Matrimonial Law - Void Marriage – Right to Permanent Alimony and Maintenance – Interpretation of Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act – The Court held that Section 25 applies to all decrees passed under the Hindu Marriage Act, including those declaring a marriage void under Section 11 – The word "any decree" in Section 25 must be given a broad interpretation to ensure financial protection for a spouse, even in cases where the marriage is void – Held: A spouse of a void marriage is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25, subject to the court's discretion [Paras 14-19, 28(a)].

Interim Maintenance – Applicability of Section 24 to Void Marriages – The Court held that even in cases where a marriage is ultimately declared void, interim maintenance pendente lite can be granted under Section 24 – The discretion of the court in awarding such relief must consider the conduct of the parties and financial necessity – Held: A spouse can seek maintenance under Section 24 pending final adjudication of the validity of marriage [Paras 26-28(b)].

Judicial Precedents – Conflict in Case Law Resolved – Broad Interpretation of Maintenance Rights – The Court resolved prior conflicting judgments, affirming the view in Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan, (1993) 3 SCC 406, and Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga, (2005) 2 SCC 33, which supported maintenance claims in void marriages – It rejected the narrow interpretation adopted in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530, and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636, which denied maintenance in such cases – Held: Maintenance laws must be interpreted in favor of social justice and protection of dependent spouses [Paras 19-25].

Gender Justice – Dignity and Protection of Women in Void Marriages – Avoiding Derogatory Labels – The Court strongly criticized the use of terms like "illegitimate wife" and "faithful mistress" in earlier judicial pronouncements – It emphasized the need for respectful language in judgments and reaffirmed the constitutional right to dignity under Article 21 – Held: Women in void marriages should not be subjected to derogatory descriptions; maintenance laws must be applied in a manner consistent with gender justice [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Reference answered – Spouse of a void marriage entitled to claim maintenance under Section 25 – Interim maintenance under Section 24 also applicable in void marriages – Appeals to be placed before the appropriate bench for decision on merits – The Court directed that maintenance claims in void marriages should be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account conduct, financial necessity, and fairness [Paras 28-29].

Taxation Law - Sales Tax – Exemption Under PSI 1993 – Whether Withdrawable After 2002 Amendment – Held: No – The State of Maharashtra granted tax exemption to the respondent under PSI 1993 based on Eligibility Certificate (1998) and Entitlement Certificate (1998) – The 2002 amendment to Section 8(5) of CST Act imposed a new requirement for submitting Form ‘C’ or ‘D’ to avail tax exemption – Held: The amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to withdraw exemptions already granted before 2002 – The respondent had acquired a vested right under PSI 1993, and subsequent legislative changes could not nullify accrued benefits [Paras 16-22].

Legislative Interpretation – Retrospective Effect – Whether Tax Amendment Can Take Away Vested Rights – Held: No – A statute is presumed to be prospective unless expressly stated otherwise – Section 8(5) as amended did not specify retrospective application – Held: Once a substantive right to tax exemption was granted under a government scheme, it could not be withdrawn without express statutory intent – The withdrawal of tax benefits based on the new condition was illegal [Paras 23-26].

Natural Justice – Cancellation of Tax Exemptions Without Notice – Whether Legally Sustainable – Held: No – The State Government issued trade circulars and notices in 2009, seeking to recover exempted tax without revoking the Eligibility/Entitlement Certificates or providing prior notice – Held: A vested right cannot be revoked unilaterally – Due process, including notice and hearing, was mandatory before cancelling an existing exemption [Paras 27-30].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Power to Quash Tax Demands – Whether Justified – Held: Yes – The High Court correctly quashed the State’s demand notices, as they were based on a misinterpretation of Section 8(5) as amended – Held: The Government's attempt to recover tax retrospectively was arbitrary and contrary to settled legal principles on legislative retrospectivity [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – High Court’s Judgment Upheld – State Cannot Recover Exempted Tax – The Supreme Court held that the amendment to Section 8(5) applied prospectively – The State Government’s attempt to retrospectively withdraw tax exemptions granted under PSI 1993 was invalid – Appeals dismissed, with no order as to costs [Paras 33-35].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Abuse of Process of Law – The FIR was lodged by the wife two months after the husband filed for divorce – The Supreme Court noted that such delayed allegations, particularly after the initiation of divorce proceedings, indicate an ulterior motive – Held: Criminal proceedings appear to be vexatious and instituted to harass the accused; FIR and charge-sheet quashed [Paras 13-14, 19].

