Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.
Jennifer Arul - Appellant
Versus
Michael Arul - Respondent
Review Petition (Crl.) No. 409 of 2018 IN Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4253 of 2017
Decided On : 12-12-2018
Maintenance - Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act 45 of 2005 - Section 12, Section 19, Section 20, Section 22 - The court grants various reliefs including sharing the house, maintenance, and compensation under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act 45 of 2005. The court orders the respondent to clear the arrears of maintenance and continue paying the maintenance as directed by the lower courts and upheld by the Supreme Court. The respondent is given one year to clear the arrears and must deposit 1/4th of the arrears in the trial court within three months. The respondent must also surrender his passport.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act 45 of 2005 before the Court of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai. The Magistrate granted various reliefs including sharing the house, maintenance, and compensation. The respondent appealed to the Sessions Court, which upheld the maintenance order. The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court's decision. The respondent filed a special leave petition, which was dismissed. The petitioner filed a contempt petition for non-compliance of the maintenance order. The court directed the petitioner to file a review petition. The present review petition seeks modification of the order. The respondent argues that the matter can be settled through negotiations and that the petitioner should resort to exemption proceedings. The court rejects the respondent's arguments and orders the respondent to clear the arrears of maintenance and continue paying the maintenance as directed by the lower courts and upheld by the Supreme Court. The respondent is given one year to clear the arrears and must deposit 1/4th of the arrears in the trial court within three months. The respondent must also surrender his passport.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejects the respondent's arguments and orders the respondent to clear the arrears of maintenance and continue paying the maintenance as directed by the lower courts and upheld by the Supreme Court. The court grants the respondent one year to clear the arrears and must deposit 1/4th of the arrears in the trial court within three months. The respondent must also surrender his passport.
Ratio Decidendi: The respondent is ordered to clear the arrears of maintenance and continue paying the maintenance as directed by the lower courts and upheld by the Supreme Court. The respondent is given one year to clear the arrears and must deposit 1/4th of the arrears in the trial court within three months. The respondent must also surrender his passport.
Result: The review petition is disposed of.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Application for oral hearing is allowed.
3. The review petitioner filed a petition under section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act 45 of 2005 before the Court of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed the following order :
"(i) Permitting the petitioner to share the house at Door No.347, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai as per Section 19 of the D.V. Act until the respondent make alternative arrangement to provide a permanent residence as that of the house now occupied.
(ii) To pay Rs. 2 crores as maintenance as per section 20 the D.V. Act.
(iii) To pay Rs. 50 lakhs as compensation for deserting the petitioner for 12 years, Rs. 50 lakhs for living in extra marital life, Rs. 50 lakhs for leaving the petitioner to face the court cases, Rs. 50 lakhs to force to take a job in NDTV, Rs. 50 lakhs for mental torture and agony by openly living with foreign women, Rs. 50 lakhs for not paying rent to the shared household and in total 3 crores as per section 22 of the D.V. Act."
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by the respondent-husband before the Court of Sessions at Chennai. The IV Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 30.10.2014, directed the respondent to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) per month towards maintenance from the date of filing the petition under D.V. Act, i.e. 06.1.2009.
5. There was a further direction to the respondent to pay Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) per month in lieu of residential accommodation. In all, the respondent had to pay Rs. 1.75 lakh per month to the petitioner from 6.1.2009 onward.
6. The High Court vide order dated 02.12.2016 affirmed the order of the Sessions Court. The special leave petition filed by the respondent against the order of the High Court was dismissed on 26.10.2017 and six months' time was granted to him to comply with the directions for payment of maintenance on submission of usual undertaking.
7. The petitioner filed a contempt petition being aggrieved by the non-compliance of the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2017. On behalf of the respondent, a submission was made in the Contempt Petition that an undertaking was not given as directed by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2017 and hence, the contempt petition was not maintainable. This Court did not entertain the contempt petition but directed the petitioner to file a petition for review of the order dated 26.10.2017.
8. The present review petition has been filed seeking modification of order dated 26.10.2017 passed by this Court in SLP(Crl.) No.4253 of 2017.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
10. Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent with his usual vehemence made an effort to convince us that this matter is capable of being settled by negotiations, that the respondent is in no position to make the payment of the arrears of maintenance as directed by the courts below and that this Court should not entertain the instant review petition in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. In short, he submits that the Petitioner has to resort to exemption proceedings to have the order implemented.
11. Having considered the submission made by Mr. Basant, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, we are of the opinion that the direction that was issued by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2017 while dismissing the SLP(Crl.) No.4253 of 2017, cannot be ignored. The attempt of the respondent in delaying the compliance of the orders passed by the courts below as well as this Court by submitting that the petitioner has to resort to execution of the order passed by the court below, cannot be accepted.
12. We repeatedly asked Mr. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent about the t
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
