quantum of punishment and whether it is commensurate to the alleged disobedience [Para 12].

Government Officials – Duty to Comply with Court Orders – Casual approach of Government officials in complying with directions of Constitutional Courts is not only derogatory to the Constitution of India but also shameful to the official position and dignity – Senior officials must be more careful in complying with court orders in true letter and spirit [Para 13].

Decision: Contempt appeals allowed – Unconditional apology accepted with stricture – Punishment of fine of Rs. 100/- imposed by the learned Single Judge set aside – No costs.

Family Pension – Karewa Marriage – Discontinuation of Family Pension – Constitutional Validity – Petitioners' family pension discontinued citing remarriage to their deceased husbands' brothers through karewa marriage – Karewa marriage is a customary practice recognized under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, where a widow remarries within the family of her deceased husband – Court held that karewa marriage cannot be equated to remarriage for the limited purpose of grant of family pension as the widow continues to live a communal life with the family of the deceased and remains dependent on the same household – Legislative intent behind disqualifying remarried widows from family pension is redistributive, not punitive, based on the assumption that the new family bears financial responsibility – However, in karewa marriages, no such fragmentation of financial responsibilities occurs – Strict mechanical disqualification would overlook social reality and defeat the beneficial nature of family pension provisions – State of Punjab amended Rule 8.35(2)(b) PCSR vide notification dated 28.05.1975 recognizing that a widow who remarries her deceased husband's brother and continues to live a communal life shall not be disqualified for extraordinary pension – Family pension is a social security measure flowing from the vision of a Welfare State under Articles 14, 15(3), 39(a), and 41 of the Constitution – Beneficial legislation must receive liberal and purposive construction – Held: Karewa marriage does not disqualify widows from family pension as they remain members of the same family and continue supporting dependents of the deceased employee [Paras 3-4, 10, 13-16, 19-20].

Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Dignified Existence – Article 21 of the Constitution – Family pension as a retiral benefit is not a bounty but akin to wages and essential for survival and dignified life of dependents of deceased employees – Right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live a dignified meaningful life with bare necessities such as adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself – Any act offending human dignity constitutes a violation of Article 21 – Family pension serves as the only source of income for many families when the primary breadwinner passes away – Denial of family pension on technical grounds of karewa marriage would violate the right to dignified existence – Held: Family pension is a social security measure integral to the constitutional vision of a Welfare State and right to life under Article 21 [Paras 11-12].

Service Law – Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Purposive Construction – Family pension provisions must be interpreted liberally keeping in mind their beneficial nature – Literal construction of beneficial legislation must be avoided – Courts must discern the legislative intention and adopt a construction that suppresses the problem and advances the remedy – Words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation should not be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions – Semantic luxuries are misplaced in interpretation of bread and butter statutes – Welfare statutes must necessarily receive broad interpretation – Court must be concerned with the colour, content and context of beneficial statutes – Notification dated 17.04.2009 by Government of Haryana allows special considerations to prevent undue hardship in particular cases under residuary provisions and power to relax – Held: Beneficial policies and family pension provisions must be given liberal and purposive interpretation to achieve social justice [Paras 17-18].

Custom and Personal Law – Karewa Marriage – Social Purpose and Legal Recognition – Karewa marriages serve important social purposes including providing patronage to minor children, preserving dignity of widows, ensuring continuity of care for aged parents, and establishing paternity from within blood relatives who raise children with genuine care – This customary practice is recognized under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Upon karewa marriage, ties between the widow, her children and the matrimonial family are not severed by death of the first husband – The matrimonial family shoulders moral responsibility for their well-being – Custom assists in social and financial rehabilitation of widows and their children – Children remain under the same guardianship structure and aged parents reside in the same household – There is no fragmentation of financial responsibilities – Held: Karewa marriage has harmonizing effect on service rules rather than disqualifying widows from family pension [Paras 13-16].

Administrative Law – Model Employer – State's Duty to Stay Alive to Social Realities – The State, being a model employer, must stay alive to social realities and endeavor to balance equity with statutory mandate – Particularly when customs such as karewa marriage are in harmony with settled law, strict mechanical application of disqualification provisions would be inappropriate – Administrative authorities must apply beneficial provisions in a manner that serves their social purpose – Grant of family pension to daughter cannot be used as estoppel against the petitioner when the amount was used to take care of the family of the deceased employee – Held: State must adopt contextual and purposive approach rather than rigid formalistic interpretation [Paras 8, 16].

