21 June 2025 Legal Updates

WIFE DOESN'T NEED HUSBAND'S PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR PASSPORT: MADRAS HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• J. Revathy v. Government of India & Others

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Madras

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 18, 2025

(d) Bench:

• The Honourable Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh

Facts of the Case

J. Revathy married Mohana Krishnan in 2023 and had a female child in 2024. Due to matrimonial disputes, her husband filed for dissolution of marriage in 2025, which was pending before the Sub Court, Alandur. Despite this ongoing dispute, Revathy applied for a passport on April 24, 2025, before the Regional Passport Office, Chennai.

Legal Issue

The passport office refused to process Revathy's application, demanding that she obtain her husband's signature on Form-J before her passport application could be processed. The office cited the pending matrimonial dispute as additional grounds for this requirement.

Petitioner's Argument

Revathy filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to issue her passport without requiring her husband's signature, arguing this was an unreasonable and discriminatory requirement.

Court's Reasoning and Judgment

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh delivered a progressive judgment emphasizing women's individual rights:

1. Individual Rights:

• The court held that a wife does not lose her individuality after marriage and can independently apply for a passport without her husband's permission or signature.

2. Gender Equality:

• The court criticized the passport office's requirement as reflecting a "mindset of treating married women as chattel belonging to the husband."

3. Practical Impossibility:

• Given the ongoing matrimonial dispute, requiring the husband's signature was deemed "virtually asking the petitioner to fulfill an impossibility."

4. Social Progress:

• The court noted that such practices are contrary to women's emancipation and constitute "male supremacism."

Court's Direction

The court issued a mandamus directing the Regional Passport Office to:

• Process Revathy's passport application independently
• Issue the passport upon satisfaction of other legitimate requirements
• Complete the process within four weeks of receiving the court order

MINOR RAPE VICTIM CANNOT BE FORCED TO CONTINUE WITH 'UNWANTED' PREGNANCY: BOMBAY HIGH COURT ALLOWS 12-YR-OLD GIRL TO ABORT 29 WEEK FOETUS

(a) Case Title:

• XYZ Minor through her natural guardian father v. Union of India and others

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench

(c) Date of Decision:

• 17th June, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Nitin W. Sambre and Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh (Division Bench)

Facts of the Case

A 12-year-5-month-old minor girl, through her father as natural guardian, approached the High Court seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy. The pregnancy resulted from sexual abuse by her cousin uncle. An FIR was registered on 5th June 2025 under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the POCSO Act, 2012. The case came to court at a delayed stage due to the family relationship with the accused.

Medical Board Opinion

The court constituted a Medical Board comprising specialists from various departments (Obstetrics & Gynecology, Pathology, Pediatrics, Chest Medicine, Psychiatry, and Radiodiagnosis). The Board opined that termination would be high-risk considering the victim's age and fetal gestational age (28-29 weeks), but hysterotomy could be performed with high-risk consent from parents and patient's assent.

Legal Arguments

1. Petitioner's Counsel argued:

• Both the minor and her parents consented to the high-risk procedure. No life threat to the petitioner was indicated. They also cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a woman's right to bodily autonomy and choice regarding pregnancy termination under Article 21

2. Government Pleader contended:

• The high-risk nature of the procedure, given the victim's age and advanced gestational stage, made termination inadvisable. The Court should be sensitive to medical risks involved.

Court's Decision and Reasoning

The High Court allowed the petition and directed the Dean of Government Medical College, Akola to permit medical termination of pregnancy. The court reasoned:

1. Constitutional Right:

• Article 21 protects a woman's right to terminate pregnancy when mental or physical health is at stake

2. Bodily Autonomy:

• The victim alone has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker regarding abortion

3. No Life Threat:

• The Medical Board certified no life threat to the petitioner

4. Forced Pregnancy:

• Compelling continuation of unwanted pregnancy would strip the victim of her right to determine her life's path

5. Safety Protocol:

• The court ensured proper medical team involvement including paediatric surgeons, gynaecology surgeons, and paediatric anaesthesiologists

Key Legal Principles

• Article 21 of the Constitution: Protects reproductive autonomy and right to terminate unwanted pregnancy
• Bodily Autonomy: Women have ultimate decision-making authority over their bodies
• High-Risk Consent: Medical procedures can proceed with proper consent and safety protocols even in high-risk cases
• Judicial Discretion: Courts must exercise constitutional jurisdiction judiciously considering relevant facts

AGREEMENT TO SELL NOT CONVEYANCE, CAN'T GIVE ANY RIGHT IN PROPERTY WITHOUT SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 23, 2025

(d) Bench:

• J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Facts of the Case

The parties involved were Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. (original owner of agricultural land) who was the appellant and Mahaveer Lunia and others (persons who executed sale deeds) who were the respondents. The Appellant company owned 18 bighas 15 biswas of agricultural land in Village Pal, Jodhpur

In the year 2014, appellant borrowed ₹7.5 crores from Respondent No.1 (Mahaveer Lunia). As security, appellant executed:

• Board resolution authorizing Managing Director
• Unregistered power of attorney in favor of Respondent No.1
• Unregistered agreement to sell

In the month of May 2022, the appellant revoked the power of attorney and board resolution. Despite the revocation, the Respondent no. 1 executed sale deeds in July 2022. The Appellant filed a suit claiming the transaction was actually a mortgage, not a sale.

Legal Issues

• Whether an unregistered agreement to sell can transfer title to immovable property
• Whether sale deeds executed after revocation of power of attorney are valid
• Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
• Whether civil courts have jurisdiction over title disputes

Court's Decision and Analysis

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the plaint, setting out the following legal principles:

• Unregistered Documents Cannot Transfer Title: Under Sections 17 and 49 of Registration Act, 1908, unregistered documents required to be registered are inadmissible for proving title. The only exception to this is that it can be used as evidence in suits for specific performance or collateral purposes.
• Power of Attorney Limitations: Power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer. It creates agency relationship only. Once a power of attorney is revoked, attorney holder has no authority to act.
• Agreement to Sell vs. Sale: As per Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, agreement to sell does not create any interest in property. Only a registered sale deed can transfer title.
• Order VII Rule 11 CPC Application: Plaint can be rejected only if it discloses no cause of action on plain reading. If triable issues exist, suit cannot be summarily rejected. Court cannot partially reject a plaint - if one cause of action survives, entire plaint must be heard and decided.

Important Provision of Law

1. Registration Act, 1908:

• Section 17: Compulsory registration requirements
• Section 49: Effect of non-registration - document cannot affect immovable property
• Section 23: Time limit for registration (4 months)

2. Transfer of Property Act, 1882:

• Section 54: Agreement to sell doesn't create interest in property. Only registered sale deed can transfer title.

Civil Procedure:

• Order VII Rule 11: Grounds for rejection of plaint. The Court must give opportunity to cure defects before rejection.

Property Law Principles:

• Title to immovable property requires registered conveyance
• Unregistered documents have limited evidentiary value
• Revenue entries don't confer title
• Civil courts have exclusive jurisdiction over title disputes