The High Court expressed dismay over the failure of the prosecution in establishing the identities of the accused, who carried out the barbaric attack.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves argued that the High Court made sweeping remarks without material, citing pending cases on alleged attacks and burial disputes. The State countered that the original writ was limited to removal of hoardings.
After hearing the arguments of both sides, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma set aside the family court order and said: “The decree for divorce granted by the family court in favour of the husband is sufficient proof that the wife was living in adultery. Once such a decree is in force, it is not possible for this court to take a different view contrary to the decree granted by the civil court.”