District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Defiance by Husband and Father-in-law Leads To Sale of Property  for Daughter-in-law’s Maintenance Claim: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India delivered a groundbreaking judgment on October 20, 2023, addressing a maintenance claim by a daughter-in-law against her father-in-law and mother-in-law. The case involved a deteriorated marital relationship, legal proceedings, and a series of complex issues surrounding property attachment, auctions, and the invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution for complete justice.

The judgment, authored by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar, made a notable observation regarding the behavior of the husband and father-in-law, stating, “The past history of this case, and the orders of this court have demonstrated the utter obduracy of Varun Gopal, who abandoned the wife, and virtually fled to Australia.” This observation reflects the court’s concern over the conduct of the parties involved.

The crux of the case revolved around the daughter-in-law’s pursuit of arrears and monthly maintenance from her in-laws, as her husband’s anticipatory bail had been denied. The Trial Court had granted interim maintenance, which was subsequently enhanced. The daughter-in-law also asserted her rights to inheritance from ancestral property. Her husband had obtained a divorce decree in Australia, further complicating the matter.

Despite efforts to attach and auction specific properties, including 11 shops, all attempts had been in vain. In light of the persistent defiance by the husband and father-in-law in complying with court orders, the Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice.

As a result of this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court directed the sale of six contiguous shops and the continuation of the attachment of rents from a fitness center. Moreover, it provided options for the daughter-in-law to either receive the transfer of title to specific premises or proceed with their sale.

This ruling is significant as it underscores the court’s commitment to upholding justice and ensuring that individuals fulfill their responsibilities, particularly in maintenance claims. It serves as a precedent for cases where parties defy court orders, emphasizing the court’s authority to take appropriate actions to safeguard the rights of the aggrieved parties.

The daughter-in-law was represented by Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, who served as the Amicus Curiae, contributing significantly to the case’s outcome. This judgment reaffirms the court’s dedication to addressing complex legal matters with compassion and fairness, particularly in cases involving maintenance claims and property disputes.

Date of Decision: October 20, 2023

MANMOHAN GOPAL VS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

Latest Legal News