NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 439 - 454]

State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Rupendra Kumar Sharma; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 439

Chander Bhushan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.;2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 440

Vivek Sharma v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 441

S v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 442

LRs. Of Late Shri Chandra Narayan Mathur v the State of Rajasthan & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 443

Pooja Yadav v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 444

Vinod Agarwal v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 445

Sunil Kumar v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 446

Sanjay alias Sethi v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 447

L v G; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 448

Smt. Shivangi Khandelwal v State of Rajasthan & Anr; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 449

H v M; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 450

Jai Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 451

Meghraj Saini v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 452

Shrawan Nath v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 453

Kanti Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 454

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Phoola Bai & Ors.

Order/Judgments of the Week

Non-Service Of Charge Sheet To Official Accused Of Sexual Harassment Does Not Automatically Invalidate Suspension: Rajasthan High Court

Title :  State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Rupendra Kumar Sharma

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 439

Rajasthan High Court reinstated the suspension order of a Block Chief Medical Officer, accused of sexual harassment at workplace, which was set aside by the tribunal on the ground that no charge sheet was served upon the accused-respondent before suspending him.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that while it was laid down that if the charge sheet was not served, the suspension could not be extended beyond 3 months, however, no consequences was contemplated to the effect that in absence of a charge sheet the suspension would become illegal or be quashed automatically.

The Court further opined that more caution had to be exercised in cases involving sexual harassment to protect the interest of the complainant. If the suspension order was quashed on such technical grounds, it would send wrong message and put the complainant under pressure.

Rajasthan High Court Invokes India-US Treaty To Serve Summons On Rape Complainant Living In America

Title :  Chander Bhushan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 440

Rajasthan High Court invoked the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) signed between Indian and the USA, read with Section 110 of BNSS, for ascertaining the whereabouts and serving notice to a woman in a rape case who was stated to have shifted to the USA after filing the complaint.

Section 110, BNSS governs reciprocal arrangements for serving or executing court processes in relation to any person residing outside India in a country with which Central Government had made required arrangements for such service.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a quashing petition in relation to an FIR alleging rape, in which the complainant remained unserved for about 2 years, and her whereabouts in India were not ascertainable.

After hearing the contentions, and considering the fact that despite multiple occasions, the prosecutrix remained unserved for 2 years, the Court held that she was the "star witness" in the present matter and the investigation could not proceed effectively without her participation.

Rajasthan High Court Says Anti-Corruption Bureau Tried To Shield SBI Officials By Not Registering FIR In Bribery Case

Title :  Vivek Sharma v State of Rajasthan

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 441

The Rajasthan High Court recently observed that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) tried to shield the proposed accused SBI officials by failing to register an FIR despite finding substance in a corruption complaint during verification and subsequently planning a trap.

A bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain held that once verification of a complaint disclosed information indicating the commission of a cognizable offence, the ACB was obligated to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and conduct a full-fledged investigation. The matter could not be closed on the basis of a preliminary enquiry report.

Children's Maintenance Claim Does Not Perish With Mother's Death: Rajasthan High Court Permits Grandmother To Continue Proceedings

Title :  S v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 442

Rajasthan High Court upheld trial court's order that allowed maternal grand-mother to represent minors in a suit for maintenance filed against their father, after the death of the minors' mother who had initiated the maitenance claim.

The bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal held that custody proceedings were separate from maintenance proceedings, and pendency of the former could not affect or extinguish the independent right of the minor children to claim maintenance under Section 144, BNSS.

“The custody proceedings concern the question as to with whom the minors should reside, keeping their welfare as the paramount consideration, whereas proceedings under Section 144 BNSS concern the statutory obligation to maintain them. Thus, the petitioner's claim of natural guardianship or his having instituted custody proceedings does not, by itself, determine or extinguish the children's claim for maintenance...

Rajasthan High Court Orders Reconsideration Of Retired Judge's Kidney Transplant Reimbursement Claim, Sets Aside Law Department's Rejection

Title :  LRs. Of Late Shri Chandra Narayan Mathur v the State of Rajasthan & Ors

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 443

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the Law and Legal Affairs Department's order rejecting a retired judicial officer's claim for reimbursement of kidney transplant expenses, holding that the Department's Secretary could not question the validity of the authorisation granted by the State Authorisation Committee.

The Division Bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Bipin Gupta held that the Secretary was not the appellate authority under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, and could not examine the validity of the authorisation granted by the State Authorisation Committees.

