Criminal Law - Rape on False Promise of Marriage – Married Prosecutrix – Quashing of FIR – Allegation of repeated sexual intercourse on assurance of marriage – Prosecutrix admittedly a married woman with subsisting marriage and pending divorce proceedings – Promise of marriage, even if assumed, not legally enforceable due to statutory bar under Section 5(i) Hindu Marriage Act – Held: Consent not vitiated by misconception of fact – Allegations disclose consensual relationship gone sour and not rape – FIR and criminal proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 19–24, 27–28].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Section 90 IPC – Distinction between false promise and breach of promise reiterated – For vitiation of consent, promise must be false from inception and intended solely to obtain sexual favours – Prosecutrix being an advocate, aware of her marital status and legal incapacity to remarry – Held: No material to show deception from inception or inducement by fraud [Paras 17–18, 22–24].

Section 376(2)(n) IPC – Repeated Rape – Scope – Expression “repeatedly” contemplates multiple distinct acts of sexual assault under coercion, fear, captivity or continued deception – Not attracted to prolonged consensual relationships between adults – Present facts do not satisfy statutory ingredients of repeated rape [Paras 16, 19, 22].

Inherent and Constitutional Powers – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – FIR and charge-sheet even if taken at face value do not constitute offence under Section 376 IPC – Continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of process of law – Case squarely falling within categories laid down in Bhajan Lal – High Court erred in refusing to quash proceedings [Paras 26–28].

Misuse of Rape Law – Broken Relationships – Courts must guard against criminalisation of failed consensual relationships – Giving colour of rape to personal discord trivialises the gravity of the offence and causes grave injustice to accused – Strong caution sounded against misuse of criminal justice machinery [Paras 21, 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of High Court dated 03.03.2025 set aside – FIR No. 213/2025 dated 06.02.2025, Chargesheet No. 269/2025 and Sessions Case No. 89/2025 quashed.

Co-operative Societies – Membership – Belated Claim by Legal Heirs of Tenant – Resolution of Society – Validity – Dispute concerning Flat No.7 in a co-operative housing society formed by erstwhile tenants of a company in liquidation – Original tenant did not deposit contribution amount at inception but continued in undisputed occupation – Society had issued offer letter in 1995 and passed AGM resolution in 2005 resolving to admit him as member subject to payment – Resolution never withdrawn or challenged – Legal heirs later deposited amount with interest and sought membership – Held: Membership could not be denied merely on ground of delay when occupation was never disputed and Society itself had resolved to admit the tenant [Paras 39–42].

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Powers of Registrar – Sections 23(2), 152 and 154 – Scope – Authorised Officer declined to decide membership application citing lack of power – Deputy Registrar directed convening of Special General Body Meeting – Revisional Authority granted membership relying on prior AGM resolution – High Court held Revisional Authority exceeded jurisdiction – Supreme Court held that statutory remedies were properly invoked and Revisional Authority acted within jurisdiction, particularly when General Body itself had earlier resolved to admit the member [Paras 44–45].

Co-operative Society – Autonomy – Role of General Body – Subsequent Ratification – During pendency of proceedings, Society’s AGM ratified 2005 resolution and approved membership of appellants and subsequent transferee – Such ratification not challenged before any forum – Held: Once General Body has consciously accepted membership and transfer in accordance with bye-laws and statute, High Court erred in ignoring such subsequent developments [Paras 43–45].

Transfer of Flat – Subsequent Purchaser – Effect of Membership Dispute – Appellants transferred flat to third-party purchaser after obtaining No Objection Certificate from Society through Administrator – High Court’s order had effect of nullifying registered sale deed – Held: Once original members’ entitlement is recognised, subsequent transfer and admission of purchaser as member, already ratified by General Body, must stand protected in law [Paras 28, 45].

Equitable Relief – Delay in Payment – Enhanced Interest – Appellants deposited original contribution amount with 9% interest after long delay – Objecting members contended delay caused prejudice due to escalation of property value – Held: Equity demands recognition of membership but Society or aggrieved members may seek determination of additional amount or enhanced interest before appropriate forum [Paras 47–48].

Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed Questions of Fact – Membership and Tenancy Rights – High Court entertained writ petition despite pendency of eviction suit and existence of disputed factual issues – Supreme Court observed that such issues ought not to defeat statutory and equitable rights arising from undisputed resolutions and long-standing possession [Paras 29–30, 44].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Impugned judgment of Bombay High Court set aside to extent quashing revisional order and consequential directions – Membership of appellants and subsequent transferee recognised – Liberty reserved to Society or members to claim enhanced interest or challenge AGM resolution in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 46–49].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Legally Enforceable Right – Outcome: Affirmed – Dearness Allowance (DA) is a compensatory measure against inflation, not a bounty, designed to protect the real value of wages and maintain a minimum standard of living – The High Court's finding in the first round of litigation that DA is a legally enforceable right, having attained finality due to no appeal, is binding on the parties – Once a legal right to DA is established, the State's financial inability or paucity of funds cannot be a ground to deny its payment, as constitutional duties cannot be evaded on such grounds – DA is an integral part of salary and its denial impacts the right to life and livelihood under Article 21 – The State, as a model employer, must honor its statutory obligations – The argument of financial difficulty is rejected [Paras 2, 22, 23, 48, 50, 52, 59.2].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Legislation by Incorporation (AICPI) – Outcome: Affirmed – The West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 2009 (RoPA Rules), promulgated under Article 309, incorporated the definition of 'existing emoluments' from Central Government Rules, thereby adopting the All-India Consumer Price Index (AICPI) as the standard for DA calculation – This constitutes 'legislation by incorporation', meaning the AICPI, a statistically rigorous measure compiled by the Labour Bureau, becomes the determinative standard – Once the State incorporated AICPI into its rules, it cannot deviate from this mechanism without a proper study or formal amendment to the rules – The incorporation of AICPI is not a one-time measure but a dynamic standard for DA determination [Paras 10, 28, 29, 32, 33, 37, 59.3].

Constitutional Law – Executive Instructions vs. Statutory Rules – Article 309, Article 162 – Outcome: Memoranda held ultra vires – Rules made under Article 309 have statutory force and cannot be overridden or contradicted by executive instructions issued under Article 162 – Executive instructions can only fill gaps in statutory rules, not deviate from or amend them – The First Memorandum and subsequent memoranda issued by the State, which prescribed DA rates without reference to the AICPI standard stipulated in the RoPA Rules, were an improper exercise of power and are ultra vires the substantive rules – The doctrine of severance applies, ensuring the RoPA Rules remain unaffected despite the invalidity of these memoranda [Paras 27, 35, 36, 37, 39, 62, 75, 76, 77, 87, 88].

Constitutional Law – Arbitrariness – Article 14 – Outcome: State action held arbitrary – State action must be reasonable, rational, and not arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious – The doctrine of 'manifest arbitrariness' applies to both subordinate and plenary legislation – The State's deviation from the AICPI standard, explicitly incorporated into its RoPA Rules, without any reasoned basis or independent study, constitutes 'manifest arbitrariness' and violates Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 38, 39, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 87].

Service Law – Legitimate Expectation – Outcome: Affirmed – A legitimate expectation arises from a public authority's representation or established practice, founded on law or custom – The enactment of the RoPA Rules and the explicit recognition of AICPI as the determinative factor for DA computation created a legitimate expectation among employees for DA to be calculated and paid accordingly [Paras 40, 88, 89, 93].

Constitutional Law – Federalism – Financial Autonomy – Outcome: State's defence rejected – India's federal structure ensures constitutional division of powers and financial autonomy for States, meaning State Governments are not obligated to automatically adopt Central Government DA rates – However, when a State, in its independent wisdom, incorporates Central Government definitions (like AICPI) into its own statutory rules, it cannot then invoke the defence of separation of powers or financial autonomy to justify arbitrary deviation from its own adopted standard – The argument of pan-India implications for other States is not relevant to this lis as the appellant-State's actions were based on its own legislative choice [Paras 25, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 59, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Frequency of Payment – Outcome: Not a right – The RoPA Rules do not explicitly mandate that DA be paid twice a year – This omission is a matter within the State's discretion and fiscal policy, and judicial direction cannot introduce such a provision where the statutory text is silent – The Tribunal's direction for DA to be paid twice a year was without authority of law [Paras 49, 106, 107].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Fundamental Right – Outcome: Question left open – While the High Court held DA to be a facet of Article 21, the parties before the Supreme Court jointly agreed not to press this question, leaving it open for determination in an appropriate future case [Para 56, 118].

