Petitioner A.K. Remani, who joined the Spices Board as a Peon on 01.06.1995 under the compassionate appointment scheme following her husband’s death, challenged the Board’s rejection of her request for a Group C appointment as Junior Clerk when vacancies arose. She contends that with SSLC and Typing Lower in English, she was eligible for promotion to Junior Clerk and had been assured a Group C position would be available on vacancy. Representations were filed repeatedly; the Board replied that there were no vacancies and that compassionate appointments cannot be upgraded to higher posts; that there is no provision for a second appointment under the compassionate scheme. The record shows others were appointed to Junior Clerk (e.g., Smt. Akiladevi) or provisionally promoted (Shri Sunil Kumar) in relevant years, with Ext.P5–P6 supporting these entries. Respondents rely on Ext.R1(a), Government of India memorandum dated 09.10.1998, Clause 14, which bars consideration for higher posts on compassionate grounds and states that such appointments cannot be transferred. Ext.R1(b) (12.12.2013) is cited regarding a recruitment circular inviting willing candidates for Junior Clerk promotions, though the petitioner did not submit willingness. Citing Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007) 6 SCC 162 via I.G. (Karmik) and Others v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, the court held there is no legal right to a higher post solely due to qualifications acquired after compassionate appointment. The petition is dismissed; there is no right to compel promotion in these circumstances.
This is a Second Appeal under S.A. No. 39 of 2000 arising from O.S.665 of 1988, in which the plaintiffs (appellants), successors of Parameswaran Nadar, challenge a boundary suit before the Neyyattinkara First Additional Munsiff Court. The sequence of litigation traces title and possession over plaint A schedule land to the predecessor in interest, with earlier suits (O.S. 833 of 1961) declaring title and possession, and O.S. 640 of 1970 addressing kudikidappu rights for defendants 1 and 3. The Land Tribunal found kudikidappu rights in favor of those defendants, and a subsequent gift transaction affected the present B and C schedule properties. The trial court dismissed the boundary suit on the ground that fixation of boundary could not occur without the defendants purchasing kudikidappu rights, a position the High Court overruled. The High Court held that boundary fixation is permissible even where kudikidappu rights exist and that the extent of A schedule land is immaterial to determining boundaries. It rejected the argument that res judicata bars the present suit, relying on authorities including Padmanabhan v. Tharekkad Simhanatha Bhagavathy Devaswom, Sukumaran Nair v. Kumaran Asari, and Pawan Kumar Gupta v. Rochiram Nagdeo to explain res judicata in the context of upstream and downstream proceedings. The judgment decrees O.S.665/1988, directs fixing of boundary lines BP-PO for item 1 and FQ-QR for item 2 in B schedule, and awards costs with interlocutory applications dismissed.
WP(C).No. 23721 of 2016 (M) The Kerala High Court heard three connected writ petitions challenging the Kerala Public Service Commission's recruitment process for University Assistants. After a written examination, PSC published a provisional answer key, accepted objections, and, following an Expert Committee’s review, revised the key and deleted six questions or altered answers. Petitioners contended that the deletion of questions and reliance on the experts’ recommendations were flawed, arguing that the outcome would have favored them had the original key been retained and that the PSC’s approach amounted to improper judicial interference with academic evaluation. The PSC and its counter-affidavit explained that to avoid delays in scrutiny, an Expert Committee was constituted to examine every disputed question and that only complaints received within the deadline were considered; the final key was adjusted accordingly. They cited authorities — including prior Kerala and Supreme Court cases — to justify not re-evaluating based on petitioners’ preferred answers. The court noted that a Division Bench in Nowfal H. had approved a similar expert-driven process and emphasized that judicial review should respect the Commission’s procedure and the expertise of the evaluators, unless there is clear illegality. Applying this approach, the court found no ground to quash the probability list or require revaluation and dismissed the petitions. The petitions fail in the face of deferential judicial review of PSC’s technical process.
