Hasina Khatoon vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 182

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 182

RAHUL CHATURVEDI
Hasina Khatoon – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Akshaya Kumar.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The order passed by the court below, which rejected the applicant's claim for maintenance due to the opposite party's imprisonment, is challenged. The court observed that serving a jail term does not absolve the opposite party from the liability to pay maintenance, and the purpose of incarceration is primarily enforcement, not satisfaction of the liability (!) (!) .
The legal provisions under the relevant Act specify that breach of protection orders is a punishable offense with imprisonment up to one year and a fine, and such offenses are non-bailable and cognizable (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that serving a jail term for non-payment of maintenance does not discharge the liability; the purpose of incarceration is to enforce compliance, not to satisfy the debt (!) (!) .
The order which directed the opposite party to remain in jail until the outstanding maintenance was paid is considered a mode of enforcement, not a resolution of the underlying liability (!) (!) .
The court noted that the opposite party's remarriage and continued enjoyment of life without fulfilling the maintenance obligation constitutes an unpardonable offense under the law, warranting strict penal action (!) (!) .
The impugned order was found to be legally flawed because it relied on incorrect legal reasoning, particularly the misapplication of the law regarding imprisonment as satisfaction of liability (!) (!) .
The court directed that the opposite party must clear the entire outstanding maintenance amount within a specified period. Failure to do so would result in penal action under the relevant protection law, including imprisonment and attachment of property for recovery (!) (!) .
The court also directed the concerned court to expedite the final decision on the main case and adjust any interim payments made by the opposite party against the total maintenance due (!) .
The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. was disposed of with the above directions, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance within the prescribed timeline (!) (!) .

These points encapsulate the legal reasoning, directives, and principles applied in this case, emphasizing enforcement mechanisms and the non-dischargeability of maintenance liabilities through imprisonment alone.

JUDGMENT :

(Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Akshay Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of UP. Perused the record.

2. Extraordinary powers of this Court is being invoked by the applicant u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. (Crime against Women), Moradabad in Execution Case No.697 of 2022 (Smt. Hasina Khatoon vs. Ahmad @ Ramzani) u/s 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, arising out of Case No.10095 of 2017 (Hasina Khatoon vs. Ahmad Ali) u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act by which the court below has rejected the claim of applicant for maintenance amount of Rs.2.64 lacs on the ground that the opposite party no.2 has undergone an imprisonment of one month, and thus, the balance amount cannot be claimed from the opposite party no.2.

3. Before coming to the actual legal aspect of the issue, it is imperative to spell out the bare skeleton facts of the case to appreciate the controversy in its correct perspective.

(a). The applicant Hasina Khatoon got married with opposite party no.2 on 23.5.1990 as per the Muslim rites, rituals and customs. This couple was blessed with one son, unfortuna