Service Law – Delay and Laches – Outcome: Rejected – The State's contention regarding delay and laches is rejected because the non-payment of appropriate DA rates constituted a continuing wrong and recurring cause of action – Legal redressal was pursued while the cause of action subsisted, and employees were relentlessly pursuing their remedies [Paras 57, 58, 118, 119, 120].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Contempt petitions disposed of – Dearness Allowance is a legally enforceable right – AICPI is the standard for determining 'existing emoluments' – Employees are entitled to arrears for the period 2008-2019 – Amounts disbursed in compliance with this judgment shall not be recoverable – A Committee comprising Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra (Retd. SC Judge), Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Goutam Bhaduri (Former CJ/Judge HC), and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (or his nominee) is constituted to determine the total amount and payment schedule by March 6, 2026, with the first installment to be paid by March 31, 2026 – Retired employees are also entitled to these benefits – The State is directed to file a status report by April 15, 2026 – No order as to cost [Paras 59.1-59.9, 60].

Service Law – All India Services – IPS Cadre Allocation – Insider Vacancy – Appellant selected to IPS in 2004 Civil Services Examination and allocated Tamil Nadu cadre – Claim raised for re-allocation to Rajasthan cadre against an ‘insider’ vacancy on ground that two candidates senior in merit did not accept the vacancy – Tribunal and High Court rejected the claim – Supreme Court upheld rejection – Held: Once cadre allocation is made in accordance with merit and applicable rules, it attains finality and cannot be reopened after several years [Paras 6, 9–11].

Service Law – Cadre Allocation – Non-Joining by Senior Candidate – Effect – Senior candidate Rishikesh Meena did not accept ‘insider’ vacancy for Rajasthan cadre in 2004 batch – Next senior Rajesh Kumar obtained favourable order from Tribunal but subsequently joined IAS and did not claim IPS vacancy – Appellant, being third in merit, sought allocation after six years – Held: Junior candidate does not acquire an automatic or vested right to claim such vacancy when senior candidates decline to join – Process cannot be stretched indefinitely [Paras 7–9, 11–12].

Service Jurisprudence – Delay and Laches – Vacancy pertained to 2004 batch – Appellant raised claim only in 2010 after six years – Supreme Court held that cadre allocation cannot be kept fluid for years together – Long delay disentitles the appellant to relief – Finality of selection and cadre allocation is essential for stability in services [Paras 9–12].

Service Law – Cadre Allocation – Doctrine of Finality – Acceptance of appellant’s claim would lead to chain reaction resulting in reshuffling of cadres and vacancies of subsequent years – Supreme Court held that such an approach would open a “Pandora’s box” and make cadre allocation perpetually unsettled – Held: Finality must attach to cadre allocation once made [Paras 4, 10–12].

Service Law – Insider Vacancy – Consumption of Vacancy – Union of India contended that once an ‘insider’ vacancy is offered and allocation is made, the vacancy stands consumed irrespective of acceptance – Supreme Court accepted the stand – Held: Appellant failed to show that the insider vacancy of 2004 batch continued to remain vacant even after more than two decades [Paras 4.1, 12].

Decision: Civil Appeals dismissed – No merit found in claim for re-allocation of cadre – Orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Law – Further Investigation – Leave of Court – Mandatory Requirement – FIR registered for serious offences including gang rape – After detailed investigation, closure report filed and accepted by Judicial Magistrate after notice to informant – Supreme Court held that once a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC is accepted by the Court, further investigation under Section 173(8) can be undertaken only with prior leave of the Magistrate/Court concerned – Police or executive authorities cannot unilaterally direct further investigation [Paras 25–28].

