VALIDITY OF BYE-LAWS — WITHIN STATUTORY FRAMEWORK Co-operative societies — Bye-laws — Validity — Where bye-laws prescribing conditions such as audit classification, continuity of operations and minimum supply of milk are rational, uniformly applicable and within statutory powers under Act, 2001, they are valid and consistent with object of ensuring efficiency and active participation — High Court erred in striking them down. (Paras 6.1, 17, 19)

 APEX COURT HELD THAT 

1. LOCUS STANDI — NON-PARTY AFFECTED PERSON

Appeal — Locus standi — Person not impleaded in writ proceedings — Where impugned judgment operates in rem and prejudicially affects rights of co-operative societies not heard, such affected persons are “aggrieved” and entitled to maintain appeal — Non-impleadment does not bar challenge.
(Paras 13 to 13.2)

---

2. MAINTAINABILITY — WRIT AGAINST CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Maintainability — Co-operative societies — Where societies are autonomous member-driven bodies, neither “State” under Article 12 nor discharging public duty, and dispute relates to internal management and electoral process, writ jurisdiction is not maintainable — High Court erred in entertaining writ petitions.
(Paras 14 to 14.9)

---

3. ALTERNATIVE REMEDY — STATUTORY BAR

Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 — Sections 58, 60, 100, 104–107 — Election disputes — Where statute provides complete adjudicatory mechanism before Registrar for disputes relating to elections, management and validity of bye-laws, writ petition bypassing such efficacious remedy is not maintainable in absence of exceptional circumstances — High Court erred in bypassing statutory scheme.
(Paras 15 to 15.12)

---

4. STATUTORY SCHEME — ROLE OF BYE-LAWS IN ELECTIONS

Co-operative Societies — Elections — Section 32 of Act, 2001 — Where statutory scheme integrates Act, Rules and bye-laws as composite framework governing elections, bye-laws validly regulate society-specific aspects including eligibility and participation, subject to consistency with statute — Exclusion of bye-laws from election process is impermissible.
(Paras 17 to 17.2)

---

5. RIGHT TO VOTE VS RIGHT TO CONTEST

Elections — Co-operative societies — Distinction — Where right to vote and right to contest are distinct statutory rights, right to contest being subject to qualifications and eligibility conditions, regulation of candidature does not affect right to vote — High Court erred in conflating both.
(Paras 18 to 18.7)

---

6. ELIGIBILITY VS DISQUALIFICATION

Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 — Section 28 — Bye-laws — Eligibility criteria — Where bye-laws prescribe objective conditions relating to performance, participation and functional engagement, such provisions constitute eligibility criteria and not disqualifications — Absence of eligibility does not attract statutory disability — High Court erred in treating them as disqualifications.
(Paras 19 to 19.7)

---

7. VALIDITY OF BYE-LAWS — WITHIN STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

Co-operative societies — Bye-laws — Validity — Where bye-laws prescribing conditions such as audit classification, continuity of operations and minimum supply of milk are rational, uniformly applicable and within statutory powers under Act, 2001, they are valid and consistent with object of ensuring efficiency and active participation — High Court erred in striking them down.
(Paras 6.1, 17, 19)

ELIGIBILITY VS DISQUALIFICATION Co-operative societies — Bye-laws — Eligibility criteria — Where bye-laws prescribe objective conditions relating to performance and participation for contesting elections, such provisions constitute eligibility criteria and not disqualifications under statute — High Court erred in treating them as disqualifications. (Paras 19 to 19.6)

 

APEX COURT HELD THAT

1. MAINTAINABILITY — WRIT AGAINST CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Maintainability of writ — Co-operative societies — Where dispute pertains to internal management and electoral process of co-operative societies, which are neither “State” nor performing public duty, writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily maintainable — High Court erred in entertaining writ petitions.
(Paras 14 to 14.9)

---

2. ALTERNATIVE REMEDY — STATUTORY MECHANISM

Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 — Sections 58, 60, 104–107 — Election disputes — Where statute provides complete adjudicatory mechanism before Registrar for disputes relating to constitution, management and elections of society, writ petition bypassing such remedy without exceptional circumstances is not maintainable — High Court erred in ignoring statutory remedy.
(Paras 15 to 15.12)

---

3. LOCUS — NON-PARTY AFFECTED PERSON

Appeal — Locus standi — Person not party to writ proceedings — Where impugned judgment operates in rem affecting rights of persons not impleaded, such affected persons are entitled to maintain appeal — Non-impleadment does not bar challenge.
(Para 13)

