SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 77

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, A.S. OKA, JJ.
Dr. Santosh Chandrashekar Shetty - Applicant
Versus
Mrs. Ameeta Santosh Shetty & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Application No. 72 of 2017 In Family Court Appeal No. 113 of 2014
Decided On : 25-01-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Nilesh C. Ojha a/w Mr. Partho Sarkar, Mr. Tanveer Nizam, Mr. Vijay Kurle, Mr. Jay Shah, Ms. Shweta Doshi, Ms. Tanvi Kambli, Ms. Madhuri Gamre, Ms. Reena S. Rana, Ms. Shashikala Chauhan, Ms. Shraddha Chaurasiya
For the Respondents: Mrs. Ameeta Santosh Shetty, in person

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 340 and 195 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 24 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - sections 191 to 193, 196, 199, 200, 465 to 468, 471 and 474 - False and misleading statements on oath - Impugned decree is a money decree - Divorce against the first respondent - Prayer for grant of divorce - Decreed the applicant to pay permanent alimony - Applicant – Husband filed a petition for divorce against the first respondent – Wife in Family Court Appeal - Judgment and order prayer for grant of divorce was dismissed by learned Judge of the Family Court - Learned Judge of the Family Court, inter alia, ordered and decreed applicant to pay permanent alimony first respondent wife to the daughter. Family Court Appeal is preferred by applicant husband against said judgment and decree - First respondent – wife has filed cross-objections - Civil Application was taken out by first respondent wife seeking a direction to dismiss appeal preferred by applicant husband on the ground of noncompliance of decree for payment of maintenance - Held, Allegations will have to be gone into at the time of final hearing of the Family Court Appeal, at stage, it is not expedient in the interests of justice to take action - When we say so conduct of the Applicant as reflected from the record is also taken into consideration - Applicant has to come clean by making disclosure of his true income, sources of income, his assets, etc during relevant period supported by documents. If a case is made out, at appropriate stage - Court can direct recording of evidence by Family Court on case made out by the parties regarding the income of the husband and the case made out by the wife – Court make it clear that when the appeal is heard on merits, the issues raised by the applicant in this application as well as prayers will have to be considered by the Court - Application is rejected

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Oka, J.

1. By Administrative order dated 24th July 2017, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice assigned this Application as well as Civil Application No.71 of 2017 to this Bench. This application in Family Court Appeal is by the husband – appellant praying for an action against the first respondent – wife under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”). The case made out in the application in short is that the first respondent – wife made false and misleading statements on oath in her reply filed to Civil Application No.67 of 2016 and in Civil Application No.220 of 2016 filed by her. On 24th November 2017, submissions were heard in this application. Thereafter, this Bench noticed that there is a transfer application signed and affirmed by the applicant – husband seeking transfer of Family Court Appeal along with interim applications to any Bench other than the Bench headed by one of us (A.S. Oka, J.). Therefore, by the order dated 24th November 2017, this Court directed that the present application along with Civil Application No.71 of 2017 which was assigned to this Bench will be taken up only after transfer application is decided depending upon the outcome of the transfer application. By the order dated 14th June 2018 passed by the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice on the Administrative Side, the transfer application was ordered to be filed and accordingly, we have reheard the present application.

2. The applicant – husband filed a petition for divorce against the first respondent – wife in the Family Court Appeal at Mumbai. By judgment and order dated 25th November 2015, the prayer for grant of divorce was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. The learned Judge of the Family Court, inter alia, ordered and decreed the applicant to pay permanent alimony of Rs.30,000/- pm to the first respondent wife and Rs.15,000/- pm to the daughter. Family Court Appeal No.113 of 2014 is preferred by the applicant husband against the said judgment and decree. The first respondent – wife has filed cross-objections.

3. Civil Application No.11 of 2015 was taken out by the first respondent wife seeking a direction to dismiss the appeal preferred by the applicant husband on the ground of noncompliance of the decree for payment of maintenance. On 5th October 2015, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order :-

“1. The Appellant/husband shall pay to the Respondent/wife an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within one week; an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within four weeks thereafter; and balance amount of Rs.5,40,000/- within six weeks from today towards arrears of maintenance @ Rs.60,000/- per month from the date of the impugned Judgment and Order. The Appellant/husband shall continue to pay Rs.60,000/- per month to the Respondent/wife, which amount shall be paid in the first week of each month.

2. Stand over to 29th October, 2015.

3. In view of the undertaking given by the Appellant/husband to this Court, the execution of the impugned Judgment and Order is stayed.”

The undertaking dated 8th February 2017 filed by the Applicant is on record by which the Applicant has undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month to the first respondent – wife on or before 7th day of every month.

4. Civil Application No.67 of 2016 was filed by the applicant husband for seeking extension of time by nine months for payment of arrears of maintenance as per the order dated 5th October 2015. On 23rd March 2016, the Court passed the following order on Civil Application No.67 of 2016 as well as other Applications:-

“1. The Respondent appearing in person states that even as of today, the Applicant is in arrears of a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Perused the order dated 5th October, 2015. Gross default has been committed by the Applicant. The submission of the Respondent appearing in person is that the stay be vacated.

2. If the Applicant wants indulgence, the Applicant will have to clear arrears of Rs.50,000/- within a period of one week fr



































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top