Criminal Procedure – Section 173(8) CrPC – Power to Order Further Investigation – Who Can Exercise – Under Secretary, State Government and Superintendent of Police directed CBCID to conduct further investigation without judicial order – Supreme Court held that power to direct further investigation vests exclusively in the Magistrate or a higher Court – Superintendent of Police or investigating agency lacks jurisdiction to order further investigation on its own [Paras 27–31].

Criminal Procedure – Further Investigation vs Fresh / De Novo Investigation – Alleged further investigation ordered nearly seven years after acceptance of closure report and included steps from initial stage such as DNA sampling – Held: Such action amounted to impermissible fresh or de novo investigation and filling up lacunae in prosecution case, which is not permissible in law [Paras 21–22, 31].

Criminal Law – Acceptance of Closure Report – Legal Effect – Closure report accepted by Magistrate after repeated notice to informant and absence of protest petition – Supreme Court held that acceptance of closure report confers finality subject to remedies under law – Executive interference thereafter undermines judicial authority [Paras 7–8, 28–31].

Criminal Procedure – Doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio – Supreme Court reiterated that though Section 173(8) CrPC does not expressly mandate prior permission of Court, long-standing judicial practice requires investigating agency to seek leave before conducting further investigation – Such requirement is a necessary implication to safeguard accused from abuse of process [Paras 26, 28].

Police Powers – Jurisdictional Excess – Superintendent of Police directing further investigation without court approval held to be an act in excess of jurisdiction – Supreme Court deprecated such conduct as undermining rule of law and authority of courts [Para 31].

Criminal Procedure – NHRC Directions – Effect – Directions issued by NHRC for fact-finding inquiry cannot override statutory criminal procedure – Further investigation in criminal case must still conform to CrPC and judicial supervision – Executive directions cannot substitute judicial order [Paras 9–11, 28–31].

Criminal Procedure – Reliance on Dharam Pal Case – Distinguished – Supreme Court distinguished Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana – Held: Said decision concerned powers of constitutional courts to direct fresh or de novo investigation – Does not empower police or executive authorities to order further investigation without leave of Magistrate [Para 32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 20.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench set aside – Orders dated 06.06.2019 and 26.04.2021 directing further investigation quashed – Clarified that observations shall not prejudice pending criminal revision or any other proceedings arising from FIR No. 70 of 2013.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 (Pre-2015 Regime) – Scope of Judicial Determination – Arbitrator appointed by High Court under Section 11 prior to insertion of Section 11(6A) – Supreme Court reiterated that under SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd., Section 11 Court was required to decide not only existence but also validity of arbitration agreement – Such determination is judicial in nature and attains finality between parties [Paras 19–22].

Arbitration – Arbitration Clause – Reopening of Validity at Section 34 Stage – Clause 23 of contract providing for reference to Standing Committee challenged as not being arbitration clause – Commercial Court and High Court set aside award holding Clause 23 was not arbitration agreement – Supreme Court held that once arbitrator was appointed under Section 11 and order attained finality, existence and validity of arbitration agreement could not be reopened at Section 34 stage – Orders below held unsustainable [Paras 21–22, 29–31].

Arbitration Law – Res Judicata vs. Precedent – Conceptual Distinction – Supreme Court explained distinction between precedent (operating in rem) and res judicata (operating in personam) – Section 11 order appointing arbitrator operates as res judicata between parties regarding existence and validity of arbitration agreement – Commercial Court erred in treating Section 11 order as lacking binding effect on parties [Paras 24–25, 30–31].

Arbitration – Kompetenz-Kompetenz – Limits – While Arbitral Tribunal has power under Section 16 to rule on its jurisdiction, it cannot override or reopen findings on existence and validity of arbitration agreement already conclusively determined by Section 11 Court under pre-2015 regime – Section 11(7) gives finality to such determination [Paras 20–22].

Arbitration – Effect of 2015 Amendment – Prospective Application – Supreme Court clarified that post-2015 amendment, scope of Section 11 is confined only to examination of existence of arbitration agreement – However, amendment not applicable to arbitral proceedings commenced prior to 23.10.2015 – Present disputes governed by SBP & Co. regime [Paras 19, 23].