CRL.A.No. 1532 of 2004 (A) Ravindran, the appellant, was convicted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kozhikode, under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act read with Rule 9 of the Kerala Foreign Liquor Rules for possessing 94 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) found on his lap and under a bus seat during a 6 May 2001 inspection near Payyoli Police Station. The prosecution claimed the liquor was intended for sale in Pondicherry, implying import into Kerala. The trial record included PWs 1–4 and Exts P1–P9 with MO materials, and chemical analysis Ext. P9. The appellant’s counsel urged Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 722), contending the legal distinction between “bringing” and “possessing” requires proof of import beyond possession alone. The prosecution relied on the seizure and analyses to argue import. The High Court observed Narayanan’s principle that mere possession does not prove import and that conviction under 55(a) cannot stand on possession alone without evidence of import. However, the court found no procedural flaw in seizure or analysis. The court held the appellant not guilty of 55(a) but guilty of a different provision, Section 13 of the Abkari Act, and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 5,000 with a default three-month imprisonment under Section 63. The appeal was thus allowed in part; the 55(a) conviction was set aside and the case remitted for appropriate sentencing on the alternate count.
Anil Kumar, the appellant, challenges a conviction under Section 8 of the Abkari Act by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Alappuzha. On 07-02-1999, excise officers on patrol near Aryad South found the appellant carrying a plastic kit containing 30 rose polythene covers with arrack; two opened covers were tasted and the contents were collected in a 375 ml bottle as a sample. Ext.P1 seizure Mahazar recorded the 28 polythene covers containing about 2.8 litres of arrack, two empty covers, and the sample bottle with 200 ml of arrack. These items were seized and the case proceeded through the Excise Range Office to the court. PW1 (detecting officer) and PW2 supported the prosecution, while PW4 and PW5 testified as hostile independent witnesses. The defense argued that Ext.P1 reached the court after about one and a half years, and crucial documents like the Arrest Memo and a separate Arrest Notice were not produced, casting doubt on the genuineness of arrest and the chain of custody. The trial court convicted under Section 8 Abkari Act, relying on the kind of evidence emphasized by Ravi, Narayani, Rajamma and Ramankutty. The Kerala High Court, however, found serious lapses in the seizure process, arrest memo, forwarding notes, property lists, and the link between the seized sample and the chemical analysis. Relying on Basu directions and related cases, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and acquitted the appellant. The appellant is to be set at liberty, with the bail bond cancelled.
BAIL APPL. NO. 9141 OF 2023 Vishnu P.S., the third accused in Crime No. 905/2022 of Angamaly Police Station, Ernakulam, petitioned for regular bail under the NDPS Act. The Kerala High Court heard the second bail application on 13 November 2023. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy among accused 1–4 to possess and sell MDMA, hashish oil, and LSD, culminating in the seizure of 198.36 grams of MDMA concealed in Bluetooth speakers, with the contraband allegedly transported by courier and recovered when the first accused was arrested in Angamaly. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were said to be connected by money transfers to the first accused; I.D. proofs of a person named Alif Muhammed were seized; investigators claimed the accused had a joint residence in Mumbai and conducted financial dealings to procure the contraband. The defence contended that there were no materials showing conscious possession by accused 2 and 3; their only link was the confession of the first accused and cash transfers; they argued for bail on delay grounds and reliance on the ratio in Fasil v. State of Kerala. The State opposed bail, citing money transfers and CCTV evidence indicating joint residence and financial arrangements; the prosecution urged trial expeditiously due to the magnitude of the contraband. The court held that Section 37 NDPS Act bars bail in cases involving commercial quantity unless two conjunctive conditions are met, found no adequate "reasonable grounds" to believe innocence, and dismissed the bail petitions, directing a six‑month timeline for trial.