The Court also directed the Law and Legal Affairs Department to pay ₹50,000 as costs to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. Further, the reimbursement amount was directed to be paid with 12% annual interest from the date of the claim until payment.

Rajasthan High Court Directs Grant Of 180-Day Maternity Leave To Teacher Who Joined New School After Childbirth

Title :  Pooja Yadav v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 444

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to grant 180 days of maternity leave to a teacher who joined a new school after childbirth, along with her salary and all consequential benefits.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition seeking directions to the State authorities to grant the petitioner maternity leave under Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

The Court observed that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to motherhood and the right of every child to full development. It further held:

“If maternity means motherhood, then the object of maternity leave is to protect the dignity of motherhood by providing for full and healthy maintenance of the woman and her child. Maternity leave is intended to achieve the object of ensuring social justice to women as the motherhood and childhood, both require special attention. Not only are the health issues of the mother and the child considered while providing for maternity leave, but the leave is provided for creating a bond of affection between the two. Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to motherhood and also the right of every child to full development.”

Flood Of Pleas By Employees Challenging Their Transfers Has Paralysed Govt Functioning: Rajasthan High Court

Title :  Vinod Agarwal v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 445

While hearing a bunch of petitions by government employees, challenging their transfer orders, Rajasthan High Court observed that the government functioning was paralysed since most of the employees were not willing to join the transferred place of posting.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further opined that maximum number of employees were approaching the Court for getting the transfer orders cancelled. It was held that the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226, is not to act as a second appellate authority over the transfer orders passed by the competent authority or the appellate tribunal.

Spouse Posting Policy No Absolute Right To Transfer; Can't Assume Family Duties Rest With One Spouse: Rajasthan High Court

Title :  Sunil Kumar v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 446

While refusing interference in a bunch of petitions by government employees seeking transfers at places where their spouses were posted, Rajasthan High Court held that a general policy and vacancy at the preferred station, in isolation, does not establish an enforceable right to transfer in favour of the employee.

“The nature of the post, the applicable cadre and service rules, staffing requirements at the existing and proposed places of posting, tenure considerations, suitability of the employee and competing administrative requirements may all bear upon the decision. Particularly in departments such as prisons and police, the requirements of maintaining operational strength and deploying personnel in accordance with administrative needs cannot be disregarded. A posting policy cannot be applied mechanically without regard to these considerations.”

At the same time, the bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur, observed that the circumstances in which the employees discharged duties had changed over time wherein women participation had expanded. Hence, desirability of posting spouses together could not be assessed by assuming that family responsibilities were discharged predominantly by one spouse.

Convict's Inability To Pay Prosecution Costs Can't Lead To Revocation Of Probation And Imprisonment: Rajasthan High Court

Title :  Sanjay alias Sethi v State of Rajasthan

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 447

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a convict's inability to pay prosecution costs cannot, by itself, be a ground to revoke the benefit of probation and subject him to imprisonment.

The Court opined that difference had to be made between deliberate violation of the probation conditions and inability to comply with a monetary direction.

While wilful violation might result in consequences under Section 9 of the Act, inability to pay an amount, by itself, could not be treated as deliberate violation. Hence, benefit of violation once granted could not be withdrawn merely because an appellant was unable to arrange such amount.

“Such a consequence would make the benefit of probation dependent upon the financial capacity of the offender. In the present case, there is no material to show that the appellant deliberately failed to comply with the monetary direction or that he otherwise violated the conditions of probation. His inability to arrange the amount of Rs.10,000/- has resulted in his incarceration. In these circumstances, the mere failure to pay the amount towards prosecution expenses cannot, in the opinion of this Court, be treated as sufficient ground for withdrawing the benefit of probation already granted to him.”

Wife's Prolonged Refusal To Have Physical Relations Without Valid Reason Constitutes Mental Cruelty: Rajasthan High Court

Title :  L v G

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 448

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a wife's prolonged refusal to have sexual relations without physical incapacity or a valid reason amounts to mental cruelty and constitutes a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit upheld the divorce decree granted to the husband, finding that the wife's prolonged refusal to have physical relations and threats of suicide amounted to mental cruelty.

It also dismissed the wife's appeals against the divorce decree and the rejection of her petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.

