Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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