False Allegations of Rape – No Charge-Sheet Under Section 376 IPC – Effect on Remaining Charges – The FIR initially included an allegation of rape against the brother-in-law, but after investigation, no charge-sheet was filed under Section 376 IPC – The complainant also did not file any protest petition against the omission of the rape charge – Held: Once the false charge of rape was removed, the remaining allegations were general and omnibus in nature, insufficient to sustain the prosecution [Paras 14-15].

Delayed FIR and Lack of Specific Allegations – Standard for Quashing Under Section 482 CrPC – The Supreme Court observed that the FIR lacked specific details regarding the alleged offenses, such as date, time, and particulars – The Court reiterated that vague and omnibus allegations against family members cannot be the basis for prosecution – Held: The High Court erred in dismissing the petition without a detailed examination of the allegations [Paras 12-13, 16].

Judicial Precedents on Quashing – Power Under Article 142 of the Constitution – The Court relied on past rulings to emphasize that courts should prevent misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes – Held: Applying the principles from previous cases, including Iqbal alias Bala v. State of U.P. and Arun Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi, the proceedings deserved to be quashed [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR No. 733/2021 and charge-sheet dated 02/02/2022 quashed – Criminal proceedings against the appellants terminated – The Supreme Court found the FIR and charge-sheet to be a misuse of the legal process and an attempt to harass the husband and his family following the divorce petition – High Court’s dismissal order set aside [Para 19].

Criminal Law - Compounding of Offence – Distinction between Compounding and Quashing of Proceedings – Section 307 IPC – Settlement Between Parties – Quashing Allowed – The High Court erred in treating compounding and quashing as interchangeable concepts – While Section 307 IPC is a serious offence, courts must evaluate whether the charge is supported by evidence rather than blindly refusing relief – Held: In this case, where the injury was not of a life-threatening nature and the primary accused had passed away, quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC was justified [Paras 6-7, 10-12].

Exercise of Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Offences Affecting Society vs. Private Disputes – Settlement Considerations – The Supreme Court reiterated that while heinous crimes with a strong public impact should not be quashed, certain cases with a predominantly civil character or arising out of personal disputes may be considered for quashing – Held: The case in question, involving a minor injury (fracture of a finger), did not fall within the category of offences requiring strict non-interference, and continuation of trial would be futile [Paras 9, 17-20].

Nature of Injury and Weapon Used – Whether Section 307 IPC Attracted – Applicability of Section 149 IPC – The Court examined the medical evidence and found that the injuries sustained were not on vital parts of the body and did not justify a charge under Section 307 IPC – Further, there was no clear common object attributable to the accused under Section 149 IPC – Held: Prosecution under Section 307 IPC was unwarranted, and the proceedings were quashed in the interest of justice [Paras 14-16, 19].

Judicial Discretion – Compromise Between Parties – Long Pendency of Case – 33 Years Since Incident – The case stemmed from a 1991 incident, and the parties had since reached a settlement – The appellants were unaware of the pending proceedings for years due to procedural delays – Held: Continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process, and the ends of justice required quashing the proceedings [Paras 13, 20-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order refusing to quash proceedings set aside – Criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 8023 of 2015, arising from Case Crime No. 248 of 1991, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Moradabad, quashed – The Court held that prosecuting the appellants would serve no purpose, given the long passage of time, the compromise reached between the parties, and the lack of sufficient evidence to sustain a charge under Section 307 IPC [Paras 23-24].

Motor Accident Compensation – Determination of Income – Income Tax Returns as Conclusive Proof – The Tribunal and the High Court erred in computing the deceased’s income by ignoring his Income Tax Returns – The Supreme Court held that when available, Income Tax Returns should be considered a reliable document for determining income – Held: The deceased’s annual income must be taken as Rs.1,98,192/- as per his Income Tax Returns, not Rs.90,000/- as assessed by the lower courts [Paras 6-8].

Future Prospects – Applicability in Motor Accident Compensation – Multiplier Method – The Court reiterated that future prospects must be considered while computing compensation – Following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 25% was added to the deceased’s income as he was aged 47 at the time of death – Held: Compensation recalculated by applying a multiplier of 13, and the total compensation payable was enhanced to Rs.24,53,280/- [Paras 9-10].

