MANMOHAN GOPALversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

                  [2023] 14 S.C.R. 1073 : 2023 INSC 953



                             CASE DETAILS
                          MANMOHAN GOPAL
                                       v.
              THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
            (Miscellaneous Application Nos.858-859 of 2021)
                                      In
                  (Criminal Appeal No(s). 85-86 of 2021)
                            OCTOBER 20, 2023
       [S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
                               HEADNOTES
      Issue for consideration: Applications filed by the daughter-in-law
(original comlainant and R-2) for recovery of both arrears of maintenance
and monthly maintenance.
     Constitution of India – Art. 142 – There has been a persistent
defiance by husband, and the petitioner-father-in-law, who have,
through one pretext or another stalled compliance with the orders of
the Supreme Court – Husband has abandoned wife and virtually fled
to Australia – Documents reveal that considerable amounts of money
were remitted to husband, over a period of time – It is the responsibility
of Petitioner-father-in-law and husband who are held liable to fulfil the
payment of entire sum – Directions issued:
      Held: (1). Six contiguous shops bearing municipal numbers 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 31 shall be put to sale by the Registrar of the Delhi High Court,
who shall ensure that the best prices are realized – The amounts realized
from the sale shall be deposited in a fixed deposit receipt, initially for six
months, and its interest, disbursed to the second respondent/applicant – In
the event of no sale, the attachment of property shall continue in favour of
the applicant; (2). The attachment of rents of M/s Fitness Factory Gym &
Spa on the First Floor shall be continued, till the petitioner, and his son,
pay the amount constituting the balance between the amount realized by
direction (1) and Rs. 1.25 crores; (3). In the eventuality the directions in (2)
are not complied within one year, the Registrar is directed to take steps, and
                                     1073
1074          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


within three months, and seek option from the applicant regarding whether
she would wish the transfer of title to the said premises in her name, or its
sale – In the event she opts for the transfer, the Registrar Delhi High Court, is
directed to take all necessary steps to execute a conveyance deed (under the
present directions) to that effect, the sale shall be registered by the concerned
authorities, and the applicant shall be handed over symbolic possession; (4).
In the event the applicant does not seek conveyance, the Registrar shall take
all necessary steps to auction the said property (on the first floor described
in (2) above, within 18 months from today; (5). All amounts realized in the
process of compliance with directions (1) and (4) above shall be paid to the
applicant – Decree shall be drawn to the above effect – Decree shall also
reflect total amount due and payable to the applicant in lieu of which sale
of shops are hereby ordered. [Para 18]
        LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
      Subrata Roy Sahara V. Union of India and Others [2014] 12 SCR
573; Delhi Development Authority V. Skipper Construction Company (P)
Ltd [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 295; Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC
193 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 479 – relied on.
        OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
               ORDER AND APPEARANCES
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous
Application Nos. 858-859 of 2021 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 85-86 of 2021.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2021 in Crl. A. Nos.85 and
86 of 2021 of the Supreme Court of India.
       Appearances:
       Hargovind Jha, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Ms. Praveena Gautam (AC), Mahesh Kumar, Shivam Sharma, Sunit
Kumar Toppo, Ms. Devika Khanna, Mrs. V.D. Khanna for M/s. VMZ
Chambers, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Varnika Gupta, Karanvir Gogia, Lzafeer
Ahmad B. F., Ravi P. Wadhwani, Pawan Shukla, Ms. Akankshi Tyagi,
Shiv Ram Sharma, Ms. Seema Gupta, Vishwaditya Sharma, Advs. for the
Respondents.
    MANMOHAN GOPAL v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 1075
                       & ANR.


        JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
                                JUDGMENT
      S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
      1. With consent, heard the counsel for parties. The present miscellaneous
application has been filed in one disposed of criminal appeal1 in which
this court granted bail to the mother-in-law and father-in-law (Petitioners
herein) of the Respondent No.2 herein (hereafter “R2” or “applicant”
interchangeably) for offences under 420, 406, 468, 34, 120B of IPC.
      2. The present applications are filed by the daughter in law (original
complainant and R2) for recovery of both arrears of maintenance and
monthly maintenance of ₹1,27,500. She is seeking from this court to direct
to the family court of Bilaspur to decide the petition under Section 125(3)
of CrPC within 6 months on the father-in-law and mother-in-law (now
deceased) on the ground that she lives with her widowed mother, on whom
she is dependent for expenses, including litigation expenses.
      3. The factual background of the case is that Petitioner’s son, Mr.
Varun Gopal got married to R2 sometime in the year 2012-13. At the
relevant time, Varun Gopal was employed in Australia. Within two years
of marriage, the matrimonial relationship deteriorated leading to various
legal proceedings. In response to the criminal charges pressed by R2, Varun
Gopal filed anticipatory bail application, but relief was denied to him. Since
then, Varun Gopal has not participated in the criminal proceedings or in the
maintenance proceedings. The present petitioners also sought anticipatory
bail to which orders were passed by this Court directing them to deposit
Rs.40 lakhs towards arrears of maintenance. The money having been not
deposited, the anticipatory bail was not granted and they were arrested.
After 10 months in custody, this court by order dated 12.07.2019 directed
their release on bail.
      4. In addition to criminal charges, R2 also filed a maintenance2 claim
in the Family Court, Bilaspur. By order dated 9.11.2016, the Trial Court



