Family Law – Divorce on grounds of cruelty – Marriage dissolved on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appellant-wife aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Family Court – Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Act, 1955. [Para 1]

Marital Dispute – Allegations of cruelty and desertion – Parties married in 2012 – Appellant accused of bickering over petty issues, arguing, and threatening the respondent – Appellant's alleged alcohol, drug, and substance abuse – Suicide attempts – Job disputes – Complaints under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 498A/406 IPC – Maintenance issues – Allegations and counter-allegations regarding dowry and harassment. [Para 2-12]

Family Law - Divorce - Grounds for divorce - Cruelty and Desertion - The judgment discusses the grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act, 1955. It analyzes the conduct of the parties, particularly the appellant-wife, in the context of cruelty and desertion. [Para 1-5]

Marital Discord - Incompatibility and Differences - The judgment highlights the continuous separation between the parties since April 2013 and the inability to sustain their matrimonial relationship. It emphasizes that long separation itself can be a ground for divorce. [Para 45-46]

Effect of False Complaints - The judgment considers the effect of false and defamatory complaints filed by the wife against the husband and his family members. It notes that such allegations can amount to cruelty. [Para 35-42]

Reconciliation Efforts - The judgment mentions the husband's repeated attempts at reconciliation, including visits to the wife's house and staying together in a hotel, which were rebuffed by the wife. [Para 47-50]

Default Bail - Grant of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 for setting aside an order resulting in miscarriage of justice - Facts involve an FIR registered for carjacking and subsequent arrest of the petitioner - Police did not present the challan within 60 days - Petitioner moved for default bail on the 61st day - Challan presented on the same day - Dispute over whether the period for default bail was 60 or 90 days - Learned JMIC granted default bail - Condition imposed to furnish bail bonds before 4.30 p.m. on the same day - Surety not accepted due to previous commitment in another case - Petitioner's right to default bail extinguished - Revision petition dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - petition under Section 482 to quash the order of the learned revisional Court. [Para 1-9]

Default Bail - Imposition of Unreasonable Conditions - Constitutionality of Conditions - The case pertains to the imposition of conditions on the grant of default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The primary issue is whether such conditions can be deemed impractical, unreasonable, and onerous. [Para 1-25]

Right to Personal Liberty - Fundamental Rights - The judgement underscores the significance of personal liberty, a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in the context of granting bail. [Para 25]

Reasonable Conditions - Judicial Discretion - The Court emphasizes that conditions imposed while granting default bail must be reasonable, practical, and in conformity with the principles of justice and personal liberty. Imposing unreasonable conditions that hinder an accused person's release are unacceptable. [Para 25]

Orientation Course for Judicial Officers - The judgement calls for the coordination between the Registrar General of the Court and the Director of the Judicial Academy, Chandigarh, to arrange an orientation course on Fundamental Rights, particularly focusing on the Constitution of India, for all judicial officers in the States of Punjab, Haryana, and UT, Chandigarh. This course aims to enhance their expertise in balancing the rights of accused persons with the principles of justice. [Para 29-30]

Bail Application - The petitioner has filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 120-B of IPC, and Sections 27 of the Arms Act. The case pertains to a land dispute that resulted in a fatal shooting. The petitioner has been in custody for over 3 years and 10 months. The delay in concluding the trial violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court notes that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the trial and is not punitive. The State has not presented evidence to show that the petitioner can influence witnesses. The petitioner is granted bail with certain conditions, including restrictions on influencing witnesses, attending court proceedings, surrendering his passport if any, reporting to the police, and other conditions as deemed fit by the concerned Court. [Para 1-11]

Quashing of FIR under Section 174-A IPC - Compromise in a case involving a dishonored cheque - Proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act concluded with withdrawal of the complaint - FIR quashed in line with precedent cases where continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC after withdrawal of the main complaint deemed an abuse of the process of law. [Para 2-13]

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 451 – Representation of People Act, Section 78 – Release of seized currency notes during ongoing investigation – Petitioner, a politician, faced allegations of amassing wealth disproportionate to known sources of income – Currency notes seized during the investigation – Application for release under Section 451 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner’s contentions regarding the source of the amount – Detailed examination of contentions by Special Judge – Prima facie findings regarding the explanation of the petitioner – Purpose of Section 451 Cr.P.C. – Provisional arrangement for interim custody of seized articles during the trial – Safeguards for the recovery of articles – Application of guidelines from Supreme Court and Kerala High Court precedents – Preservation of wealth alleged to be disproportionate – Balanced approach considering rights of the State and the accused – Release of seized amount to the petitioner with conditions including execution of bond and bank guarantee – Findings in this order not to prejudice petitioner’s contentions during investigation and trial. [Para 1-16]

Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act - Marriage declared null and void under Section 11 - Challenge to the judgment and decree of nullity - Examination of evidence regarding the existence of custom or usage permitting marriages within the sapinda relationship - Failure to establish the custom - Marriage within sapinda relationship held to be null and void. [Para 1-30]

Rights of Children Born Out of Null and Void Marriages - Child born to parents whose marriage is declared null and void - Legitimacy conferred under Section 16(1) and (2) of the Act - Such children entitled to rights in the property of their parents, whether self-acquired or ancestral - No restriction on the property rights of such children - Child's entitlement to rights recognized. [Para 30-31]

Disposition of Appeal - Marriage declared null and void due to sapinda relationship - Child's legitimacy not in dispute - Appeal and pending application disposed of. [Para 32]

Criminal Procedure – Examination of Accused – Failure to question the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Effect on proceedings – Revision petitions challenging concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Accused denied a fair opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances – Failure to comply with the mandate of Section 313(1)(b) results in miscarriage of justice – Judgments of lower courts set aside – Complaints remitted to Trial Court for questioning of the accused under Section 313(1)(b) and fresh proceedings – Accused and complainant to appear before Trial Court on specified date – Directions issued for expeditious disposal of complaints. [Para 22-24]

Administrative Law – Transfer of cases between benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal – Chairman’s power to transfer cases – Requirements of a reasoned order – Orders transferring cases should specify reasons – Orders lacking reasoning violate principles of natural justice. [Para 23-31]

Decision – Orders dated March 2, 2023, and March 27, 2023, passed by the Chairman transferring and retaining cases are set aside – Cases to be considered afresh by the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, with proper reasoning – Proceedings in the affected cases are stayed until a new decision is made. [Para 36-37]

Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Revision under Section 115 - Plaintiffs seeking withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit after realizing that it had been instituted against deceased defendants - Trial Court rejecting the withdrawal application - Whether institution of the suit against deceased persons is a formal defect and whether Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC is applicable - The suit against a deceased person is a nullity since its inception and can be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action - Impugned order set aside, and plaintiffs allowed to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit as permissible in law. [Para 1-13]