17 January 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Injunction Suit Maintainable without Declaratory Relief When Plaintiff’s Title Isn’t Disputed By Defendant: Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan ruled that a suit for injunction simpliciter can only be initiated if the defendant does not contest the title of the property in question. They emphasized that established legal principles dictate that if the defendants do not dispute the plaintiffs' title, the suit should not be dismissed solely because it is filed for an injunction simpliciter without a declaration of title.

Facts of the Case-

The plaintiffs in this case initiated a lawsuit seeking several forms of relief:

1. A permanent injunction preventing the defendant from entering the disputed land.
2. An order prohibiting the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the land.
3. A temporary injunction restricting the defendant from entering the land and from harvesting the standing paddy crops until the case was resolved.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, issuing a decree that was later upheld by the first appellate court. However, the defendants appealed this decision to the District Judge in Jaipur, whose ruling was subsequently dismissed, affirming the trial court's decree. The defendants then escalated the matter to the High Court through a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).

The High Court framed two key legal questions for consideration:

1. Did the lower courts err by granting relief through an injunction simpliciter without also seeking relief for possession and title declaration?
2. Were the lower courts correct in interpreting the disputed document as a sale when there was contention regarding whether it constituted a sale or a mortgage with conditional sale?

The High Court ruled in favor of the defendants on the first issue, overturning both the trial court's and first appellate court's decisions. The sole reason provided for this ruling was that an injunction simpliciter had been sought without accompanying claims for possession or title declaration. Consequently, this matter was brought before the Supreme Court for further review.

Supreme Court’s Observation-

The Court noted that it is established law that if the defendants do not contest the plaintiffs' title, the suit should not be dismissed solely because it was filed for an injunction simpliciter without a request for a declaration of title. When the counsel for the respondents (original defendants) was confronted with this point, he argued that, since the defendants were in possession, it was essential for the plaintiffs to seek a primary relief of possession for the suit property. The Court observed that the High Court did not address who actually possessed the suit property. Based on these considerations, the Court overturned the High Court's judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh examination of the Second Appeal in accordance with legal principles.

What is a Suit of Injunction?

An injunction is a legal remedy sought from the Court to prevent a breach of any obligation owed to an individual. Injunctions can be classified into two types based on their duration:

Permanent Injunction: A permanent injunction is a court order that either restrains a party from certain actions or compels them to perform specific duties. This type of injunction serves as a final and enduring remedy, in contrast to preliminary injunctions, which are temporary and issued during ongoing legal proceedings. Permanent or perpetual injunctions are granted under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA). According to Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the SRA, a perpetual injunction may be awarded to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation that exists in their favor, whether explicitly stated or implied.

Temporary Injunction: Temporary injunctions are governed by Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). This provision outlines the circumstances under which a court may issue an injunction to prevent a party from performing a specific act or to compel them to undertake a particular action.

Key Considerations for Temporary Injunctions:

• The likelihood of success on the merits of the case.
• The potential for irreparable harm to the applicant.
• The balance of convenience between the parties involved.

Case- Krushna Chandra Behera vs. Narayan Nayak & Ors.

2. Daughter Living With Father At Time of Separation Does not Deprive Mother Of Right To Custody As Natural Guardian: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently stated that the mere fact that a mother was separated from her daughter at the time of the couple's separation, and that the daughter had stayed with her father for a period, is not sufficient grounds to deny custody of the minor daughter to the mother, who is recognized as her natural guardian.

Facts of the Case-

The marriage between Amit Dhama (the appellant-husband) and Smt. Pooja (the respondent-wife) took place on May 23, 2010. They have two children from their union: a son born on April 2, 2013, and a daughter born on September 29, 2020. Following marital discord, the couple separated and began living apart. The husband has initiated divorce proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which are still ongoing. Their son is currently attending a boarding school in Faridabad, with the father covering all educational expenses. The minor daughter, who is 4 years and 3 months old, is in the father's custody. In response, the wife filed a petition for custody of their daughter under Sections 7 and 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

On August 31, 2024, the Family Court issued an ex parte order granting custody of the minor daughter to the mother. The husband subsequently filed a First Appeal with the Allahabad High Court to contest this Family Court decision, arguing against the order that awarded custody to the mother. The court also established fortnightly visitation rights for both parents. The wife holds a graduate degree and currently lives with her parents.