BAIL APPL. NO. 9091 OF 2023 (and connected BA Nos. 9093, 9094, 9097, 9102, 9103 & 9104/2023) This is a consolidated bail-application order of the High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam) concerning the second, fifth, ninth, and other accused in multiple crimes involving Kannur Urban Nidhi Ltd. The petitioner, Shoukathali M.M., seeks regular bail under Section 439 CrPC for offences including cheating and conspiracy under IPC sections 409/420 read with 34. The petitions arise from multiple FIRs: Crime Nos. 407/2023 (Karikottakari PS), 467/2023 (Valapattanam PS), 235/2023 (Mattannur PS), 590/2023 (Mattannur PS), 453/2023 (Mattannur PS), 236/2023 (Mattannur PS), and 570/2023 (Mattannur PS). The court notes that the charge-sheets have not yet been filed, and there is no material suggesting imminent flight or tampering with evidence; bail is thus permissible with conditions. The prosecution contends bail should be denied given the offence’s scale and depositors’ losses, while the defense argues innocence and non-applicability of detention. The judge observes that 139 cases list the petitioner as an accused and 130 have granted bail, and that a lone bail grant would not undermine the investigation. The order ultimately allows bail with standard conditions, including bond, sureties, reporting, non-interference with witnesses, no foreign travel without permission, and surrender of passport where applicable, while noting police powers to investigate even on bail in light of Sushila Aggarwal (2021) 1 KHC 663.
CRL.M.C. No. 9203 of 2023 This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.9203 of 2023) filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Kerala High Court by the accused in CC No.325/2022 (arising from Crime No.0727/2021 of Vellarikundu Police Station). The petition seeks quashing of proceedings in a case registered for offences under Sec. 451, 323 read with Sec. 34 IPC, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the victims have no objection to quashing. The petition is supported by affidavits from the victims; the Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging the settlement, expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement. The court examined the law governing quashing of non-compoundable offences where private settlements are involved, citing Supreme Court decisions including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, and the related decisions in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh. The judge concluded that the dispute is private in nature and the settlement is acceptable under the circumstances, allowing the criminal miscellaneous case and quashing all further proceedings in CC No.325/2022. The order emphasizes balancing the private settlement against public interest and the need to consider the antecedents and conduct of the accused, in line with established jurisprudence on Section 482 Cr.P.C. power to quash non-compoundable offences.
Francis Kelly filed WP(C).No.12323 of 2017 challenging Ext.P11 dated 9.3.2017, which upheld Ext.P1 dated 7.9.2012 under the Kerala Land Relinquishment Act, 1958 and the accompanying Rules. The petitioner owns 8 cents in Survey No. 170/1, 170/2 in Elamkulam and asserts that the relinquishment recorded in Ext.P1 (affecting about 3.400 cents of his land) is illegal, arbitrary, or improper. He contends that he did not sign Form A/B declarations (Exts.P2/P3), that Exts.P2 and P3 are fabricated, and that no revenue enquiry or notice was served; he also argues Ext.P1 was passed hastily and that the land subsequently treated as puramboke by the government. The respondent 6th to 9th parties (Kochi Corporation and addl. impleaded heirs) claim that the petitioner surrendered land in accordance with Rules 3 and 7 of the 1958 Rules, submitted Form A/B on 17.8.1999, and that Exts.P7 series documents and Ext.R6 reflect the surrender and road-widening actions. The court, after hearing, held that Ext.P11 order by the first respondent was legally issued under the Act and Rules, rejected the challenge, and declined interference under Article 226. The petition was dismissed. The decision relies on statutory authorities’ presumption of lawful action and persuasive precedents that emphasize jurisdictional validity and proper procedure.