---

4. RIGHT TO VOTE VS RIGHT TO CONTEST

Co-operative elections — Right to vote and right to contest — Distinction — Where bye-laws regulate eligibility to contest and not right to vote, such regulation is permissible as right to contest is statutory and subject to conditions — High Court erred in conflating both rights.
(Paras 18 to 18.7)

---

5. ELIGIBILITY VS DISQUALIFICATION

Co-operative societies — Bye-laws — Eligibility criteria — Where bye-laws prescribe objective conditions relating to performance and participation for contesting elections, such provisions constitute eligibility criteria and not disqualifications under statute — High Court erred in treating them as disqualifications.
(Paras 19 to 19.6)

---

6. VALIDITY OF BYE-LAWS — STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

Co-operative societies — Bye-laws — Validity — Where bye-laws prescribing eligibility conditions are framed within statutory scheme and consistent with Act and Rules, they are valid and enforceable — High Court erred in striking them down as ultra vires.
(Paras 16 to 17.5, 19.7)

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 & 7(3) — Registration of FIR — Where husband, on basis of statements made by wife and her family members in complaint and under Section 161 CrPC alleging giving of dowry, sought prosecution of them for offence under Section 3, such persons being “aggrieved” are protected by statutory bar under Section 7(3), and their own statements cannot be used as foundation to prosecute them for giving dowry — In absence of independent material, no offence is made out — Refusal to direct registration of FIR justified — Petition dismissed. (Paras 13, 20, 21)

 APEX COURT HELD THAT 

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 & 7(3) — Registration of FIR — Where husband, on basis of statements made by wife and her family members in complaint and under Section 161 CrPC alleging giving of dowry, sought prosecution of them for offence under Section 3, such persons being “aggrieved” are protected by statutory bar under Section 7(3), and their own statements cannot be used as foundation to prosecute them for giving dowry — In absence of independent material, no offence is made out — Refusal to direct registration of FIR justified — Petition dismissed.
(Paras 13, 20, 21)

Constitution of India — Article 142 — Dissolution of marriage — Irretrievable breakdown — Multiplicity of vexatious proceedings — Where parties were embroiled in prolonged matrimonial litigation, respondent-husband indulged in filing numerous vindictive and oppressive proceedings including against wife, her relatives and advocates, and wilfully defaulted in payment of maintenance, such conduct coupled with long separation establishes that marriage is dead and beyond repair — In exercise of powers under Article 142, Supreme Court dissolved marriage, quashed all pending civil and criminal proceedings inter se parties and their relatives, granted custody of children to wife with visitation rights to husband, and awarded consolidated permanent alimony of Rs.5 crores to secure future of wife and children — Appeal disposed of with comprehensive directions to give complete quietus to dispute. (Paras 53 to 62)

 APEX COURT HELD THAT 

Constitution of India — Article 142 — Dissolution of marriage — Irretrievable breakdown — Multiplicity of vexatious proceedings — Where parties were embroiled in prolonged matrimonial litigation, respondent-husband indulged in filing numerous vindictive and oppressive proceedings including against wife, her relatives and advocates, and wilfully defaulted in payment of maintenance, such conduct coupled with long separation establishes that marriage is dead and beyond repair — In exercise of powers under Article 142, Supreme Court dissolved marriage, quashed all pending civil and criminal proceedings inter se parties and their relatives, granted custody of children to wife with visitation rights to husband, and awarded consolidated permanent alimony of Rs.5 crores to secure future of wife and children — Appeal disposed of with comprehensive directions to give complete quietus to dispute.
(Paras 53 to 62)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) & (ib) — Divorce — Where wife habitually quarrelled on trivial issues, used abusive language towards husband and his parents, prior undertaking given to maintain cordial conduct, and children refused to reside with her, such conduct amounts to mental cruelty and desertion — Concurrent findings of Courts below based on evidence — No perversity shown — No interference warranted — Long separation further indicates breakdown of marriage — Divorce affirmed with modification of maintenance. (Paras 5 to 11)

 APEX COURT HELD THAT 

 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(ia) & (ib) — Divorce — Where wife habitually quarrelled on trivial issues, used abusive language towards husband and his parents, prior undertaking given to maintain cordial conduct, and children refused to reside with her, such conduct amounts to mental cruelty and desertion — Concurrent findings of Courts below based on evidence — No perversity shown — No interference warranted — Long separation further indicates breakdown of marriage — Divorce affirmed with modification of maintenance.

(Paras 5 to 11)