Allahabad High Court’s Observation-

The court made several attempts to facilitate an amicable resolution between the parties but was unsuccessful. As part of the proceedings, the court directly engaged with the children.

Key Legal Observations:

• The mother is legally recognized as the natural guardian of minor children under the age of 5.
• The primary focus in child custody cases is the welfare and well-being of the child.
• While the psychological impact of transferring custody is relevant, it must be weighed against other considerations.
• Specific Case Observations:

The mother, being a graduate and residing with her parents, was viewed positively. There were no allegations against her that would suggest her daughter's welfare would be at risk in her custody. The court also took into account that both children had been away from their mother. It concluded that the physical, emotional, and psychological needs of the four-year-old daughter would be better met under her mother's care. The court dismissed the father's claim that transferring custody to the mother would traumatize the daughter, noting that merely because she had been in the father's custody for a period was not a valid reason to deny custody to the mother. The High Court upheld the Family Court's order regarding fortnightly visitation rights and allowed both parties to seek modifications to these terms if necessary.

What is the law Regarding Interim Custody of a child?

Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890:

This section pertains to the authority to issue interlocutory orders for the production of minors and for the interim protection of their person and property.

• Sub-section (1) states that the Court may order any individual with custody of the minor to produce the child at a specified time and place before a designated person, and may issue orders for the temporary custody and protection of the minor's person or property as deemed appropriate.
• Sub-section (2) specifies that if the minor is a female who should not be compelled to appear in public, the directive under sub-section (1) for her appearance must align with the customs and traditions of the country.
• Sub-section (3) clarifies that this section does not permit the Court to place a female minor in temporary custody of someone claiming to be her guardian based solely on their status as her husband, unless she is already in his custody with parental consent. It also prohibits any individual entrusted with temporary custody and protection of a minor's property from dispossessing anyone in possession of that property except through due legal process.

What is the Principle of Welfare of Child?

Section 13 of Hindu Minorities and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA):

This section stipulates that when a court appoints or declares any individual as the guardian of a Hindu minor, the welfare of the minor shall be the primary consideration.

Section 17 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890:

This Section provides matters to be considered while appointing a guardian. 

• Section 17(1) states that when appointing or declaring a guardian for a minor, the Court shall, in accordance with the provisions of this section, prioritize what appear to be in the best interest of the minor, consistent with the applicable law.
• Section 17(2) outlines that in determining what is best for the minor's welfare, the Court must consider factors such as the minor's age, sex, and religion; the character and capabilities of the proposed guardian; their relationship to the minor; any wishes expressed by a deceased parent; and any existing or past connections between the proposed guardian and the minor or their property.
• Section 17(3) indicates that if the minor is mature enough to express a reasoned preference, the Court may take that preference into account.
• Section 17(5) clarifies that the Court shall not appoint or declare any individual as a guardian against their will.

3. Woman Living Separately without Divorce Can Terminate Pregnancy without Husband’s Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a woman living separately from her husband, without a formal divorce, can terminate her pregnancy without needing her husband's consent under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari emphasized a purposive interpretation of "change of marital status," which allowed the petitioner to qualify for the termination. The court took into account her allegations of cruelty, maltreatment, and the potential risks to her mental and physical health, permitting the termination of her pregnancy at over 18 weeks.

Facts of the Case-

A married woman in her thirties filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy without her husband's consent. Her marriage took place on August 22, 2024, after which she reportedly endured cruelty from her in-laws due to inadequate dowry. Allegations were made against her husband for mistreatment and for attempting to secretly record their private moments using a portable camera on two occasions in their bedroom. Following the closure of her husband's business, he became financially reliant on the petitioner and her parents for daily expenses. Approximately 1.5 months after their marriage, the petitioner discovered she was pregnant and communicated to her husband that she was not mentally prepared for a child given their unstable financial situation. The husband allegedly feigned affection to dissuade her from taking contraceptive measures within the necessary timeframe for an abortion.