CRL.M.C. NO. 9422 OF 2023 This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 CrPC filed in the Kerala High Court by Aromal and Manoharan (alias Baby), challenging CC 578/2019 arising from Crime No. 347/2019 registered at Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha District. The petition seeks to quash proceedings for offences under sections 294(b), 341, 324, 326 r/w 34 IPC, on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute. The victims have filed affidavits in support of the settlement, and the petitioners’ counsel submits that the matter is private in nature and the victims do not object to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, but concedes that the dispute has been resolved. The court relies on the jurisprudence laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688, and on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, to examine when a non-compoundable offence can be quashed under S.482 CrPC when the dispute is private and settled. After evaluating the facts and the records, the court holds the dispute to be private and accepts the settlement, quashing all further proceedings in CC 578/2019. The order is passed by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, Single Judge, Kerala High Court.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash Annexure-A2 filed in CC No.1299/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XII, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 are M/S Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd. and Sheeja Sunny, respectively, represented by multiple advocates. The core arguments contend that the 2nd petitioner is merely an employee and authorized signatory who does not oversee day‑to‑day affairs of the company; even if there is an enforceable debt and a dishonoured cheque, the alleged liability was discharged by subsequent payments, evidenced by Annexure A3, reducing the substratum of the case. It is also argued that since the substrate no longer exists, prosecution would amount to abuse of process and should be quashed. The respondents counter that the 2nd accused is an authorized signatory and responsible for the conduct of business, and that while bank statements show remittances, they do not prove discharge of the specific cheque obligation without bank evidence. The court cites Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and a series of Supreme Court authorities to articulate the established tests for quashing: (i) no prima facie offence; (ii) abuse of process; (iii) sparing use of power; (iv) lack of essential facts is not fatal; and (v) a civil contract may also entail criminal liability. Ultimately, the petition is dismissed; the quash petition is denied and the prosecution continues.
The petition by K. Krishnan Namboothiri challenges the selection process for Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple for the year 1199 ME (2023-24). The petitioner sought mandamus to be informed of the total marks and the unit-wise marks awarded in the interviews, inclusion in the Ext.P5 short list, and expedited consideration of Ext.P6. He contends that he performed well in the interviews (reportedly scoring above threshold in some segments) and alleges mala fides and external interference in the shortlisting, claiming ineligible candidates were included. The matter was examined with records from interviews held on 14.09.2023 and 15.09.2023, along with the observer’s report. The court notes the petitioner’s total interview scores of 29.25/90 (14.09.2023) and 34.25/90 (15.09.2023) against a minimum of 54 required for shortlisting, and observes there are no pleadings of mala fides with specifics about individuals or actions. Citing State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, the court emphasizes the need for full particulars of mala fide allegations. Ultimately, since the petitioner did not meet the threshold and no valid mala fide case is pleaded, the writ petition is dismissed. The sealed records are returned to the Registrar (Judicial).
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 CrPC was filed by five petitioners — Navah Muhammad T, Lukumanul Hakeem, Anshif, Adhil Ashraf Manikkott, and Muhammed Nazim Shan — challenging Crime No. 576/2023 of Kulavallur Police Station, Kannur, which charged them with offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 read with 149 IPC. The petitioners contended that the dispute with the victims has been settled and the parties wish to end further prosecution; affidavits from the victims corroborate settlement and have no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging the settlement, expressed initial reservations about quashing solely on the basis of compromise but conceded that the matter is settled. The court invoked well‑established Supreme Court principles (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan; Gian Singh; Narinder Singh) to examine whether quashing non‑compoundable offences is warranted where the dispute is private and there is full settlement, while ensuring that serious crimes (e.g., involving S.307 IPC or arms) are not quashed merely on settlement. After examining the records and affidavits, the court held the dispute private, the settlement genuine, and the offences non‑heinous; it allowed the quashing and directed that all further proceedings in Crime No. 576/2023 be quashed against the petitioners.