1    Crl. A. No.s 85-86/2021.
2    vide MJC No. 14/2016
1076          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 14 S.C.R.


granted interim maintenance in sum of ₹ 1 Lakh per month. Subsequently,
the husband filed criminal revision petition3 seeking setting aside of ex-parte
interim maintenance order which got dismissed in default whereas R-2 also
filed criminal revision petition4 seeking an enhancement and by order dated
7.4.2021, it was enhanced to ₹1,27,500.
      5. According to the applicant, Varun Gopal is the sole heir of the
petitioner and stands to inherit 11 shops in ancestral property, which the
Petitioner got on the basis of Decree dated 29.5.1959. Further, Mr. Varun
Gopal is settled in Australia where he obtained an ex-parte divorce decree
dated 21.12.2017, by the family court of Australia. R2 has filed a suit for
cancellation of divorce on 8.11.20215 in the family court of Bilaspur, which
is pending disposal. In the meantime, husband has remarried and now has
two kids from his second marriage.
      6. Previously, this court by order dated 02.09.2021, observed the
following “It is accepted by Mr. Hargovind Jha, learned Advocate for
Manmohan Gopal that those 11 shops which had fallen to the share of
Manmohan Gopal by virtue of decree passed in the year 1959 continue to
be under his control and the proprietary interest has not been transferred
or parted with. He also accepts that Varun Gopal being son of Manmohan
Gopal and coparcener, would have interest in said 11 shops. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Hargovind Jha, learned Advocate went to the extent of submitting
that his client would consent to the appointment of receiver to the extent
of the interest of Varun Gopal in those properties.” and had directed to
attach 11 shops on the consent given by petitioner/father-in-law which is
reproduced in verbatim as below-
       “(a). Those 11 shops, the details of which are available in decree
       passed in the year 1959 are hereby attached.
       (b) It shall be open to the Executing Court to consider whether said
       shops need to be sold or dealt with in any other manner so as to ensure
       payment of all the arrears of maintenance to Shilpi Shrivastava.



3   CR. R. No. 90/2017
4   CR. R. No. 1102/2019
5   Bearing case No. 139/2022
    MANMOHAN GOPAL v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 1077
            & ANR. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

      (c) Till such exercise is undertaken, all the rentals and other incomes
      from said shops shall be credited to a separate account to be maintained
      under the direction and control of the Executing Court. From and out
      of the sum so received, the Executing Court shall be at liberty to
      make over such sums towards maintenance to Shilpi Shrivastava, as
      it deems appropriate. (d) If any or all shops are required to be sold,
      the Executing Court shall maintain accounts and revert back to this
      Court at the earliest.”
      Submissions on behalf of applicant
      7. Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of R2
submitted that the said 11 shops have gone through three unsuccessful
auction sale as the shops were occupied by tenants. As per R2, the current
outstanding arrears of maintenance amounts to ₹1.25 Cr. Approx. (as of the
order dated 02.09.21) and further asserts that all available modes for the
execution of her maintenance order have been exhausted. The father-in-law
was in prison for 10 months, and the auction of property also failed. Given
this situation, R2 is seeking transfer of ownership of the said shops in her
name as a means to settle her outstanding maintenance arrears and future
maintenance as well. To be specific, R2 is seeking ownership of the Shop
namely M/s Fitness Factory Gym & Spa on the First Floor and some shops
on the Ground Floor which are fetching the maximum rent. She submits to
this court to note that if the due arrears i.e., ₹1.25 Crores would have been
paid, R-2 will get ₹60,000/- to ₹65,000/- per month as an interest and the
rent of the First Floor Gym is around ₹55,000/-. It was further submitted that
some shops fall under the Delhi Rent Control Act and they fetch rental of
less than ₹3,500/- per month and R-2 will never be in a position to get those
vacated as the Petitioner has taken pagdi6 of those shops. It was also shown
that the Executing Court has attached the rent of ₹15.000/- from the mobile
tower installed on the roof top of the second floor of the same building 7.
      8. Additionally, the Petitioner has already consented for attachment
of the shops to the extent of the husband’s share (i.e., his son’s share) in


6    Pagdi system is a renting arrangement wherein the tenant is also the co-owner of the
     property, and has both subletting and selling rights.
7    as per Order dated 2.9.2021
1078           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2023] 14 S.C.R.


