Maintenance—Multiple Statutory Remedies—Duty of Disclosure—Set-off of Maintenance—Presumption of Husband’s Earning Capacity—Improper Dismissal Set Aside—A wife is legally entitled to seek maintenance under different statutory provisions, including Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and the Hindu Marriage Act, as there is no bar to pursuing parallel remedies—However, the husband cannot be directed to pay maintenance independently under each proceeding; the court is duty-bound to consider maintenance already awarded in earlier proceedings and grant appropriate adjustment or set-off—It is mandatory for the applicant in a subsequent maintenance proceeding to disclose previous maintenance cases and orders to enable such adjustment—Non-disclosure, ...

Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust (Shingnapur) Act, 2018—Sections 3, 4, 5, 36, 44, 46, 47, 48—Appointment of Administrator and Statutory Compliance—The statutory scheme mandates constitution of a Management Committee under Section 5 before Section 36 can authorize appointment of an Administrator; appointment of a Collector as Administrator prior to the Committee’s formation is ultra vires, arbitrary, and inconsistent with the Act—Executive attempts to create a ‘stop-gap’ administrative mechanism violate the Rule of Law and Article 14—Properties vest in the Section 5 Committee under Section 3(2), and any executive assumption of control before its constitution lacks authority under Article 300A—Powers under Section 48 (removal of difficulties) cannot justify actions inconsistent with the...

Waqf Act, 1995—Elections of Trustees / Clarification of Scheme—Civil Revision—Applicants, elected trustees of Choti Masjid Waqf, sought approval of their change report—Tribunal rejected it citing defects in voters’ list and appointment of Election Officer; Scheme clauses 8(C) (qualification of trustees) and 8(D) (period of trusteeship) found ambiguous—Court clarified: qualifying age of voters and trustees is 21 years; qualifying residence includes village Peth Ahmadpura, Taluka Nandura, and surrounding vicinity; word “trustee” in clause 8(C) includes voters/members electing trustees for five-year term—Pending applications for modification of Scheme to be decided by Waqf Board; meanwhile, election process to be conducted within two months under clarified SOP—(Paras 5–20, ORD...

A. Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906—Section 5(2)—Nature of Orders—Decisions rendered by the Mamlatdar are of a summary character and do not result in a final adjudication of substantive rights between parties. B. Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906—Sections 22 & 23—Subordination to Civil Court—Orders passed by the Mamlatdar or the Collector, even in revision, remain subject to scrutiny by Civil Courts. The Act does not exclude Civil Court jurisdiction, either through express provision or necessary implication. C. Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906—Civil Court's Competence—A Civil Court retains jurisdiction to examine the legality and correctness of orders made under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, including orders passed in revision, and is empowered to re-examine the matter indep...

A. Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Claim Verification) Rules, 2000—Rule 7(2)—Power of Scrutiny Committee to Review or Recall Orders—The Rules do not expressly confer any power on the Scrutiny Committee to review or recall its own orders; however, the question arises whether an inherent power exists to set aside orders obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. (See Paras 6, 11, 12, 22) B. Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Claim Verification) Rules, 2000—Rule 7(2)—Divergent High Court Views—Various Division Benches of the High Court have delivered conflicting judgments on the existence of power to recall orders by the Scrutiny Committee in cases involving fraud or misrepresentation; some benches deny such power due to lack of express provision, while others uphold it based on the principle that ‘fraud vi...

A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 7 Rule 11—Rejection of Plaint—The power to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is confined to the material presented in the plaint and accompanying documents; contested questions such as the existence of cause of action, applicability of statutes like the Contract Act, Specific Relief Act, or Maharashtra Public Trust Act involve factual disputes that require evidence and cannot serve as grounds for summary rejection. (See Paras 13, 21, 22) B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 7 Rule 11(d)—Bar of Jurisdiction—Dismissal of a suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) on grounds of jurisdictional bar demands clear and explicit statutory exclusion of Civil Court’s authority; the claim relating to hereditary Archakship pertains to a private right and is not barred by provisio...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 18 Rule 2(2)—This writ petition, the petitioner/plaintiff challenged an order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Shrirampur, rejecting the plaintiff’s request to direct the defendants to argue first, in light of Order XVIII Rule 2(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)—The petitioner contended that since the plaintiff led evidence first and the defendants subsequently, the defendants should argue first, allowing the plaintiff to reply generally on the whole case—The Trial Court dismissed the request, holding that the CPC does not mandate such sequencing of arguments—The High Court considered the statutory language, relevant precedents—including Gajanan Dhondu Dalvi and Jami Venkata Suryaprabha—and held that although R...

Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 28-A—The petitioner’s land in Village Sastur, Osmanabad, was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and compensation was awarded at Rs.24,000 per hectare—Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a Reference under Section 18 for enhanced compensation, which was rejected by the Reference Court primarily due to failure to adduce evidence, and subsequent appeals were dismissed on delay grounds—Another co-villager’s similar Reference succeeded, enhancing compensation—The petitioner then filed an Application under Section 28-A seeking re-determination based on the co-villager’s award, but it was rejected by the Collector on the ground that the petitioner had already filed a Section 18 Reference—The Court held that dismissal of a Section 18 Reference on te...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 21 Rule 32—Civil Procedure—Execution of Decree—Perpetual Injunction—Breach by Judgment-Debtor—Restoration of Possession Permissible under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC—In [Name Redacted] v. [Name Redacted], the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the execution of a decree of perpetual injunction, wherein the executing court ordered delivery of possession to the decree-holder after the judgment-debtors forcibly took possession of the suit house in violation of the decree—The trial court had earlier granted a perpetual injunction protecting the respondent's possession over the suit house, which decree had attained finality—The petitioners argued that an injunction decree cannot be executed by ordering possession and must follow procedur...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 39 Rule 1—Civil Procedure—Temporary Injunction—Unregistered and Unstamped Agreement—Admissibility under Section 35 of Stamp Act—Modification of Injunction—In [Name Redacted] v. [Name Redacted], the Bombay High Court modified the temporary injunction granted by the trial and appellate courts in a dispute arising out of an unregistered and insufficiently stamped development agreement—The plaintiff relied on a notarized tabe-isar-pavti executed on ₹100 bond paper, claiming possession and partial payment of ₹22 lakhs towards a sale consideration of ₹92.5 lakhs—The trial court had restrained the defendant from alienating the property and from disturbing plaintiff's possession—The High Court held that the agreement, being unregistered an...