NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 185 - 201]

Laxmilal v Parwati; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 185

KB v SK; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 187

Apoorva Agrawat v State of Rajasthan

Prashant Kaushik & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 189

Devesh Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 190

Hari Ram v Chunni Devi; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 191

Lal Singh Chouhan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 192

Jhabra Ram v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 193

LRs of Mahaveer Singh & Ors. v Narendra Singh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 194

Rakesh Sharma v Manju Devi & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 195

Suo Motu: In RE: Acute Water Crisis in Jodhpur City and Deteriorating Condition of Ancient Water Sources

Gopiram & Ors. v the Ajmer Vodyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 196

Nurul Islam & Anr. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 197

Ramji Lal Saini v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 199

Bhawani Singh Shekhawat v Fanishwar Sharma; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 201

Order/Judgments of the Week

Customary 'Nata Marriage' During Subsistence Of First Marriage No Defence To Bigamy Under Hindu Marriage Act: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Laxmilal v Parwati

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 185

The Rajasthan High Court has held that customary “Nata Marriage” cannot be accorded legal recognition as a valid defense to the charge of bigamy, since doing so shall render the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”), meaningless, absurd and virtually repealed owing to judicial tolerance of the custom.

For context, Nata Marriage was a custom prevalent in certain communities of Rajasthan where a person enters into second matrimonial union without legally dissolving the first marriage.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Shah opined that this custom disproportionately harms women and results in vulnerability of both the sets of women.

“A Court of law is not an instrument available to a wrongdoer to consecrate his wrong. The appellant, having made his choice in 1997 with open eyes and without legal authority, must bear its consequences, and those consequences cannot, in law or in conscience, be visited upon the respondent.”

Economic Dependence, Social Pressure Keeping Wife In Matrimonial Home Can't Negate Cruelty; Endurance Is Not Consent: Rajasthan High Court

Title: KB v SK

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 187

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that many women continue to remain in difficult marriages out of economic dependence, social pressure, children, lack of shelter, fear of stigma or absence of parental support. Thus, mere fact that spouses reside together for some years does not automatically negate allegations of cruelty.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that shared physical resident does not equate to harmonious cohabitation, rather at times, it represents a period of forced endurance under adverse conditions.

“A wife staying because she has “nowhere else to go” cannot be treated as proof that no cruelty existed. Endurance is often mistaken for consent and/or condonation.”

“Cruelty, particularly mental cruelty, is not confined to dramatic physical acts; it encompasses all forms of conduct, subtle or overt, which make continued cohabitation unbearable. The learned Family court has given undue weight to the fact of co-residence, rather appears to have maximized its import against the appellant, while minimizing the psychological damage inflicted upon the appellant by the refusal of her basic rights within the matrimonial home.”

Rajasthan High Court Halts Construction, Mining In Jawai To Protect Leopard Habitat; Asks State To Consider Declaring Area As Sanctuary

Title: Apoorva Agrawat v State of Rajasthan

While hearing PIL claiming unregulated tourism and increased "unauthorized construction" in Jawai region causing ecological stress and disturbance to wildlife particularly Indian leopards, Rajasthan High Court has directed that no construction in the region will take place except with court's permission.

In March the court had in an interim order prohibited safari activities beyond 6 am to 7 pm.

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah has further directed to maintain the status quo regarding all commercial tourism establishments or any kind of constructions in the regions. Any further tourism license for hotels/resorts/guest houses etc. has been prohibited.

"This order which will be operate in the whole Jawai region which includes Villages of Kothar, Velar, Varaval, Lundara, Doodni, Choti Doodni, Rughnathpura, Mori, Mori Bera, Sena, Jeevda, Beesalpur, Balwana, Jawai Bandh Station, Perwa, and other area within the Jawai Leopard Conservation Reserve 1 & 2 which were formed by notification dated 27.02.2013 and 15.06.2018 respectively. Also included would be, all the caves in the area, hills, foot hills corridors in the Jawai region and District Pali which are part of leopards movement and leopards habitat.”

The Court gave interim directions to the State, and he State Government was instructed to consider the feasibility of declaring the concerned area as a sanctuary, for protecting and restoring the leopard-inhabiting eco-system.

While underscoring the expansive interpretation of Article 21 and mandate under Article 48A of the Constitution of India, the Court opined that,

“Any degradation of such habitats, whether by unauthorized construction, unregulated commercial activity or otherwise, strikes at the heart of the constitutional mandate. The issue, therefore, clearly transcends the realm of ordinary statutory enforcement and enters the domain of enforceable constitutional obligation, warranting judicial scrutiny and intervention where necessary.”

