NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 173 - 188]

Krishnawtar Nagar & Ors. v Smt. Vimla Devi Nagar; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 173

Chhoti Devi v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 179

Kamal Rathore v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 180

Shri Jambeshwar Paryavaran And Jeev Raksha Pradesh Sanstha v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 181

Raj Kumar & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Rajasthan Prosecution Officers Association v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 182

Ms. Shubhra Panwar v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 183

United India Insurance Company Limited v Smt. Mamta Sharma & Ors, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 184

Dr. Ram Gopal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 186

L v P; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 185

Kiran Bishnoi v Sunil Kumar; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 187

Gajendra Mourya v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 188

Order/Judgments of the Week

To Protect Octogenarian Parents, Rajasthan High Court Upholds Eviction Of Their Senior Citizen Son And Daughter-In-Law

Title: Krishnawtar Nagar & Ors. v Smt. Vimla Devi Nagar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 173

While underscoring the mandate and object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and senior Citizens Act 2007, Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed by a senior-citizen couple (petitioner no. 1 & 2) against their eviction from the property of their octogenarian parents (respondents).

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain considered that the respondents were octogenarians, who were allegedly subjected to harassment and threats by the petitioner No. 1 & 2 and the grandson (petitioner no. 3). The Court held that such conduct violated the respondents' right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

S.480 BNSS | Merely Being A Woman Is No Ground For Bail In Serious Offences Like Murder: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Chhoti Devi v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 179

The Rajasthan High Court recently denied bail to a mother-in-law accused along with her son and husband of murdering her daughter-in-law (deceased) by strangulation.

The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu rejected the contention raised by the counsel that being a woman, the applicant deserved to be given the benefit of bail as per the provision under Section 480, BNSS.

The Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Rekha K.C. v Jyotibhai and Anr. and opined that merely if an accused was a lady, the same was not a reason to grant bail when the alleged offence against the concerned woman were serious in nature.

“Merely because the petitioner is a lady, she cannot be released on bail giving her the benefit of provisos under Section 480 BNSS specially when the offences involved are serious in nature,” the Court said.

Rajasthan High Court Seizes Mobile Phone After Litigant's Driver Found Recording Court Proceedings, Issues Contempt Notice

Title: Kamal Rathore v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 180

Rajasthan High Court issued show-cause notices to a litigant and his driver involved in recording the Court proceedings using mobile phone, in a covert and unauthorized manner, terming the act as prima facie criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the actions not only amounted to interference with the administration of justice but also lowered the dignity of the Court.

“Breathtaking Irony”: Rajasthan High Court Bars Felling Of Rare Desert Tree 'Khejri' For Solar Projects Without Prior Approval

Title: Shri Jambeshwar Paryavaran And Jeev Raksha Pradesh Sanstha v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 181

While hearing a petition seeking prevention of cutting of Khejri trees for solar projects, Rajasthan High Court observed that humanity's movement towards ecological evolution had left a trail of environmental destruction.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Shah stated that maybe it was time for the today's rulers to issue “farmaan” as was done in 1730 AD by the then Maharajas to save the tree and protect the ecological balance.

“The Khejri, a rare desert tree of ecological significance, grows in sparse isolation, barely one tree per half a square kilometer. Yet it is slated for felling. The reason? To make way for solar power generation. The irony is breathtaking, to say the least… This court hopes and trusts that the committee will explore every viable alternative to avoid any further felling of even a single tree and permitting what would be an irreversible loss.”

“Where Do The Children Play?”: Rajasthan High Court Questions Construction Of Water Tank On Town's Only Playground

Title: Raj Kumar & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

While quoting the lyrics by singer Cat Stevens, “Where do the children play?”, Rajasthan High Court stayed the construction of an overhead water tank on the only playground in the town of Pilibangan (Hanumangarh).

The bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Shah observed that no sincere endeavor was made by the State to identify any alternative location for the construction. The State has been issued notice, and directed to file an affidavit to the effect that the playground was the only suitable site for the project.

Number Of Convictions, Acquittals Obtained By Prosecutors Can't Be Sole Basis For Adverse Entries Against Them: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rajasthan Prosecution Officers Association v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 182

While dismissing challenge to the Annual Appraisal Performance Form (“Form”) of the Prosecution Officers, Rajasthan High Court opined that collection of data regarding the number of convictions and acquittals per se could not be said to be an arbitrary action as long as that data was not being used for recording adverse entries against the officers.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman however held that if the data was used for recording performance simply based on the number of acquittals or convictions, it would violate the principles of fair play.

Candidate Cannot Be Faulted For Not Producing Eligibility Certificate Which Department Was Bound To Obtain: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Ms. Shubhra Panwar v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 183

The Rajasthan High Court has held that where the onus to procure the Certificate of Eligibility regarding the nationality of a candidate rests upon the appointing government-department, no adverse action can be initiated against the candidate for not approaching the Ministry of Home Affairs for obtaining the same.

