In a case of maintenance, the wife — who was abandoned — was not granted speedy relief by the family court despite directions from the high court. The high court in its contempt jurisdiction summoned the presiding judge to appear in person for disobeying the order. The petitioner submitted before the Supreme Court that the high court ought to have granted some relief to her. The Supreme Court held inter alia that if convinced of the genuineness of averments, the high court itself has the jurisdiction to direct suitable maintenance in exercise of its superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution (Smt Shail vs Manoj Kumar).
The “Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland” provide for following customs and usages in suits and cases, and in matters not covered by customs and usages provide for following the spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure. The high court remitted a case involving water dispute between two villages to the additional deputy commissioner. The Supreme Court held inter alia that the Evidence Act and the Code are inapplicable. Where community rights to natural resources are involved, villagers would never be satisfied with a formal decision. It was declared that both the villages would have access to the water source (Tekeba AO vs Saumeren).
An employee resigned in 1977 and was paid all dues as per existing rules. In a letter to the Chief Justice, which was treated as a writ petition, the employee prayed for the benefits of a new scheme introduced in 1988 and contended that fixing an artificial cut-off date is arbitrary. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had retired years prior to the cut-off date, and he was not entitled to the benefits. To hold that in no case can a cut-off date be fixed would mean that the government can never change conditions of service, retirement benefits, etc. from a particular date (Gangadhar Yeshwant Paranjape vs Commissioner).
SOLON
