MANMOHAN GOPAL [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. [RESPONDENT(S)]

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO(S). 858-859 OF 2021 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 85-86 OF 2021
(2JB, S. RAVINDRA BHAT and ARAVIND KUMAR JJ., delivered by S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.)

Facts: The present applications are filed by the daughter in law (original complainant and R2) for recovery of both arrears of maintenance and monthly maintenance of 1,27,500. She is seeking from this court to direct to the family ₹ court of Bilaspur to decide the petition under Section 125(3) of CrPC within 6 months on the father-in-law and mother-in-law (now deceased) on the ground that she lives with her widowed mother, on whom she is dependent for expenses, including litigation expenses.

Issue: Whether the present application seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance deserves to be allowed?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant: Ms. Jaspreet Gogia

As per R2, the current outstanding arrears of maintenance amounts to 1.25 Cr. Approx. and ₹ further asserts that all available modes for the execution of her maintenance order have been exhausted. The father-in-law was in prison for 10 months, and the auction of property also failed. Given this situation, R2 is seeking transfer of ownership of the said shops in her name as a means to settle her outstanding maintenance arrears and future maintenance as well. Furthermore, counsel also submitted that the matrimonial house was sold by the Petitioner for around 2 Crores in June, 2018. It was also submitted that mother-in-law was signatory to the Memorandum dated 22.10.2018, before the Mediation Centre of the Supreme Court, which recorded that the parties had settled their case and an amount of ₹1.29 Crore was to be made over to R2 for the same. However, no money was paid to R2. Finally, R2 asked this court to invoke its power under Article 142 of the Constitution as she approached this court in 2018 where firstly the Petitioner and his deceased wife had enjoyed the fruits of anticipatory bail by giving an undertaking of making the payment of due arrears of around 40 lakhs at that ₹ point of time. But despite several assurances to this Court, the same was not paid. R-2 also filed Contempt Petition14 where this Court took the cognizance but petitioners did not make the payment and chose to go to jail; even as per Order dated 13.12.2018, this Court referred the matter to the Executing Court but nothing material could be done as the Petitioners were not appearing before the Executing Court and again in the regular bail matter15, this court granted them regular bail. Hence, even after so many rounds of litigation, and after 5 years, R2 is still remediless.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents: Mr. Hargovind Jha

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that R2 obtained the maintenance order only against her husband which can be recovered from the husband or from his assets. The Petitioner is not personally liable to R2 when her husband is alive. There is no law which can directly hold father-in-law to provide maintenance to the wife. The petitioner further contended that the marriage between R2 and his son was dissolved by the divorce decree passed by the court in Australia and 14 (C) No. 2204 of 2018 and therefore, parents-in-law are not liable in this case. In fact, the petition filed by R2 against petitioner is not maintainable under Section 1916 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter HMA) as it is not applicable in the present case. The prayer asked is in violation of Section 17 of HMA; R-2 has not yet accepted the decree granted in favour of husband by the foreign court and has instead challenged the decree, therefore, cannot seek permanent alimony. Furthermore, the memorandum was signed by his wife who is now deceased and so, it cannot be enforced against him. In its replies filed, the petitioner denied having coparcenary interest of his son on properties as well as receiving 2 Crores as sale consideration for the matrimonial house. ₹ 15. Petitioner further submitted19 to settle the matter stating that he is ready to offer 75 Lacs in addition to 22 Lacs as one time full and final lump sum ₹ amount towards her entire claim of past, present and future, subject to the condition that all cases either criminal or civil or execution against the petitioner are withdrawn or brushed aside.

Held: The court while disposing off the above application held that, “the present has displayed persistent defiant conduct by Varun Gopal, and the petitioner, Mohan Gopal, who have, through one pretext or another stalled compliance with the orders of this court. It is the responsibility of Petitioner and Varun Gopal who are held liable to fulfil the payment of entire sum. In these circumstances, it is hereby directed that:

(1) Six contiguous shops bearing municipal numbers 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 shall be put to sale by the Registrar of the Delhi High Court, who shall ensure that the best prices are realized. The amounts realized from the sale shall be deposited in a fixed deposit receipt, initially for six months, and its interest, disbursed to the second respondent/applicant

(2) The attachment of rents of M/s Fitness Factory Gym & Spa on the First Floor shall be continued, till the petitioner, and his son, Varun Gopal, pay the amount constituting the balance between the amount realized by direction (1) and Rs. 1.25 crores.

(3) In the eventuality the directions in (2) are not complied within one year, the Registrar is directed to take steps, and within three months, and seek option from the applicant regarding whether she would wish the transfer of title to the said premises in her name, or its sale. In the event she opts for the transfer, the Registrar Delhi High Court, is directed to take all necessary steps to execute a conveyance deed (under the present directions) to that effect, the sale shall be registered by the concerned authorities, and the applicant shall be handed over symbolic possession.

(4) In the event the applicant does not seek conveyance, the Registrar shall take all necessary steps to auction the said property (on the first floor described in (2) above, within 18 months from today.

(5) All amounts realized in the process of compliance with directions (1) and (4) above shall be paid to the applicant. Decree shall be drawn to the above effect. Decree shall also reflect total amount due and payable to the applicant in lieu of which sale of shops are hereby ordered.”