The Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 to to enforce overdue maintenance arrears arising out of a marital dispute. The Court issued specific directives for the sale of designated properties, depositing proceeds in fixed deposit receipts, and continued attachment of rents. The decision outlines the exceptional cases when parties exhibit persistent non compliance of orders.
Facts of the Case:
The case revolves around a daughter-in-law (R2) seeking maintenance, arrears, and monthly maintenance from her in-laws (petitioners). The marriage between R2 and the petitioner's son (Mr. Varun Gopal) had deteriorated, leading to various legal proceedings. Orders had been given for the petitioner to deposit maintenance arrears, but these orders were not complied with. R2 had filed for maintenance and had obtained an interim maintenance order, which was later enhanced to 1,27,500 rupees per month. R2 contended that the arrears amounted to approximately 1.25 crores of rupees, and she was encountering significant difficulties in recovering these arrears. In an effort to settle the arrears and secure future maintenance, she sought ownership of some shops out of eleven commercial shops, which were a share her husband’s inheritance. R2 asserted her claim to ownership of these shops as a means to settle her outstanding maintenance arrears and secure future maintenance.
Contentions of the Parties:
R2 argued that all available modes for the execution of her maintenance order had been exhausted. She proposed that six contiguous shops should be put up for sale, and the amounts realized from this sale should be deposited in a fixed deposit receipt and subsequently disbursed to her. R2 also requested the continued attachment of rents from the Fitness Factory Gym. Additionally, she sought the transfer of ownership of certain shops or their sale if the stipulated directions weren't adhered to within a specified period. R2 implored the Court to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution.
On the other hand, the petitioners argued that the maintenance order had been issued against R2's husband, and the obligation to fulfill this order should rest with him, not the parents-in-law. They contended that the marriage had been dissolved by a foreign court's divorce decree, extinguishing any financial obligations on their part. According to the petitioners, the suit for maintenance was not maintainable under the Hindu Marriage Act. They argued that R2's failure to accept the foreign court's divorce decree prevented her from seeking permanent alimony.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court noted the persistent non-compliance by both Mr. Varun Gopal and the petitioners with previous Court orders, emphasizing their lack of cooperation. The Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, citing the judgment in the case of DDA vs. Skipper Construction Company[1] to underline the extent of discretion afforded by Article 142.
The Court ordered the sale of six contiguous shops and stipulated that the amounts realized from this sale should be deposited in a fixed deposit receipt for subsequent disbursement to R2. The Court also directed the continued attachment of rents from the Fitness Factory Gym. The Court stipulated that failure to comply would result in the possibility of transferring ownership or auctioning the properties of the petitioner and the amounts realized from these actions would be allocated for R2's benefit.
The Court considered the petitioners' argument that the maintenance order was directed at their son and, therefore, the responsibility for fulfilling this order should not extend to them. The Court, however, noted that their argument did not address the exceptional circumstances of this case. It was observed that Varun Gopal's refusal to fulfill the Court's orders had led to the exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 142 for issuing appropriate directions to do complete justice between the parties.
The Court acknowledged the foreign divorce decree's dissolution of the marriage between Mr. Varun Gopal and R2 but stressed that the dissolution of the marriage did not absolve him of his financial responsibilities, particularly in light of the exceptional circumstances of this case.
The Decision of the Court:
Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, The Supreme Court proceeded to issue specific directions aimed at resolving the issue of maintenance arrears and ownership of the relevant shops. The Supreme Court finally held that “it is the responsibility of petitioner and Varun Gopal who are held liable to fulfil the payment of entire sum.”
The Court ordered the sale of designated shops, with the proceeds to be deposited in a fixed deposit receipt for R2. The Court specified that if the directions weren't followed within the set timeframe, the Court would allow for either property transfer or auction, and all proceeds would benefit R2.
Case Title: Manmohan Gopal vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar
Case no.: MA 858 - 859/2021
Citation:
Advocate for the Appellant: Hargovind Jha and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
Advocate for the Respondents: Mahesh Kumar, Aman Preet Singh Rahi, Nikhilesh Kumar, Devika Khanna, V D Khanna, Jaspreet Gogia, Vipin Gogia, Karanvir Gogia, Varnika Gupta, Kuldeep Kumar, Ravi P. Wadhwani, Pawan Kumar Sharma, Gautam Barua, and Lzafeer Ahmad B. F.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws
Picture Source :
