High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
J. G. CHITRA
PAVITRABAI - Appellant
Versus
ARUN KUMAR - Respondents
Civil Revision 1264 Of 1999
Decided On : 04/24/2000
GPF - Execution of Decree - Order 21 Rule 46, C P C, Section 50 C. P C - The court discussed the provisions of Order 21 Rule 46, Section 50 of C. P. C, and highlighted the importance of considering the relevant provisions of law in executing decrees. The court emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry and application of judicial mind to ensure justice for the parties involved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief from the court for the execution of a decree related to permanent alimony after her husband's death. The court found that the judge failed to consider relevant provisions of law and directed a remand for a thorough consideration of the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judge's failure to consider the relevant provisions of law and to apply judicial mind fully led to an erroneous conclusion, and directed the matter to be decided within three months.
Issues: Failure to consider relevant provisions of law, application of judicial mind, and execution of decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the relevant provisions of law, conducting a thorough inquiry, and applying judicial mind fully in executing decrees to ensure justice for the parties involved.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded for a reevaluation in view of the relevant provisions of law, with a directive to decide the matter within three months.
( 1 ) NOTICE has been sent and served on the opponents but they are absent. None is present for them, Mr Verma is heard.
( 2 ) LEARNED Judge has pointed out that an application has been moved by the petitioner Pavitrabai making a prayer to the Court that her husband deceased Arun Kumar Verma had left (1) Rs. 41. 367/- as amount of GPF, (2) Rs. 30,000/- as amount of G. I. S , (3) Saving Bank credit balance ofrs. 23,755 /- in the saving account of State Bank of India The total amount is Rs 95. 122/- The petitioner has prayed for a relief from the Court in view of provisions of Order 21 Rule 46, C P C
( 3 ) MR. Verma submitted that the wife pavitrabai had obtained the decree of divorce against Arun Kumar Verma s/o Onkarnath verma on the ground of impotency and there has been order passed by the Matrimonial court in her favour granting her a permanent alimony to the tune of Rs 700/- per month mr. Verma submitted that during the execution proceedings in context with the said amount of permanent alimony, Arun Kumar the husband of Pavitrabai died leaving behind him his parents Onkarnath and Laxmibai
( 4 ) LEARNED Judge pointed out in his order which is put to challenge by the petitioner that those orders are to be executed by applying provisions of C P C and thereafter considered provisions of Order 21 Rule 46 He also considered provisions of Section 50 of c. P. C. Section 50 C. P C provides-" (1) Where a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased. (2) Where the decree is executed against such legal representative, he shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of; and, for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the Court executing the decree may, of its own motion or on the application of the decree-holder, compel such legal representative to produce such accounts as it thinks fit. "
( 5 ) BUT the learned Judge after taking the note of provisions of Section 50 without any reasonable ground and without cogent reasoning came to the conclusion that the liability of paying permanent alimony which was on the shoulder of Arun Kumar Verma deceased husband of Pavitrabai by virtue of the said decree which has been passed by the Matrimonial court, ceased to be operative after the death of Arun Kumar Verma, her husband. .
( 6 ) LEARNED Judge should have considered provisions of Section 50 as well as provisions of Order 21 Rules 46,48 and 52 of C. P C. by making appropriate enquiry and orders. In the cases which are, concerned with execution of the decrees and orders passed in the matters which can be put to execution, the Courts have always to keep in mind the benevolent spirit behind the enactment The provisions ofSections 24 and 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are for the purpose of giving the solace to the parties in the said litigation who need alimony for the maintenance It is to be kept in mind also that the provisions are made for the purpose of granting of amount for the purpose of meeting the expenditure in such litigation. In the present cas'e the learned Judge was dealing with the prayer made by the petitioner pavitrabai directing towards provisions of Order 21 Rule 46 of C. P. C. and pointing out that sum of Rs. 95,122/- has been received by her husband Arun Kumar s/o Onkarnath verma, who was directed to pay permanent alimony to his wife Pavitrabai, who happens to be petitioner in the present petition. He was obliged to keep in mind that the marriage between Arun Kumar and Pavitrabai was a valid marriage and the decree was passed in favour of Pavitrabai and against Arun Kumar on the ground of impotency. He should have also taken into consideration the implicit possibility of fraud and deceit in the said marriage. Such Executing Courts should be well aware of the nature of decree wh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.