Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.
Mrs. Aruna Basu Mullick, Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Dorothea Mitra, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1997 of 1980,
D/- 2-8-1983.
-there is no ambiguity in this section for the interpretation of which it is necessary to go beyond the provision itself. For interpretation of a provision of this statute there is no warrant to be guided by English decisions – See decision in Mrs Aruna Basu Mullick v. Mrs Dorothea Mitra, AIR 1983 SC 916 = 1983(3) SCC 522 = 1983 UJ(SC) 755 = 1983 (2) DMC 289.
-in incorporation a provision like this in the Act, Parliament intended to protect the wife at the time of divorce by providing for payment of maintenance – See decision in Mrs. Aruna Basu Mullick v. Mrs. Dorothea Mitra, AIR 1983 SC 916 = 1983(3) SCC 522 = 1983 UJ(SC) 755 = 1983 (2) DMC 289.
– there is no justification for the view that the phrase ‘at the instance of either party’ should be confined to spouses. The words ‘either party’ would also cover the legal heirs who have stepped into the shoe of the spouses under the law and such persons would also be competent to ask for variation, modification or rescission of the order of maintenance. The term would also include the holders of the estate with the lawful title for the time being – See decision in Mrs. Aruna Basu Mullick v. Mrs. Dorothea Mitra, AIR 1983 SC 916 = 1983 (3) SCC 522 = 1983 UJ(SC) 755 = 1983 (2) DMC 289.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
A decree for permanent alimony or maintenance under the relevant statute does not automatically extinguish upon the death of the husband or judgment debtor. The decree can be executed against the estate of the husband or his heirs (!) (!) .
The language of the statute indicates that the order for maintenance can be varied, modified, or rescinded even after the husband's death, and such applications can be made by the legal heirs or holders of the estate who have stepped into the shoes of the spouses (!) (!) .
The purpose of the provision is to protect the wife at the time of divorce by ensuring maintenance payments, and this intention extends to the estate of the husband after his death, especially if the decree is charged upon his estate (!) (!) .
The order for maintenance is not limited to the lifetime of the husband, and the decree does not automatically lapse or extinguish upon his death unless explicitly specified or if the order is for a period limited to his lifetime (!) (!) .
The application of English legal principles and decisions is not warranted for interpreting this specific statute, as the language is clear and unambiguous. The court leans toward a broad interpretation that favors the enforcement of maintenance decrees against the estate of the deceased husband (!) (!) .
Maintenance decrees that are not charged upon the husband's estate may still be enforceable against his estate posthumously, provided the decree was for an amount payable during the lifetime of the spouse or joint lives, and the estate remains liable for such payments (!) .
The legal proceedings related to matrimonial disputes generally abate upon the death of either spouse, but decrees for maintenance that are linked to the estate remain enforceable unless explicitly limited by the terms of the decree or law (!) (!) .
The interpretation of the relevant law aims to uphold the purpose of protecting the spouse's right to maintenance and to ensure that the estate of the deceased husband remains liable for fulfilling the decree, consistent with the legislative intent (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the decree for maintenance survives the husband's death and the estate can be proceeded against for recovery of arrears (!) (!) .
The phrase "at the instance of either party" in the statute includes not only the spouses but also their legal heirs or holders of the estate, who have the legal capacity to seek variation or rescission of the maintenance order (!) (!) .
If you need further clarification or specific legal advice based on this case, please let me know.
Judgment
RANGANATH MISRA, J. :- This appeal by certificate from the Calcutta High Court raises the questionwhether a decree for permanent alimony passed under Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereafter referred to as the Act), is wiped out with the death of the husband - Judgment-debtor.
2. Respondent Dorothea and one Prafulla Kumar Mitra were married under the Special Marriage Act, 1872, in January, 1952. Respondent asked for divorce in 1961 and obtained a decree on May 2, 1962, to the effect : "The petitioners (Dorothea Mitras) marriage with the respondent Prafulla Kumar Mitra be dissolved by a decree of divorce. The petitioner do get Rs. 300/- p. m. as maintenance from the respondent to be paid by the 1st week of each month following for which it is due until she re-marries........" Respondent levied execution of the decree and the same was compromised and payment of the arrears was undertaken to be made in instalments. Prafulla Kumar Mitra executed a Will on March 31, 1965, but made no provision therein for satisfaction of the maintenance decree. He died on April 3. 1965, and the appellant who was the executrix under the Will got it duly probated.
3. There is no dispute that the executrix paid the maintenance in December, 1975 for a period after the death of Prafulla Kumar Mitra. But since no payment was made thereafter, respondent levied execution in Matrimonial Case No. 1/77 claiming recovery of arrears of Rupees 19,500/-. Appellant objected to the claim under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by pleading that the order of alimony not being charged, the death of Prafulla Kumar Mitra has extinguished the claim of the purported decree holder. The executing court overruled the objection whereupon the appellant invoked the revisional jurisduction of the High Court. A Division Bench agreed with the executing Court but while dismissing the revision application, granted certificate of appeal to this Court.
4. The sole controversy is whether the order for alimony got extinguished with the death of Prafulla Kumar Mitra. Admittedly, the order, was made in exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Act. It provides :
"37. Permanent alimony and maintenance - (1) Any Court exercising jurisdiction under Chapter V or Chapter VI may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent to the decree, on application made to it for the purpose, order that the husband shall secure to the wife for her maintenance and support, if necessary, by a charge on the husbands property, such gross sum or such monthly or periodical payment of money for a term not exceeding her life, as having regard to her own property, if any, her husbands property and ability and the conduct of the parties, it may seem to the Court to be just;
(2) If the District Court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as it may seem to the Court to be just;
(3) If the District Court is satisfied that the wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section has remarried or is not leading a chaste life, it shall rescind the order."
5. The language of the section does not warrant the conclusion that there is extinguishment of the decree for alimony upon the death of the judgment-debtor husband. We have been told at the Bar that there is no decision on the point and, therefore, English decisions should be considered for deciding the matter.
6. Section 37 of the Act more or less corresponds to the provisions of Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the English Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, except that there is no corresponding provision in the English Act for sub-section (3) of the Indian Act. A close look at sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 19 of the English Act will indicate that maintenance can be required to be paid for a term not exceeding the life of the wife or dur
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