Loss of Consortium and Non-Pecuniary Damages – Standardized Compensation – The Court reaffirmed that non-pecuniary damages, such as loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses, should be awarded in accordance with Pranay Sethi and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand – Held: Claimant entitled to additional compensation under these heads [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced from Rs.13,91,300/- to Rs.24,53,280/- – Interest to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal – The Supreme Court modified the compensation award by recalculating the income of the deceased and applying the correct legal principles – The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the insurance company was directed to pay the revised compensation [Paras 10].

Service Tax – Lottery Distributors – Principal-Agent vs. Principal-to-Principal Relationship – No Service Tax Liability – The Government of Sikkim entered into agreements with the respondents for the sale of lottery tickets – The agreements provided for the outright sale of tickets, with unsold tickets being returned for destruction to ensure transparency – The consideration paid by the respondents was not in the nature of commission but was based on a wholesale price model – Held: The transactions were principal-to-principal sales, not agency transactions – No service tax liability could be imposed on the respondents under the Finance Act, 1994 [Paras 17.1–17.5].

Interpretation of Agency – Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Distinction Between Agent and Independent Contractor – An agent acts on behalf of the principal and alters the principal’s legal position in dealings with third parties – In contrast, an independent contractor or buyer acts in their own right and takes on commercial risk – The agreements in the present case do not establish an agency relationship but rather a sale transaction – Held: Since the respondents were purchasing lottery tickets for onward sale and not acting on behalf of the State Government, they were not agents and thus not liable to service tax [Paras 15.1–15.6, 16.1–16.8].

Finance Act, 1994 – Scope of Taxability – Amendments from 2010 to 2016 – The 2010 amendment introduced “promotion, marketing, organizing, or assisting in organizing lotteries” as a taxable service – The 2012 amendment included “betting, gambling, and lottery” in the Negative List, exempting them from service tax – Subsequent 2015 and 2016 amendments sought to exclude lottery distribution from the definition of “transaction in money or actionable claim” – Held: The substantive nature of the agreements remained that of sale and purchase – The amendments did not change the essential character of the relationship, and service tax was not applicable [Paras 18.1–18.6].

Doctrine of Noscitur a Sociis – Meaning of "Lottery" in the Context of Betting and Gambling – The expression “lottery” in Section 66D(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 must be read with “betting and gambling” using the principle of noscitur a sociis – A lottery is inherently a form of gambling, and taxation on lotteries falls within the State’s exclusive domain under Entry 62, List II of the Constitution – Held: Service tax cannot be levied on lottery distributors as they are not rendering a taxable service but participating in a State-regulated gambling activity [Paras 18.4–18.5].

Reaffirmation of K. Arumugam Case – Applicability to the Present Dispute – In K. Arumugam, the Supreme Court held that conducting a lottery is not a service but a State-regulated gambling activity – The differential between the price paid to the State and the price at which tickets were resold is the profit margin of the distributor, not a commission for services rendered – Held: The reasoning in K. Arumugam applies, and the respondents are not liable for service tax [Para 17.5].

Validity of Sikkim High Court Judgment – No Error in Setting Aside the Service Tax Demand – The Sikkim High Court ruled that lottery distributors were not agents and that service tax could not be imposed on lottery transactions – Held: The Sikkim High Court correctly applied legal principles, and there was no reason to interfere with its findings – Appeals filed by the Union of India were dismissed [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Appeals filed by the Union of India dismissed—Held that lottery distributors are not agents but independent buyers, and no service tax is payable.

Compassionate Appointment – Applicability of Financial Condition Criteria – Canara Bank Scheme of 1993 – The appellant bank rejected the respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment on the grounds that his family was receiving pension and had received terminal benefits – The High Court held that financial condition was not a relevant factor under the 1993 scheme – Held: The objectives of the scheme explicitly required proof of indigent circumstances – The High Court erred in disregarding the financial position of the family – Financial condition is a crucial factor for assessing eligibility under the 1993 scheme [Paras 8, 31, 44].

Relaxation of Age Limit – Applicability Under Compassionate Appointment Scheme – The respondent’s application was rejected for exceeding the upper age limit by eight months – The High Court directed age relaxation – Held: Age relaxation can only be considered if the applicant is otherwise eligible – Since the respondent did not meet the indigence requirement, the question of age relaxation did not arise – High Court’s direction was erroneous [Paras 34-35].