Pension Law – Family Pension – Nature and Purpose – Pension and retiral benefits are not bounty by nature but are akin to wages relied upon by pensioner and his family for assistance – Entitlement to dignified and secured life must be applied with greater force to family pension as it is granted only when an earning member of the family passes away leaving dependents at risk of destitution – Right to family pension is not vested in widow alone but flows to all immediate dependents of deceased employee – Dependents when possible must be allowed to be treated as a unit as their lives are not untethered from each other – Disqualifying the widow from family pension would jeopardize rights of any surviving dependents of deceased husband – Held: Family pension serves critical role in preventing destitution of dependents and must be interpreted liberally [Paras 11, 19].

Decision: All three writ petitions allowed – Concerned authorities directed to reinstate family pension of respective petitioners – Karewa marriage cannot be equated to remarriage for limited purpose of grant of family pension – Petitioners not disqualified by applicable rules – Authorities shall recalculate amount due and disburse arrears within 04 months – If not disbursed within 04 months, petitioners entitled to interest on arrears at rate of 7.5% p.a. till actual realization.

Habeas Corpus – Missing Wife and Minor Children – Welfare of Children – Scope of Writ – Petitioner's wife went missing along with two minor children from 06.03.2026 – FIR registered by police – Petitioner alleged wife was in danger at the hands of the third respondent – APP submitted that wife had developed a relationship with the third respondent and left voluntarily along with him, taking the children – Held: Insofar as the wife is concerned, she appears to have left of her own accord and the petitioner must work out his remedy before the concerned court – However, this Court is primarily concerned with the welfare of the two minor children who have been taken away [Paras 7-8].

Minor Children – Production Before Magistrate – Welfare Jurisdiction – Direction issued to second respondent to trace the whereabouts of the detenue and two children and produce them before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam – Judicial Magistrate directed to record statement of the detenue and to interact with the children to ascertain their welfare and take appropriate decision in accordance with law – Report to be sent to this Court [Para 8].

Decision: Habeas Corpus Petition disposed of – Second respondent directed to trace and produce the detenue and two children before the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam as expeditiously as possible – Petitioner to be put on notice on date of production – Judicial Magistrate to record statement of wife and interact with children and proceed in accordance with law – Report to be submitted to this Court.

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Interim Order – Creation of Third-Party Rights – An interim order dated 16.07.2021 in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in A.S. No. 1280 of 2017, while releasing original documents to the appellant/respondent No. 2, expressly restrained him from creating third-party rights over the suit schedule properties or pledging/mortgaging the original documents – Respondent No. 2 applied for modification of the interim order to permit pledge of property for a bank loan, which was rejected on 04.08.2022 – Despite this, respondent No. 2 executed a mortgage deed (Document No. 4299 of 2023 dated 07.08.2023) and thereafter a registered sale deed (Document No. 25358 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024) in favour of third parties – Execution of both deeds admitted by respondent No. 2 – Held: Charges of wilful disobedience proved – Contempt committed [Paras 3-26].

Defence – Nominal Transaction – Kararnama – Not Accepted – Respondent No. 2 sought to justify the sale deed as a nominal transaction and pleaded that on the same date the purchasers executed a kararnama agreeing to reconvey the property by 10.06.2026 – Held: The execution of the mortgage deed and the sale deed was a conscious and deliberate act – Application for modification of the interim order was rejected and despite that the alienations were made – Defence of nominal transaction is not acceptable – Financial compulsion cannot justify violation of a Court's order [Paras 19-24].

Wilful Disobedience – Meaning – "Wilful" means an act done voluntarily with specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law – Even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt – The act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case [Para 25].

Apology – Not Bona Fide – Rejected – Apology is an act of contrition and must be offered at the earliest opportunity in good grace – An apology tendered only when punishment is imminent is shorn of penitence and is the act of a cringing coward – The apology in the present case is not bona fide as the disobedience was conscious and contumacious and the modification application was rejected before the alienations were made – Apology rejected [Paras 27-30].

Punishment – Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act – Respondent No. 2 punished with simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 2,000/- – Additional cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed to be remitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee – Respondent entitled to subsistence allowance of Rs. 500/- per day during civil imprisonment to be deposited by the contempt petitioner – In default of fine, action to be taken under Section 421 CrPC/Section 456 BNSS [Paras 31-41].