The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati was hearing a quashing petition filed by a government employee, against a Charge Sheet issued against her with the allegations that she had failed to submit a certificate of eligibility regarding her nationality.

The Court further opined, “…in the case of migrants from foreign countries who intend to settle permanently in India, their eligibility in respect of nationality, age and allied concessions is not rigidly governed by general rule, but by such executive instructions as the State Government may issue, which are broadly consistent, with necessary modifications, with the policy laid down by the Union of India.”

Post-Mortem Report Cannot Prevail Over PAN Card, Driving Licence To Determine Age Of Deceased: Rajasthan High Court

Title: United India Insurance Company Limited v Smt. Mamta Sharma & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 184

The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that when determining the age of a deceased, the date of birth mentioned in his/her PAN Card, Driving License will prevail over the age determined through post-mortem.

The observation was made by Justice Sandeep Taneja while dealing with appeals against award granted by Motor Accident Tribunal.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that it was established that the accident occurred due to the negligence and rash driving of the car's driver. Further, it was also considered established that the truck driver was also negligent and responsible for the accident.

“…when a person dies or is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers and not because of the negligence of the deceased / injured, then it will be a case of composite negligence of those wrong-doers and in that case, each wrong doer, will be jointly and severally liable to the claimants for payment of the damages and the claimants have the choice of proceedings against all or any of them.”

'Treated Himself Above Law': Rajasthan High Court Fines Ayurveda Dept Director ₹50,000 For Defying Orders Halting Pension Benefit Recovery

Title: Dr. Ram Gopal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 186

Rajasthan High Court imposed a personal cost of Rs. 50,000 on the Director of the Directorate Of Ayurved, Department Of Ayurved And Bhartuya Chikitsa of the State Government for non-adherence of court orders halting recovery of pension benefits.

The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania was hearing a petition wherein the petitioner had challenged the order of the respondent-Director directing initiation of recovery of pension benefits of the petitioner.

It was the case of the petitioner that an earlier petition was filed by him against such an order which was allowed, and special appeal before the division bench was dismissed. Furthermore, in an identical matter, the SLP filed by the respondent-department was sub-judice in the Supreme Court, wherein the apex court had said that "in case any amount has already been paid to the respondent, the same shall not be recovered during pendency of the petition".

Spouses Living Separately Due To Government Service Postings Doesn't Amount To Desertion: Rajasthan High Court

Title: L v P

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 185

The Rajasthan High Court has held that it is not uncommon for spouses employed in government services to reside at different places due to their postings and thus, mere fact of separate residence owing to such exigencies cannot by itself constitute 'desertion' to become a ground for divorce.

Furthermore, the division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Shah observed that not every quarrel, harsh word, or domestic disagreement rose to the level of cruelty.

It was opined that cruelty, as a ground of divorce, had to be of such nature and degree that caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the aggrieved that it would be harmful or injurious to continue living with the other party.

'Atta-Satta' Marriages Morally & Legally Bankrupt, Girl Child Made Bargaining Instrument : Rajasthan High Court

Title: Kiran Bishnoi v Sunil Kumar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 187

While hearing petition against a dismissed divorce application, Rajasthan High Court made certain observations about the prevalent practice of “Atta Satta” marriage, and opined that in a constitutional democracy, such practices deserved unequivocal social and legal repudiation.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal held that aata-satta involving a minor was not a benign cultural practice, but it commodified children, suppressed consent, entrenched patriarchy and gave way to future conflict.

“Communities cannot invoke custom to override statute. No social practice can legitimize what the law prohibits and condemns.”

While underscoring the prohibition of child marriages in India, the Court stated that when marriages were arranged as a reciprocal exchange between families, involving minors, custom became an oppressive social mechanism where children, particularly girls, were used a matrimonial barter and bargaining instruments between families.

It was further opined that what was more tragic about this practice was that instead of each marriage standing on its own footing, the fate of both the marriages were tied to one another. If one marriage broke down, retaliation followed in other household as well.

The Court held that such structure was fundamentally unjust.

No Rape Case Made Out Against Legally Wedded Husband When Wife Was Major At Time Of Marriage: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Gajendra Mourya v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 188

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a rape FIR filed against a man by his wife, opining that in light of the definition of rape under Section 375, IPC and the Supreme Court ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, the aspect of consent within marriage was rendered legally immaterial for prosecution of offences like rape.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand clarified that since the petitioner was the legally wedded husband of the victim, offence of rape was not made out owing to the exception 2 under Section 375, IPC.

“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the prosecutrix is a major lady of the age of above 18 years at the time of marriage and she herself has solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 12.04.2021, lodging of the impugned F.I.R. on subsequent date amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. stand quashed and set-aside.”