Magistrate Cannot Mechanically Order FIR Against Public Servants Without Following S.223 BNSS Safeguards: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Prashant Kaushik & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 189

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence against public servants or direct registration of FIR under Section 175 BNSS without first following the safeguards provided under Section 223 BNSS.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali considered the fact that the complaint against the public servants was registered by a person against whom an FIR was registered at the same police station, and charge sheet was filed by the police. Further, the investigating officer, in the present matter had submitted a negative final report opining a retaliatory motive behind the FIR.

The Court observed that due to the intertwined nature of allegations and the surrounding factual complexities, it becomes imperative to adopt a cautious and balanced approach, ensuring that while the grievance of the complainant is not prematurely discarded, adequate protection is also afforded to public servants against vexatious or retaliatory prosecution.

Magistrate Becomes 'Functus Officio' After Order On Final Report, Can't Pass Separate Order On Protest Petition: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Devesh Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 190

The Rajasthan High Court has held that once Magistrate Court passes an order on a Negative Final Report, it becomes functus officio and cannot pass a second order on a protest petition later on.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held:

"...whenever a Final Report (FR) Negative is submitted by the police in the Court, the Magistrate has to issue notice to the complainant informant. After receipt of the notice if the complainant appears and does not file a protest petition, then the Magistrate can hear the arguments of both sides and he would either accept the FR if no case is found to be made out or reject the FR and take cognizance against the accused if prima facie any case is made out against him.”

Adoption Deed Alone Not Enough; Valid Hindu Adoption Requires Proof Of 'Giving And Taking' Ceremony: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Hari Ram v Chunni Devi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 191

The Rajasthan High Court has held that adoption cannot be recognized in the eye of law merely based on the strength of an executed document. It opined that the ceremony of actual giving and taking of the child concerned is a mandatory feature under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the same is not a mere formality.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing challenge against a decree and order of the appellate court, that had ruled the adoption deed in question to be invalid and unenforceable in law.

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Teacher's Suspension For Criticising Minister Online, Says 'Executive Displeasure' Cannot Override Law

Title: Lal Singh Chouhan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 192

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the suspension of a government teacher over his social media comments against a sitting Minister.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the suspension order was silent on the statutory source of power under which the petitioner was suspended. It opined that executive displeasure or perceived embarrassment could not substitute statutory authorization.

The Court observed that at the maximum, the allegations might have attracted departmental inquiry, as per law.

“Merely because allegations are levelled that the image of a Minister has been sought to be tarnished does not bestow unbridled authority upon administrative officers to invoke suspension according to their subjective satisfaction. In a constitutional framework governed by legal discipline, authorities cannot assume unto themselves powers not vested by law… Administrative convenience or subjective perception cannot supplant mandatory legal requirements.”

Man Booked For Sharing Sensitive Military Info With Pakistan Gets Bail From Rajasthan High Court Over Non-Supply Of Grounds Of Arrest

Title: Jhabra Ram v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 193

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to a man booked over 'grave allegations' of transmitting strategic and sensitive information about military establishments to Pakistani handlers, considering that the investigating agencies failed to fulfill the mandatory requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing.

Stating that it was 'left with no other option' than to grant bail despite such grave allegations, bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar emphasized that strict adherence to the constitutional and statutory safeguards assumes even greater significance in cases involving potential serious ramifications on national security and sovereignty of the nation.

The Court further opined that the duty to ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards governing arrest, was not only upon the investigating officer effecting the arrest, but also upon the prosecuting agency and the Magistrate supervising the remand proceedings.

High Court Can't Act As 'Third Court Of Facts' In Second Appeals Under Section 100 CPC: Rajasthan High Court

Title: LRs of Mahaveer Singh & Ors. v Narendra Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 194

The Rajasthan High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, the High Court is not expected to function as a 'third court of facts' for undertaking fresh factual inquiry or reassessing evidence, merely because another view was possible from the record.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the findings of fact by the courts below carried a presumption of correctness and sanctity, that could be interfered with only when such findings were demonstrated to be patently perverse, manifestly illegally or resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.

“The jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is intended to preserve legal uniformity and correct substantial errors of law, and not to reopen factual controversies conclusively adjudicated by the courts below.”

Maintenance Meant To Prevent Starvation, Not Impose 'Crushing Financial Burden' On Husband: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rakesh Sharma v Manju Devi & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 195

The Rajasthan High Court has held that directing payment of maintenance from the date of application, after inordinate delay in conclusion of proceedings, in certain cases can result in an excessively onerous financial burden on the husband, especially upon a salaried person or someone having limited means.

While underscoring the true objective of maintenance as prevention of immediate destitution, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that delays in maintenance proceedings could not be attributed solely onto the parties. Hence, court cannot impose responsibility of such delay on either of the parties.

In this light, the Court held that the ends of justice would be met if maintenance was directed to be paid from the date of order instead of from the date of filing of application.

