The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's son abandoned his wife, fled to Australia, and delayed compliance with the Maintenance Order.
The Court resolved a petition from the daughter-in-law, instructing the Registrar to seize the petitioner's son's properties for recovering arrears and monthly maintenance, benefiting the wife
The court, with Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, noted Varun Gopal's stubbornness, his abandonment of his wife, and escape to Australia. Documents, including affidavits and bank statements, show substantial money transfers to him over time.
Advocate Hargovind Jha represented the applicant (daughter-in-law), Advocate Mahesh Kumar represented the respondent (mother-in-law), and Advocate Jaspreet Gogia served as Amicus Curiae.
The petitioner's son was married to the second respondent, and their relationship soured within two years of marriage. In response to criminal charges, the son sought anticipatory bail, which was denied. The petitioner also sought anticipatory bail, which was granted on the condition of depositing arrears of maintenance. Since this condition was not met, bail was eventually granted after the petitioner spent 10 months in custody.
The daughter-in-law, who was the original complainant and the second respondent, filed a Miscellaneous Application, urging the Family Court to expedite the resolution of her Section 125(3) CrPC petition within 6 months. She directed this request towards her father-in-law and late mother-in-law, as she currently resides with her widowed mother, who supports her financially, including litigation expenses. She sought to recover both arrears of maintenance and a monthly maintenance amounting to 1,27,500.
The court observed that the petitioner's son had abandoned his wife and escaped to Australia. It was noted that substantial sums of money had been sent to the petitioner's son over a period of time.
TAGS: Contiguous shops Municipal numbers Sale Registrar Delhi High Court.