Premadasan filed RSA No. 630 of 2023 challenging a decree in AS 35/2018 (Palakkad) confirming OS 511/2014 (Munsiff Court, Alathur). The suit, filed in the Munsiff Court, sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendant and his henchmen from obstructing a motorable D schedule road that provides ingress and egress to plaint A, B, and C schedule properties and to a common tank. It claimed exclusive or co-ownership of this D schedule road as part of a Kollancode house estate; the aim was to ensure peaceful possession and enjoyment of A–C schedules and the common area. The defendant contended that D schedule is not a common motorable road and that the plaintiff’s claim of co-ownership is baseless; access to B and C was available via other routes. The trial court rejected the co-ownership claim, dismissing the suit; on appeal, the District Judge confirmed. In this Regular Second Appeal under Order XLII Rule 1 and Section 100 CPC, the High Court examined whether a substantial question of law arose. It concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove co-ownership; the reliance on settlement deed No.3506/1996 was not enough, and cross-examination destroyed the claim. It cited Nazir Mohamed and Kondiba Kadam to emphasize that substantial questions of law must exist, and ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding no substantial question of law and dismissing all interlocutory applications.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings in LP No. 134/2018, pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kayamkulam, arising from Crime No. 147/2013. The accused-namely, Sunil (petitioner 1) and Suraj (petitioner 2)—are charged along with a co-accused for offences under sections 341, 294(b), 324, 323 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 22.01.2012, amid enmity with the defacto complainant, the petitioners restrained him, assaulted him with an iron rod and a knife, resulting in injuries. Accused No. 2 was acquitted; the case against petitioners was split and refiled as LP 134/2018. The petitioners’ counsel argued for quashing on the basis of an amicable settlement and lack of lasting grievances, supported by an affidavit from the respondent. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations, noting that Section 482 should not be invoked for serious or public-interest offences, though no other crimes by the petitioners were reported. The High Court, relying on State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, held that quashing non-compoundable, private offences may be permissible where the dispute is fully settled, while cautioning against quashing for heinous offences or those under special statutes. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition and quashed the final report and LP 134/2018 proceedings.
W.P.(C).Nos. 28467/2018 & 28450/2018 The petitioners, Fazil Abdulla K, move two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking correction of the date of birth entries in CBSE records so that they align with the birth certificates issued by the statutory authorities. W.P.(C).No.28467/2018 concerns a female petitioner whose birth certificate records 21.11.1985 as her date of birth, while school records allegedly show 21.5.1986, leading to an inconsistent CBSE mark sheet. W.P.(C).No.28450/2018 concerns a male petitioner whose birth register records date of birth as 13.4.1991, but the school records show 14.4.1991, with the CBSE mark sheet likewise reflecting the latter. Both petitions challenge the CBSE orders Ext.P-3 and Ext.P-4, which rejected corrections on the ground of time-bar. The court places these petitions on a common footing, referencing Subin Mohammed v. Union of India (2016) (1) KLT 340) and this Court’s judgment of 29.08.2017 in W.P.(C).No.20661/2017, to allow correction of the DOB in school records and to direct CBSE to correct the birth-date entries in its records. The judge disposes of the petitions by setting aside the impugned orders, directing the petitioners to file applications with school authorities, and ordering correction in the records based on the birth certificates, subject to a Rs.5,000 cost per petitioner paid to CBSE Chennai within a specified period. The matter is remitted for reconsideration by the CBSE Chennai, with further coordination between schools and CBSE to ensure DOB alignment across records.
In this Writ Petition (Civil) filed by Abdul Muneer, the petitioner seeks quashing of registration-related orders (Exts. P2 and P3) and contends that the release deed executed by the petitioner’s co-benefactors (children of Late Moideenkutty Haji) in favor of the grandchildren of the same deceased (including Abdul Muneer) should attract lower stamp duty under Article 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act. The Full Bench, in a prior decision reported in 2018(1)KLT 238 (FB), held that for release deeds the benefit of lower duty under Article 48(a) is available only if the beneficiary is related to the executor in one of the enumerated relationships (father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, grandchildren or legal heirs of the deceased children). It further held that the concept of ‘family’ under Article 42 is inapplicable to release deeds. In the instant case the executors are the siblings of the deceased father of the beneficiaries, and the beneficiaries are the children of the deceased brother of the executors; this does not fit the enumerated relationships of Article 48(a). Consequently, lower stamp duty is not applicable and Art.48(b) (higher duty) would govern. The petition is dismissed, aligning with the Full Bench’s interpretation and the State of Kerala v. Shibu precedent guiding the enumerated-relationship requirement.”