Arbitration – Section 34 Proceedings – Scope – Commercial Court wrongly set aside awards solely on ground that Clause 23 was not arbitration clause – Supreme Court set aside orders and remitted matters to Commercial Court for consideration of remaining objections under Section 34 – Validity of arbitration clause cannot be revisited [Paras 32, 36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments of High Court and Commercial Court set aside – Arbitral awards restored to extent of validity of arbitration agreement – Matters remanded to Commercial Court for adjudication of other objections under Section 34 – Directions issued to decide proceedings expeditiously – Parties to bear their own costs.

Education Law – Part-Time Contractual Instructors – Status – Instructors appointed under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan on contractual basis for 11 months on fixed honorarium of Rs.7,000/- per month – Continued uninterruptedly for over 10 years – Supreme Court held that once original and renewed contracts expired and no fresh written contract executed, instructors ceased to be contractual – Held: Continuous engagement against recurring work creates deemed substantive posts and instructors cannot be treated as purely contractual or temporary [Paras 39–45, 70].

Service Law – “Part-Time” Teachers – Misnomer – Though described as part-time, instructors were contractually prohibited from taking any other employment and were discharging duties equivalent to regular teachers – Held: Such instructors are de facto full-time teachers – Nomenclature of “part-time contractual” held deceptive and unsustainable [Paras 41–43, 46].

Service Jurisprudence – Ad hoc / Contractual Employment – Replacement – Court reiterated that an ad hoc, temporary or contractual employee cannot be replaced by another similarly situated employee – Long continuation creates preference and legitimacy – Practice of perpetual contractual employment deprecated [Paras 44–47].

Honorarium – Revision – Stagnation – Initial honorarium of Rs.7,000/- fixed in 2013 held incapable of remaining stagnant indefinitely – Periodic revision mandatory keeping in view inflation, cost of living and nature of duties – Once revised and enhanced, honorarium cannot be unilaterally reduced in absence of contract or due process [Paras 48–53, 57].

Education Law – Project Approval Board (PAB) – Exclusive Financial Authority – PAB held to be sole authority under the Scheme to sanction budget and fix honorarium – Decisions of PAB binding on State authorities – Executive Committee or State Government cannot override or dilute PAB’s financial approvals [Paras 61–66, 70(iv)–(v)].

Honorarium – PAB Approval of Rs.17,000/- – Enforceability – PAB approved honorarium of Rs.17,000/- per month for 2017–18 and State accepted the same – Failure to implement held illegal – Held: Instructors entitled to Rs.17,000/- per month from 2017–18 onwards till next revision by PAB [Paras 51–52, 66–67, 71–72].

Constitution of India – Article 23 – Begar / Forced Labour – Payment of honorarium below minimum wages and artificial stagnation or reduction held to amount to economic coercion – Supreme Court held that compelling instructors to work on meagre honorarium, coupled with prohibition on alternative employment, constitutes “Begar” and violates Article 23 [Paras 54–56, 70(viii)].

Right to Education Act – Financial Responsibility – State vs Centre – Though funding is shared between Centre and State, Section 7(5) places primary responsibility on State to implement Act – Held: State must pay honorarium first and may recover Central share later on principle of “pay and recover” – Instructors cannot be denied payment due to inter-governmental funding disputes [Paras 68–69, 70(vi)].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedy – Objection regarding non-exhaustion of remedies under Section 24(3) rejected – Provision relates to disciplinary grievances and not pay/honorarium – Availability of alternative remedy not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction [Paras 27–30].

Decision: Appeals by instructors and Welfare Association allowed – Appeals by State of Uttar Pradesh dismissed – Instructors entitled to honorarium of Rs.17,000/- per month w.e.f. 2017–18 – State directed to commence payment at revised rate from 01.04.2026 – Arrears to be paid within six months – State permitted to recover Central Government’s share – Directions issued for periodic revision of honorarium by PAB at least once every three years.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Definition of Consumer – Commercial Purpose – Appellants purchased residential flat in housing project – After taking possession, flat was leased to a third party – NCDRC dismissed complaint holding appellants were not ‘consumers’ as property was used for commercial purpose – Supreme Court reversed – Held: Mere leasing of residential property does not ipso facto establish that the dominant purpose of purchase was commercial – Determinative test is dominant intention behind the transaction [Paras 10, 12, 17].