Contractual Women Employees Can't Be Denied Maternity Leave Merely Due To Nature Of Employment: Rajasthan High Court

Title :  Smt. Shivangi Khandelwal v State of Rajasthan & Anr

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 449

The Rajasthan High Court has held that nature of employment, whether regular, casual or contractual, cannot by itself be treated as a conclusive ground for denying maternity benefits to a woman employee, where other applicable statutory conditions are fulfilled.

In this regard, any contractual condition, contrary to the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (the “Act”) shall be overridden by the Act.

The bench of Justice Bipin Gupta reasoned that maternity benefit is not merely a service related concession or an ordinary leave facility, but a statutory protection for safeguarding health, dignity and well-being of woman, rooted in constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity, as well as mandated by Article 42 of the Constitution.

12-Month Limitation To Recover Maintenance Arrears Runs From Date Of Order, Not Previous Period From When It Is Awarded: Rajasthan High Court

Title :  H v M

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 450

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the date for calculating the limitation period of 12 months prescribed under proviso to Section125(3) CrPC, is the one on which the order awarding maintenance is passed and not the date from which such maintenance is calculated.

Proviso to Section 125(3), CrPC, prescribed a period of limitation of 12 months for seeking recovery of the amount due under an order of maintenance, from the date on which such amount became due.

While interpreting the expression, “date on which the amount becomes due”, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that there was a difference between the period for which maintenance was awarded and the point of time when the amount became recoverable under the judicial direction.

“The statutory limitation is attracted with reference to the date on which the amount became due and not merely by reference to the length of the period for which maintenance has been calculated. Here, in this case, the application for recovery had been filed within limitation soon after amount became due.”

Doctor Must Correct Educational Records Before Applying For Medical Officer Post Under Changed Name: Rajasthan High Court

Title :  Jai Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 451

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a doctor seeking to participate in the Medical Officer Direct Recruitment Examination, 2026, under his changed name must first get his name corrected in his educational documents.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted until his name was corrected in his school and college records.

It clarified that if his name was rectified in the educational documents by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education and the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS), he could furnish the corrected documents to the concerned authorities for necessary action.

Rajasthan High Court Rejects Third Bail Plea Of Cyber Fraud Accused Amid Rise In Online Scams

Title :  Meghraj Saini v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 452

The Rajasthan High Court has rejected the third bail applications filed by two accused in a cybercrime case, observing that digital scams have emerged as one of the most insidious forms of cybercrime amid a noticeable rise in online frauds.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that phishing scams targeting bank customers were among the most widespread cybercrimes.

“Cyber criminals steal login credentials to access bank accounts and harvest credit and debit card information for financial gain, leading to the victims suffering from significant financial losses.”

Minor's Marriage Alone Cannot Establish Human Trafficking Without Proof Of Monetary Consideration: Rajasthan High Court Suspends Sentence

Title :  Shrawan Nath v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 453

The Rajasthan High Court has suspended the sentence imposed upon two men convicted in relation to human trafficking of a minor, opining that mere existence of marriage with a minor could not dispense with the prosecution's obligation to prove the essential ingredients of the substantive allegations against the convicts.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the Court must carefully distinguish between the legal consequences flowing from a marriage involving a minor and alleged commission of any separate criminal offence in connection with the marriage.

“Such an assessment must necessarily be undertaken with reference to the applicable law and without attributing criminal culpability merely on the basis of suspicion or the existence of circumstances which, by themselves, do not establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.”

Rajasthan High Court Admits Appeal Against SC/ST Ward Reservation Over Allegedly Fake Population Data, But Refuses To Stay Election Process

Title :  Kanti Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 454

The Rajasthan High Court has admitted an appeal challenging the reservation of wards in Gram Panchayat Majhiwala for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), allegedly based on incorrect population data, but refused to stay the ongoing Panchayat election process.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu declined to interfere with the election process, observing that the State Election Commission had published the election programme for Rajasthan's Panchayat elections on October 3, 2026, thereby setting the process in motion.

Rajasthan High Court Seeks Explanation From Insurance Company's Regional Manager Over Negligence In Defending Motor Accident Claim

Title :  United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Phoola Bai & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court has sought an explanation from United India Insurance Company's Chief Regional Manager in Rajasthan over the insurer's negligent defence of a motor accident compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).

A bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that the impugned order indicated negligence on the part of the insurance company in defending the case before the Tribunal. The Court has directed the Chief Regional Manager to explain the methodology adopted to monitor motor accident claim cases across Rajasthan and the procedure followed for appointing and assigning lawyers to defend such cases.