Decision: Contempt Case allowed – Charges proved – Apology rejected – Respondent No. 2 sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

Civil Writ - Medical Education – Super Speciality Course – Pending Criminal Case – Bail – Right to Continue Studies – Petitioner enrolled in M.Ch. (Urology) course at Sapthagiri Institute of Medical Sciences could not appear for the November-2025 examination due to registration of Crime No.179/2025 by Madanapally Police, Andhra Pradesh for offences under the BNS and the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act – Petitioner was enlarged on bail by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapally on 05.01.2026 – Respondents opposed continuation of course citing pendency of the criminal case – Held: Pendency of a criminal case, where trial is yet to conclude, does not render the accused guilty – No impediment exists for the petitioner to continue his course and appear for examination – Respondents 2 and 3 directed to permit petitioner to continue course till May/June-2026 – Respondent 4-University directed to permit petitioner to appear for the ensuing examination subject to eligibility [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Respondents 2 and 3 directed to permit the petitioner to continue M.Ch. (Urology) course till completion in May/June-2026 – Respondent No. 4-University directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the ensuing examination subject to eligibility.

Property Law – Sale Deed – Cancellation – Subsequent Purchaser – Caveat Emptor – Appellants/defendants 1 and 2 purchased fractional right over the suit property and right to construct a flat by virtue of Ext.A2 sale deed dated 25.05.2004 – Defendants 3 and 4 thereafter sold the same property to the plaintiff/respondent 1 by virtue of Ext.A1 sale deed dated 19.03.2008 – Trial Court decreed the suit cancelling Ext.A2 sale deed – Held: Defendants 3 and 4 had no valid title to execute Ext.A1 in favour of the plaintiff since Ext.A2 was a valid prior subsisting deed – Plaintiff was under a duty to inquire about prior encumbrances before purchase – Principle of caveat emptor squarely applicable – Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit [Paras 19-22].

Lok Adalath Award – Reconveyance – Conditional Obligation – As per Ext.A3 award passed in Lok Adalath, defendants 1 and 2 agreed to reconvey the property to defendants 3 and 4 only upon receipt of the agreed money – No amount was paid by defendants 3 and 4 as per the award – Conditions of Ext.A3 not performed – Defendants 3 and 4 therefore could not claim any right over the property after execution of Ext.A2 sale deed – Plaintiff's reliance on Ext.A3 to contend that Ext.A2 is null and void is untenable [Paras 20-21].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27, CPC – Limitation – New Point in Appeal – Appellants sought to produce FIR as additional evidence (Annexure A) at appellate stage to raise the plea of limitation – No such plea raised in the written statement before the Trial Court – No ground made out that the document was not in possession of appellants during trial or that they were prevented from producing it – Issue of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact cannot be decided merely on the basis of a document produced without supporting pleadings – I.A. No. 5 of 2022 dismissed – Additional evidence not receivable [Paras 9-18].

Decision: Regular First Appeal allowed – Impugned decree and judgment dated 21.12.2018 of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvalla, in O.S. No. 45 of 2014 set aside – Suit dismissed – Appellants/defendants 1 and 2 entitled to costs throughout from the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

Service Law – Pension – Deduction – Rule 139, Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 – Post-Retirement Proceedings – Respondents retired as Engineer-in-Chief and Chief Engineer respectively from the Water Resources Department – No departmental proceedings initiated against them during service – After retirement, explanations sought for alleged irregularities in disposal of desilted soil under three schemes for 2014-15 – Orders of 5% deduction from pension for two years passed under Rule 139 without conducting full-fledged departmental or criminal proceedings, without issuing charge memos, without appointing inquiry officer and without affording due opportunity of hearing – Held: Mere allegation of irregularity is not sufficient to exercise power under Rule 139(c) – Condition precedent not fulfilled – Orders of deduction rightly quashed by Single Judge – Appeals dismissed [Paras 31-41].

Rule 139 – Two Circumstances for Reduction of Pension – The first circumstance is that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory, which requires examination of the entire service record and not a single instance of irregularity – The second circumstance is proof of grave misconduct in a departmental or judicial proceeding – In the present case neither was it alleged that entire service was thoroughly unsatisfactory nor was grave misconduct proved in any proceeding – Both conditions for reduction of pension not satisfied [Paras 31-36].

Rule 43(b) – Procedure for Post-Retirement Departmental Proceedings – Where departmental proceedings are initiated after retirement, the same must be in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service may be made – The same condition is equally applicable for reduction of pension under Rule 139(c) – Where a power is conferred to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all [Paras 28-40].

