Supreme Court Empowers Asset Seizure for Neglected Women’s Maintenance
In a recent legal landmark, the Supreme Court has exercised its inherent authority under Article 142 to order the sale of a man’s ancestral property. This move was mandated to settle outstanding maintenance arrears, totaling a substantial sum of Rs. 1.25 Crores, owed to his wife.
The bench, comprising Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar, drew upon precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases such as Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India [2014] 12 Supreme Court Reports 573 and Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction 1996 (2) Supplementary Supreme Court Reports 295. They underscored that the Supreme Court is not devoid of authority but possesses the prerogative to issue fitting directives, and if necessary, issue decrees, in order to administer comprehensive justice between the parties involved.
The Supreme Court deliberated on applications submitted by the wife, wherein she requested the retrieval of overdue maintenance payments and ongoing monthly maintenance. She based her claim on the fact that she resided with her widowed mother, relying on her for financial support. In her plea, she urged the Supreme Court to instruct the family court to adjudicate her petition under Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) within a stipulated period of six months. Under Section 125(3), a Magistrate is vested with the authority to issue a warrant or impose penalties on individuals who, without valid justification, fail to adhere to court orders mandating maintenance payments.
In this instance, as the marital relationship between the husband and wife deteriorated, a series of legal actions were set in motion. The wife brought forth criminal accusations against her husband, resulting in the denial of his application for anticipatory bail. Subsequently, the husband abstained from participating in both the criminal proceedings and the maintenance-related legal matters. Additional criminal charges, encompassing Sections 420, 406, 468, 34, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, were also levied against the father-in-law and mother-in-law, who likewise faced rejection of their anticipatory bail requests. The Court had initially mandated a payment of Rs. 40 lakhs to cover the pending maintenance arrears, a requirement that went unfulfilled. Eventually, the Court did grant them bail.
In the maintenance petition initiated by the wife in the family court, an interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,00,000 per month was initially granted in 2016, and subsequently, it was raised to Rs. 1,27,500 per month. The Supreme Court noted that despite numerous court orders mandating maintenance payments from both the husband and the father-in-law, they consistently failed to meet their obligations.
“As previously mentioned, the current case has been marked by a continuous pattern of non-compliance from both Varun Gopal and the petitioner, Mohan Gopal, who have consistently found reasons to obstruct the court’s directives. The obligation to fulfill the entire payment rests squarely on the shoulders of the petitioner and Varun Gopal, who are deemed liable for this responsibility.”
Also Read –Government Of Rajasthan High Court has instructed the to release the Claim
The Supreme Court also observed that the husband possessed the financial capacity to fulfill the payment:
“The events leading up to this case and the court’s previous rulings have laid bare Varun Gopal’s unyielding resolve, exemplified by his abandonment of his wife and subsequent relocation to Australia. Records presented to this court, comprising the petitioner’s affidavits and bank account statements, reveal significant sums of money being transmitted to Varun Gopal over an extended duration.”
The wife asserted that the husband was the exclusive inheritor of his late father’s estate, which included ownership of 11 shops within the ancestral property. She contended that an outstanding maintenance arrear of Rs. 1.25 Crore was owed to her.
The Supreme Court issued the following directives,
which encompassed the sale of six shops to recover the wife’s outstanding dues:
1. The Registrar of the Delhi High Court shall oversee the sale of six adjoining shops with municipal numbers 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. It is imperative that the highest possible prices are achieved. The proceeds from this sale will be placed in a fixed deposit receipt for an initial period of six months, with the accrued interest to be disbursed to the second respondent/applicant. In the event that the shops do not sell, the attachment of the property will persist in favor of the applicant.
2. The attachment of rents from M/s Fitness Factory Gym & Spa located on the First Floor will remain in effect until the petitioner and his son, Varun Gopal, pay the outstanding balance between the amount obtained through directive (1) and the Rs. 1.25 crores owed.
3. If the stipulations in (2) are not adhered to within one year, the Registrar is instructed to initiate proceedings. Within three months, the applicant will be given the choice to decide whether she wishes to have the title to the aforementioned premises transferred to her name or if she prefers their sale. In case she chooses transfer, the Registrar of the Delhi High Court is mandated to undertake all necessary measures to execute a conveyance deed, following the current directives. The sale will be officially registered by the relevant authorities, and the applicant will be granted symbolic possession.
4. If the applicant does not opt for conveyance, the Registrar will take all requisite actions to auction the said property (on the first floor, as described in (2)) within 18 months from the present date.
5. Any funds obtained in the process of complying with directives (1) and (4) will be remitted to the applicant. A decree will be issued to affirm this. The decree will also outline the total amount owed and payable to the applicant, which has led to the mandated sale of the shops.