Disputed Cruelty Allegations Pending In Criminal Case Can't Form Basis For DV Act Compensation: Rajasthan High Court Quashes ₹2 Lakh Award

Title: Rakesh Sharma v Manju Devi & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 195

The Rajasthan High Court has held that when allegations of cruelty or harassment are matters of separate criminal proceedings, which are sub-judice, the court exercising jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violent Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), ought not to grant compensation founded upon such disputed allegations.

While setting aside such compensation, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that the jurisdiction under the DV Act was remedial and protective in nature, which could not be stretched to convert the proceedings into a substitute for criminal adjudication.

“Any categorical observation or grant of compensation founded upon disputed allegations, which are yet to be adjudicated in criminal proceedings, would virtually amount to pre-judging the controversy and may seriously prejudice the rights of either side in the pending prosecution.”

Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Of Acute Water Crisis In Jodhpur; Issues Interim Directions

Title: Suo Motu: In RE: Acute Water Crisis in Jodhpur City and Deteriorating Condition of Ancient Water Sources

The Rajasthan High Court has taken suo-moto cognizance of the acute water crisis in Jodhpur, including the neglected condition of ancient water bodies and traditional water harvesting systems; ineffective implementation of statutory provisions relating to rainwater harvesting and groundwater recharge, and alarming status of reservoirs, dams and urban water conservation.

The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati highlighted the right to clean and safe drinking water, as recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as the duties envisaged under Articled 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution.

While making a reference to the numerous news-paper reports, the Court highlighted that the issue was not limited to temporary shortage of water supply, but a deeper crisis of depletion, pollution, encroachment and neglect of traditional water bodies and reservoirs, coupled with unregulated urban expansion and over-exploitation of groundwater.

Saving Belongings From Fire Caused By Snapped Live Wire Not Negligence: Rajasthan High Court Enhances Compensation In Electrocution Death Case

Title: Gopiram & Ors. v the Ajmer Vodyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 196

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a man electrocuted while trying to save his belongings from a fire caused by a snapped live electric wire could not be blamed for negligence, observing that such conduct was a “natural human response in an emergent situation.”

Enhancing compensation from ₹1.25 lakh to ₹3 lakh in the fatal electrocution case, Justice Farjand Ali said the law does not expect a person to remain a “passive spectator” when his dwelling is engulfed in flames.

The bench added that compensation “cannot be symbolic” and must have a restorative character, and thus enhanced the compensation from ₹1.25 lakh to ₹3 lakh.

It observed that the jurisprudence of compensation had moved beyond the rigid formulas, and now the courts were expected to adopt a holistic and liberal interpretation.

Foreign Nationals Have Right To Speedy Trial: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Bangladeshi Approvers In 'Illegal Kidney Transplant' Case

Title: Nurul Islam & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 197

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to Bangladeshi citizens, accused in the case of illegal kidney transplantation and human trafficking, noting that the foreign nationals were approvers on whose statements the principal accused persons were arrested and they too are entitled to fundamental right of speedy trial under Article 21.

The court further said that the foreign nationals cannot be kept in custody until termination of trial thereby "putting them in the circumstances worse than the principal accused persons" who have already been granted bail.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the petitioners were in prison since April 2024, and their statements were already recorded in the trial court. It was opined that they could not be put in a position worse than that of the principal accused persons.

Public Purpose Like Road, Crematorium Cannot Be Achieved At Cost Of Destroying Natural Water Channels: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Ramji Lal Saini v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 199

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the use of a 'Gair Mumkin Nala' (natural drainage and water flow channel) cannot be altered for any non-conforming purposes, like construction of road or a crematorium, merely on the ground that the utilisation was for a public purpose.

While directing the State to remove any road, crematorium structure, or encroachments from the concerned land, the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the State had failed to discharge its statutory and constitutional obligations towards preservation of natural water channels.

“…unless natural water bodies and water channels are zealously protected and preserved, the right to a dignified and sustainable life of the common citizen stands seriously imperilled…Though increasing urbanisation, developmental expansion and demographic pressures may give rise to competing land-use demands, such considerations cannot legitimise actions which are contrary to law and destructive of ecological balance.”

Order VI Rule17 CPC | Mere Delay In Seeking Amendment Of Pleadings Not Ground To Reject It: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Bhawani Singh Shekhawat v Fanishwar Sharma

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 201

The Rajasthan High Court has held that mere delay in making an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not enough by itself to refuse such an amendment, since the delay could be compensated in terms of money.

The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma highlighted that the purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17, CPC was to allow either party to alter and amend the pleadings in a manner that was just. It was opined that such amendment had to be allowed if the same was required for proper and effective adjudication of the matter, and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings.