The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, ordered the sale of a man's ancestral property to settle his wife's maintenance arrears of Rs. 1.25 Crores.
In the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014) and Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction (1996), a bench consisting of Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar highlighted that the Supreme Court possesses the authority to issue suitable directives and even decrees to ensure complete justice between the parties involved.
The court reviewed applications from the wife, who sought to recover maintenance arrears, as she lived with her widowed mother and depended on her for financial support. She requested the court to instruct the family court to expedite her petition under Section 125(3) of the CrPC, allowing a Magistrate to take action against those failing to pay maintenance orders without sufficient cause.
In this case, the marriage between the husband and wife had deteriorated, leading to various legal actions. The wife filed criminal charges against the husband, and his anticipatory bail request was denied. Subsequently, he failed to participate in both the criminal and maintenance proceedings. Criminal charges, including Sections 420, 406, 468, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, were also filed against the father-in-law and mother-in-law, who were likewise denied anticipatory bail. The Court instructed them to deposit Rs. 40 lakhs for unpaid maintenance, which they failed to comply with. However, the Court later granted them bail.
In the wife's maintenance claim in the family court, she was initially granted interim maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000 per month in 2016, and this amount was subsequently increased to Rs. 1,27,500 per month.
The Supreme Court noted that, despite various court orders instructing the husband and father-in-law to make maintenance payments, they consistently failed to comply.
"In this case, as previously discussed, Varun Gopal and the petitioner, Mohan Gopal, have shown continuous defiance by using various pretexts to evade compliance with this court's orders. The responsibility to make the full payment lies with the petitioner and Varun Gopal."
The Court also observed that the husband possessed the financial resources to fulfill the payment.
"The preceding events in this case, along with the court's directives, have illustrated the extreme obstinacy of Varun Gopal, who abandoned his wife and essentially relocated to Australia. The documents provided to this court, including the petitioner's affidavits and bank account statements, disclose substantial money transfers to Varun Gopal over an extended period."
The wife asserted that the husband was the exclusive heir to his father's estate, which included 11 shops in ancestral property. She contended that she was owed Rs. 1.25 Crore in unpaid maintenance.
TAGS: Compliance Defiant conduct Responsibility Financial means Obduracy Abandonment Australia.
