29 August 2025 Legal Updates

DELAY IN COMPLIANCE WITHOUT WILFUL INTENT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT OF COURT: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• A.K. Jayaprakash (Dead) Through LRs vs. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao and Another

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• August 19, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih

Background Facts

• A.K. Jayaprakash was a Manager at Nedungadi Bank Ltd. who was dismissed in 1985 for alleged irregularities in loan sanctioning and delays in reporting. He challenged this dismissal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947.
• The Labour Commissioner set aside the dismissal and reinstated Jayaprakash, finding that the alleged misconduct was not based on justifiable grounds, there was no mala fide or dishonesty involved, no loss was caused to the bank; business had actually improved and loans were recovered on time.
• The bank challenged this through various courts, but ultimately lost. Meanwhile, Nedungadi Bank merged with Punjab National Bank.

Supreme Court's Original Order (2018)

The Supreme Court dismissed the bank's appeals on January 17, 2018, with a clear direction: "the outstanding amount be paid within a period of three months."

• Contempt Proceedings: When the bank failed to pay within three months, Jayaprakash filed contempt petitions. However, he passed away during the proceedings, and his legal representatives continued the case.
• Bank's Delayed Compliance: The bank eventually made payments between March 2019 and June 2023.

Legal Issues Decided

1. Whether delayed compliance constitutes contempt:

• Contempt jurisdiction is meant to uphold the majesty of law, not settle personal grievances. For civil contempt, the breach must be deliberate and intentional (mens rea required)
• Finding: While the bank failed to comply within the timeline, there was no evidence of wilful or contumacious intent. The delay was attributed to administrative difficulties post-merger and retrieval of decades-old records.

2. Whether pension benefits could be claimed through contempt proceedings:

• Contempt proceedings cannot be used to assert new claims not previously raised. No pension relief was sought in original proceedings, nor was there any adjudication on this issue.

Final Order

The Supreme Court disposed of the contempt proceedings against the respondents and barred any future proceedings in this matter after compliance.

Key Legal Principles

• Contempt of Court: Requires wilful disobedience; mere delay without mens rea insufficient
• Scope of Contempt Proceedings: Cannot be used to claim new reliefs not originally granted
• Judicial Compensation: Courts can award reasonable compensation for prolonged delays in implementing orders
• Finality of Litigation: Courts aim to bring closure to prolonged disputes through appropriate remedies

HINDU MARRIAGE DOESN'T BECOME INVALID MERELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT REGISTERED: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Sunil Dubey v. Minakshi

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

(c) Date of Decision:

• 26.08.2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Justice Manish Kumar Nigam (Single Judge)

Facts

• Husband and wife filed a mutual consent divorce petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Marriage was solemnized on 27.06.2010 but was never registered. Family Court required them to file a marriage registration certificate
• Couple applied for waiver of this requirement stating the certificate was unavailable and registration wasn't mandatory under the Act. Family Court rejected the waiver application, citing Rule 3(a) of Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956. Husband approached High Court under Article 227 challenging this order.

Legal Issues

• Whether filing of marriage registration certificate is mandatory in mutual consent divorce proceedings
• Whether non-registration of marriage invalidates the marriage or affects divorce proceedings

Key Legal Principles Established

1. Nature of Marriage Registration:

• Registration under Section 8 is permissive, not mandatory. Its purpose is only to "facilitate proof" of marriage. Section 8(5) clearly states: "validity of any Hindu marriage shall in no way be affected by the omission to make the entry".

2. Registration Certificate as Evidence:

• Registration certificate is merely evidence of marriage, not proof of its validity. Non-registration does not invalidate a validly solemnized marriage. Marriage Certificate cannot establish marriage validity if proper ceremonies under Section 7 weren't performed.

3. Procedural Law Interpretation:

• Rules of procedure are "handmaids of justice, not its mistress". Technical interpretations that defeat justice should be avoided
• Rule 3(a) only requires certificate "where the marriage has been registered" - not applicable to unregistered marriages

Court's Reasoning

• Literal Interpretation of Rule 3(a): The rule requires certificate only when marriage is already registered under the Act
• Mutual Consent Context: In Section 13(B) proceedings, factum of marriage is admitted by both parties
• Procedural Fairness: Insisting on unavailable documents defeats the purpose of justice
• Legislative Intent: Registration was meant to facilitate proof, not create procedural hurdles

Judgment

Petition Allowed. No requirement to file registration certificate for unregistered marriages.