Delay Condonation – I.A. Nos. 1797 of 2025 and 6797 of 2025 for condonation of delay of 145 days and 93 days respectively in filing the appeals – Reasons found satisfactory – Delay condoned [Paras 1-4].

Decision: Both Letters Patent Appeals dismissed – Orders of the learned Single Judge quashing the orders of deduction of pension confirmed – All pending interlocutory applications dismissed.

Civil Law – Joint and Unpartitioned Property – Co-sharer – Passage – Declaration of Specific Portion Not Sustainable – Land measuring 4 Bigha in Khasra No. 141 jointly owned by Ram Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Nirmal Singh and their mother Smt. Basant Kaur – Mukhtiar Singh, Nirmal Singh and Basant Kaur sold portions of land to plaintiffs through sale deeds executed in 1984 leaving 4 Biswa 11 Biswansi as access passage – Subsequently, Mukhtiar Singh and Nirmal Singh executed sale deed dated 29.09.1988 in favour of co-sharer Ram Singh regarding the said passage – Courts below declared the passage and held the sale deed void – Held: So long as the property remains joint and unpartitioned, declaration of a specific portion as an exclusive passage binding on a non-consenting co-sharer is not legally sustainable; sale deed executed by one co-sharer transferring undivided share to another co-sharer cannot be declared void [Paras 14-19].

Co-sharer's Rights – Transfer of Undivided Share – A co-sharer in joint property is entitled to transfer his undivided share and the transferee steps into the shoes of the vendor as a co-sharer – However, no co-sharer can claim exclusive ownership of or earmark a specific portion of joint land unless and until partition is effected by metes and bounds – Disputes regarding specific portions of joint property are ordinarily required to be resolved through partition proceedings [Paras 16-17, 22].

Possession and Access – Protection Pending Partition – Although exclusive declaration of passage over joint land is set aside, plaintiffs' possession over land purchased through registered sale deeds deserves protection – Each co-sharer is deemed to be in possession of every inch of joint holding and is entitled to make reasonable use without excluding other co-sharers – Existing user of the disputed strip as means of access to the purchased plots shall continue pending partition – Rights including access to be finally determined in partition proceedings [Paras 20-21, 25-29].

Substantial Question of Law: Whether the courts below were justified in declaring a specific portion of joint and unpartitioned land as a passage and in holding the sale deed dated 29.09.1988 executed in favour of defendant Ram Singh to be null and void, despite the admitted position that the land comprised in Khasra No. 141 remained joint and unpartitioned and that Ram Singh was a co-sharer therein.

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Decree of courts below modified – Declaration of suit property as an exclusive passage set aside – Sale deed dated 29.09.1988 in favour of Ram Singh not treated as void – Possession of plaintiffs over purchased land protected – Parties at liberty to seek partition; rights including access to be determined at partition.

Criminal Law - Sections 17, 18, 61 and 85 NDPS Act – Acquittal – Tampering with Case Property – Chain of Custody – Accused were intercepted on a scooter on 26.12.2001 and 950 grams of opium recovered from a bag carried by Matu Ram – Case property sealed by ASI/Investigating Officer with seal RKM and thereafter re-sealed by the officiating SHO (PW1-Surat Singh) with seal SS – However, PW2 admitted that the sample bore seal impressions RKM and VK when handed to him, and PW7 Inspector Vijay Kumar admitted that the seal was initially marked VK and later substituted with SS – Officiating SHO PW1 had no occasion to use seal VK – The entire re-sealing exercise was a cover-up and never actually done in accordance with law – FSL report described seals as RKM and SS but the contradiction with VK established tampering – Link evidence between the seized opium and the sample tested in the laboratory not established – Prosecution failed on this ground alone [Paras 5-6].

Section 313 CrPC – Cryptic Examination of Accused – Prosecution also failed to put the correct questions to the accused regarding the manner in which case property was taken from and deposited in the police station and the chain of custody from MHC to the FSL – Questions put to the accused relating to link evidence were cryptic and incomplete making it impossible for the accused to meaningfully answer – Illegality in Section 313 examination further vitiates the prosecution case – Matter could not be remanded as the main accused Matu Ram, who was carrying the bag, had since expired [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No. 1 (Malha Ram) upheld – Appeal against respondent No. 2 (Matu Ram) already abated upon his death – Bail bonds and surety bonds discharged.