The petitioners, private stage carriage operators, challenged the validity of amendments to the Kerala State scheme governing route allocation and the definition of Ordinary Limited Stop (OLS) services, which effectively restricted private operators on routes reserved for KSRTC. The background involves Ext.P5 (2009) Scheme under Section 99 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reserved certain routes for the State Undertaking and permitted renewal of pre-9 May 2006 permits while denying renewal for post-cut-off permits, with temporary permits thereafter. Ext.P7 (2013) subsequently vested higher-class services exclusively with KSRTC, and Ext.P9 (2015) granted OLSS permits to operators denied renewal, creating a complex regime balancing private rights and STU prerogatives. In 2016–2017, the government issued Ext.P10 (draft) and Ext.P11 (draft Rule) proposing to modify Ext.P5 and KMV Rules; final schemes Ext.P13 (2017) and amendments Ext.P12 (2017) were notified. The petitioners argued that the statutory procedure under Sections 99, 100 and 102, including the publication of proposals, inviting objections, and fair consideration, was not meaningfully followed, and that the finalised schemes diverged from the drafts, prejudicing pre-existing private rights. The court examined the procedural safeguards and the nature of saved rights arising from Ext.P5 and Ext.P9, ultimately quashing Clause 4 of Ext.P13 for applying distance restrictions to saved permits, while upholding the amendments to the KMV Rules. The petitions were partly allowed; KSRTC appeals were dismissed. The decision underscores the constitutional demand for transparency and fairness in administrative schemes affecting pre-existing rights.
This second appeal by M.N. Parthasarathi challenges a trial court decree in a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent in respect of the plaint schedule property. The suit traces title to Ext.A1, a sale deed dated 25.06.1968, under which the appellant claims assignment of the property from Purushothaman (the 1st respondent’s husband). The plaintiff contends that he is the rightful owner and that the 4th respondent occupies the shed as a tenant with arrears of rent, contributing to his possession of the property. The trial court decreed the plaintiff’s relief; the first appellate court reversed. In this High Court, the judge held that the respondents could not establish adverse possession or limitation as a matter of law because possession began with the appellant’s permission, and mere permissive possession cannot turn into hostile possession. The court also held that Order II Rule 2 CPC does not bar the second suit since the causes of action in the two suits differ (declaration/possession vs. recovery of possession on title). Arabinda Sarma v. Landaru Roy was distinguished as inapplicable to the facts. Ext.A2 and Ext.A3, the 1989 AS No.146 of 1987 judgment, confirming Ext.A1 as not benami, was relied upon. Consequently, the appeal is allowed; the lower appellate court’s decree is set aside and the trial court’s decree restored, with costs.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging an order in CMP 2406/2012 before the JMC Kayamkulam. The core issue is whether a daughter-in-law can implead, as a co-respondent, the lover of her mother-in-law under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner (Biju) was the respondent in CMP 2406/2012, while the first respondent in the trial court was the petitioner herein; the other respondents include Raji and Rathnamma along with the State. The petitioner contends there is no domestic relationship between herself and the lover; thus no act of domestic violence under the Act can be alleged by her against the lover. The court examines definitions: aggrieved person (Section 2(a)) must be a woman in a domestic relationship who alleges violence; domestic relationship (Section 2(f)) requires living in a shared household and kinship or kin-like ties; shared household (Section 2(s)). The court relies on Supreme Court precedents (Velusamy; Indra Sarma) to distinguish “relationship in the nature of marriage” from mere live-in arrangements and emphasizes that not all live-in relationships fall within the Act. The court ultimately holds the petition unsustainable, allowed, and quashes the proceedings against the second respondent, with dismissals of interim applications.