Consumer Law – Commercial Purpose – Dominant Intention Test – Court reiterated that “commercial purpose” under Section 2(1)(d) is not defined exhaustively – Dominant purpose and close nexus between purchase and profit-generating activity must be established – Leasing by itself, without proof of profit-oriented intent at the time of purchase, is insufficient to exclude purchaser from definition of consumer [Paras 12–14, 17].

Consumer Law – Burden of Proof – Exclusion Clause – Service provider pleaded that complainants were not consumers as flat was leased out – Supreme Court held that burden of proving applicability of exclusion clause rests on service provider – Respondents failed to discharge burden on preponderance of probabilities – NCDRC erred in placing implicit burden on complainants [Paras 16–17].

Consumer Jurisprudence – Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation – Consumer Protection Act is a welfare legislation – Exclusion clauses must be construed strictly – Negative burden cannot be placed on complainant to prove that transaction was not commercial – Interpretation must advance consumer protection rather than defeat it [Para 16].

Consumer Disputes – Real Estate – Leasing of Flat – Effect – Mere act of purchasing immovable property and leasing it, even subsequently, cannot automatically attract exclusion under Section 2(1)(d) – Unless dominant purpose of purchase is shown to be commercial in nature, purchaser continues to be a ‘consumer’ entitled to invoke remedies under the Act [Para 17].

Consumer Disputes – Remand – Supreme Court set aside dismissal of complaint by NCDRC – Consumer Complaint restored to original number – NCDRC directed to decide complaint on merits in accordance with law [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 11.05.2023 passed by the NCDRC set aside – Consumer Complaint No.74/2017 restored to file of NCDRC for adjudication on merits – No order as to costs.

Family Law - Child Custody – Paramount Welfare Principle – Scope and Application – Custody dispute between divorced parents concerning two minor children removed from Qatar to India by the mother without consent of the father and without permission of Qatar Courts – High Court held welfare of children as sole consideration and restored custody to mother – Supreme Court held that while welfare of the child is paramount, other relevant factors such as conduct of parties, education, comfort, standard of living, foreign court orders, and contempt findings cannot be ignored – Held: High Court erred in excluding relevant considerations while deciding custody [Paras 22–24, 31].

Child Custody – Removal of Children from Foreign Jurisdiction – Effect – Respondent-mother removed minors from Qatar mid-academic session without consent of father who was guardian and without original passports – Custody granted earlier by Qatar Court revoked due to such misconduct – Supreme Court held that impact of such unilateral removal and revocation of custody by foreign court was a material factor mandatorily required to be considered – Failure of High Court to do so vitiated its judgment [Paras 23–25].

Child Custody – Foreign Court Orders – Relevance – Qatar Court revoked custody granted to mother and ordered custody to father on account of mother’s misconduct – Supreme Court held that there was no subsisting custody order in favour of the mother at the time High Court passed impugned judgment – Such foreign custody orders were highly relevant and could not be ignored while determining custody in India [Paras 25–26].

Contempt of Court – Breach of Undertaking – Effect on Custody Proceedings – Respondent-mother gave undertaking before High Court to return to Qatar with children for continuation of education but violated the same – Held guilty of contempt – Supreme Court held that contempt finding had attained finality and conclusively established misconduct of the respondent – Such conduct was a relevant factor in custody determination and was wrongly ignored by the High Court [Paras 26–27].

Child Custody – Preference of Children – Evidentiary Value – Minor children expressed inclination to accompany father to Qatar before Family Court and during mediation – Mediation report indicated children were comfortable with father, distressed otherwise, and faced linguistic and cultural difficulty in India – Supreme Court held that while children’s preference is not determinative, it is a relevant factor and must be cumulatively assessed – High Court erred in ignoring such material [Paras 29–31].

Child Custody – Education and Welfare – Mid-Session Disruption – Children removed from school in Qatar mid-session and admitted to school in India after considerable delay – Allegation of educational disruption and irregular attendance – Supreme Court held that education and continuity are integral to child welfare and such disruption is a relevant consideration in custody matters [Paras 14–16, 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 32–34].