Judicial Precedents – Scope of Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) – The High Court heavily relied on Canara Bank (2015) to hold that financial condition was irrelevant for compassionate appointment – Held: The Supreme Court in the present case disagreed with the reasoning in Canara Bank (2015), stating that indigence is a fundamental requirement – The Court doubted the correctness of Canara Bank (2015) and refrained from referring it to a larger bench due to pending litigation – However, the present decision clarifies that financial condition is a mandatory consideration [Paras 39-40, 46].

Delay in Consideration of Claim – Lapse of Time and Impact on Compassionate Appointment – The respondent’s father passed away in 2001, and litigation persisted for over two decades – Held: Delay caused by court proceedings cannot be a ground to reject a claim – However, delay in filing an application may indicate lack of financial urgency – The respondent’s case did not merit compassionate appointment as he was not in indigent circumstances [Paras 25-28].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The High Court’s judgment and order are set aside – The respondent is not entitled to compassionate appointment – However, under Article 142, the appellant bank is directed to make a lump sum payment of Rs. 2.5 lakh to the respondent as a final settlement – No further claims maintainable [Paras 49-51].

Motor Accident Compensation – Functional Disability – Self-Employed Victim – The claimant-appellant suffered severe injuries in a motor accident, leading to complete incapacitation – The Tribunal assessed permanent disability at 20%, while the High Court increased it to 100% – Held: The High Court correctly assessed the disability at 100%, as the appellant was unable to perform any gainful employment post-accident – Compensation awarded accordingly [Paras 6-7].

Income Determination – Enhancement of Monthly Income – The appellant contended that his monthly income should be considered at Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 7,500/- as determined by the Tribunal and High Court – Held: In the absence of direct documentary proof, oral evidence and precedents establish that the appellant’s claim is reasonable – Monthly income fixed at Rs. 10,000/- for compensation computation [Paras 8-9].

Applicability of Future Prospects – Supreme Court Precedents – The High Court awarded future prospects at 40% – Held: Future prospects for self-employed individuals should be applied as per Pranay Sethi’s case – The High Court’s approach was correct and affirmed [Paras 9-10].

Calculation of Compensation – Proper Assessment – The Supreme Court reassessed the compensation under various heads, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, special diet, and loss of amenities – The total compensation awarded was Rs. 37,51,000/-, significantly higher than the Tribunal and High Court awards – Held: The revised compensation ensures just and fair compensation to the appellant [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 25,68,938/- to Rs. 37,51,000/- – Interest to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal – High Court’s order modified accordingly [Para 11].

Motor Accident Compensation – Functional Disability – Self-Employed Victim – The claimant-appellant suffered amputation of his right leg above the knee due to a motor accident – The Tribunal assessed permanent disability at 50%, while the High Court did not increase it – Held: The appellant, being self-employed, required mobility for his livelihood – The correct assessment of functional disability should be 90%, as it significantly affects his earning capacity – Compensation enhanced accordingly [Paras 10-12].

Income Determination – Applicability of Future Prospects – The appellant claimed to earn Rs. 25,000/- per month, but the Tribunal and High Court assessed his notional income at Rs. 6,000/- per month – Held: Since no documentary proof was furnished, notional income was correctly fixed at Rs. 6,000/- – However, future prospects at 40% should be applied in accordance with Pranay Sethi’s case – The High Court correctly granted 40% enhancement under future prospects [Paras 8, 12].

Age Determination – Correct Application of Multiplier – The appellant’s age was determined as 22 years at the time of the accident based on documentary evidence – The Tribunal and High Court incorrectly considered his age as 26 – Held: As per Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the correct multiplier for 22 years of age is 18 – Compensation reassessed accordingly [Paras 11, 12].

Heads of Compensation – Proper Assessment – The Supreme Court reassessed the compensation under various heads, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects, special diet, and cost of assistive devices – The total compensation awarded was Rs. 28,93,494/-, significantly higher than the Tribunal and High Court awards – Held: The revised compensation is fair and just, considering the severity of injuries and impact on livelihood [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 10,10,004/- to Rs. 28,93,494/- – Interest to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal – High Court’s order modified accordingly [Para 13].