The petitioner experienced physical abuse from her in-laws, resulting in minor injuries and mental trauma, which ultimately compelled her to leave and return to her parents' home. On December 3, 2024, she began experiencing bleeding and was initially taken to Iqbal Nursing Home before being transferred to DMC Hospital in Ludhiana, where she remained until December 6, 2024. The medical summary report from DMC Hospital specifically indicated that the petitioner was under stress and had been a victim of domestic violence.

High Court’s Observation-

The Court noted that under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and Rule 3(B) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, the provisions relevant to this case pertain to pregnancy termination up to twenty weeks and changes in marital status. The Court observed that the MTP Amendment Act 2021 was intended by Parliament to include unmarried and single women within the Act's scope, as indicated by the replacement of the term 'husband' with 'partner' in Explanation I of Section 3(2).

Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the Supreme Court's stance that a change in material circumstances may occur when a woman is abandoned by her family or partner, potentially placing her in a disadvantaged financial and personal position. The Court recognized the constitutional right to privacy established in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which allows individuals to maintain and exercise autonomy over their bodies and minds, including reproductive choices.

While noting that the petitioner does not fit the definition of a "widow or divorcee," the Court concluded that her decision to live separately from her husband without a legal divorce still qualifies her for pregnancy termination under a purposive interpretation of "change of marital status." The Court determined that forcing an unwanted pregnancy could lead to significant physical and emotional challenges, impacting the woman's ability to pursue life opportunities, as highlighted in the Amandeep Kaur case (2024).

What is Medical Termination of Pregnancy?

Before 1971, abortion was illegal in India until the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act was enacted, which came into effect on April 1, 1972. Significant amendments were made to the Act in 2020, effective from September 2021, which extended the maximum gestational age for medical abortions from 20 weeks to 24 weeks. For pregnancies up to 20 weeks, the opinion of a single qualified medical professional is sufficient, whereas those between 20 and 24 weeks require the approval of two registered medical practitioners. The Act allows for termination up to 24 weeks for specific categories, including survivors of sexual assault, minors, women whose marital status changes during pregnancy, those with major physical disabilities or mental illness, and women in humanitarian or disaster situations. In cases of fetal abnormalities where the pregnancy exceeds 24 weeks, termination requires approval from a four-member Medical Board established in each state.

The 2021 amendments significantly broadened access to safe abortion services while ensuring necessary medical oversight through qualified practitioners and medical boards. The revised law emphasizes the protection of vulnerable women by specifically including categories such as survivors of sexual assault, minors, and those experiencing changes in marital status during pregnancy.

Section 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy-

A registered medical practitioner will not be held liable for any offense under the Indian Penal Code or other laws if they terminate a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. For pregnancies up to 20 weeks, a single registered medical practitioner can perform the termination if they form a good faith opinion regarding the necessary conditions. For pregnancies between 20 and 24 weeks, at least two registered medical practitioners must provide their good faith opinion, and this applies only to specific categories of women outlined in the rules.

Termination is permitted if continuing the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman's life or could cause serious injury to her physical or mental health, or if there is a substantial risk of serious physical or mental abnormalities in the child. In cases where pregnancy results from contraceptive failure, mental distress is legally presumed to constitute serious injury to the woman's mental health. Similarly, in instances of pregnancy due to rape, such anguish is also presumed to represent grave injury to her mental health. The gestational limits do not apply when termination is necessary due to significant fetal abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board.

Each state and union territory must establish a Medical Board comprising a gynecologist, pediatrician, radiologist/sonologist, and other designated members. The woman’s actual or foreseeable environment may be considered when assessing health risks. For women under 18 or those with mental illness, written consent from a guardian is required. In all other cases, only the consent of the pregnant woman is needed for termination.

Case- XXX vs. Fortis Hospital Mohali and Others