the order dated 02.09.2021, which was never objected. Thereafter, the
Petitioner also never raised any objection to the attachment of Fitness
Factory Gym before the Executing Court (Bilaspur). Thereafter, for the first
time, the Petitioner objected to the said attachment by getting two frivolous
applications filed through his relative/ tenant Mr. Amitabh Srivastava8 which
was disposed of9 without giving any relief. The second I.A.10 filed by Mr.
Amitabh Srivastava was dismissed as withdrawn11 and the application filed
by Mr. Amitabh Srivastava before the Executing Court (Tis Hazari Court)
was dismissed.12
     9. The counsel has submitted a copy of Site Plan of the 11 Shops drawn
by Govt. approved Draftsman. Counsel further submitted the details of bank
accounts which have been produced on the directions of this Court13, and
claimed that the Petitioner was having 3-4 crores in his account but they
have given false information in their Affidavits about them having no money.
Furthermore, counsel also submitted that the matrimonial house was sold
by the Petitioner for around ₹2 Crores in June, 2018.
      10. It was also submitted that mother-in-law was signatory to the
Memorandum dated 22.10.2018, before the Mediation Centre of the Supreme
Court, which recorded that the parties had settled their case and an amount
of ₹1.29 Crore was to be made over to R2 for the same. However, no money
was paid to R2.
      11. Finally, R2 asked this court to invoke its power under Article 142
of the Constitution as she approached this court in 2018 where firstly the
Petitioner and his deceased wife had enjoyed the fruits of anticipatory bail
by giving an undertaking of making the payment of due arrears of around
₹40 lakhs at that point of time. But despite several assurances to this Court,
the same was not paid. R-2 also filed Contempt Petition14 where this Court
took the cognizance but petitioners did not make the payment and chose to


8    I.A. No. 72797 of 2021
9    vide order 29.09.2022
10   No. 169380 of 2022
11   vide order dated 29.11.2022
12   Order dated 4.5.2022 passed by Addl. Principal Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
13   vide Orders dated 17.3.2023, 27.3.2023
14   (C) No. 2204 of 2018 in SLP (Crl.) No. 3727 of 2018
 MANMOHAN GOPAL v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 1079
         & ANR. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

go to jail; even as per Order dated 13.12.2018, this Court referred the matter
to the Executing Court but nothing material could be done as the Petitioners
were not appearing before the Executing Court and again in the regular bail
matter15, this court granted them regular bail. Hence, even after so many
rounds of litigation, and after 5 years, R2 is still remediless.
      Submissions on behalf of Petitioner
      12. Mr. Hargovind Jha, learned counsel appearing for petitioner
submitted that R2 obtained the maintenance order only against her husband
which can be recovered from the husband or from his assets. The Petitioner
is not personally liable to R2 when her husband is alive. There is no law
which can directly hold father-in-law to provide maintenance to the wife.
      13. The petitioner further contended that the marriage between R2
and his son was dissolved by the divorce decree passed by the court in
Australia and therefore, parents-in-law are not liable in this case. In fact,
the petition filed by R2 against petitioner is not maintainable under Section
1916 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter HMA) as it is not applicable in
the present case. The prayer asked is in violation of Section 2517 of HMA;


15 SLP (Crl.) No. 3876-77 of 2020
16 19. Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law. —
     (1)A Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall
be entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law: Provided
and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other
property or, where she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance—
     (a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother, or
     (b)from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate.
     (2) Any obligation under sub-section (1) shall not be enforceable if the father-in-law
has not the means to do so from any coparcenary property in his possession out of which
the daughter-in-law has not obtained any share, and any such obligation shall cease on the
re-marriage of the daughter-in-law.
17 25. Permanent alimony and maintenance-
     (1)Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any
decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by
either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to
the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or
periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the
respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the
applicant [the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case], it may seem to
the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the
immovable property of the respondent.
1080             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                                   [2023] 14 S.C.R.


R-2 has not yet accepted the decree granted in favour of husband by the
foreign court and has instead challenged the decree, therefore, cannot seek
permanent alimony.
     14. Furthermore, the memorandum18 was signed by his wife who
is now deceased and so, it cannot be enforced against him. In its replies
filed, the petitioner denied having coparcenary interest of his son on
properties as well as receiving ₹2 Crores as sale consideration for the
matrimonial house.
      15. Petitioner further submitted19 to settle the matter stating that he is
ready to offer ₹75 Lacs in addition to 22 Lacs as one time full and final lump
sum amount towards her entire claim of past, present and future, subject to
the condition that all cases either criminal or civil or execution against the
petitioner are withdrawn or brushed aside.
       Findings and Conclusions
      16. The past history of this case, and the orders of this court have
demonstrated the utter obduracy of Varun Gopal, who abandoned the wife,
and virtually fled to Australia. The documents placed on record of this
court, including the affidavits filed by the petitioner, and the bank account
statements, reveal that considerable amounts of money were remitted to
Varun Gopal, over a period of time.
    17. The previous judgments of this court, reported as Subrata Roy
Sahara20, Skipper Construction21, etc. have held that the court is not
powerless, but can issue appropriate directions, and even decrees, for



      (2) If the 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 the court may deem just.
      (3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under
this section has re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste,
or, if such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside
wedlock, [it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in
such manner as the court may deem just].
18 Dated 22.10.2018.
19 in Note dated 6.9.23.
20 [2014] 12 S.C.R. 573
21 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 295
 MANMOHAN GOPAL v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 1081
         & ANR. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

doing complete justice between the parties. In Skipper Construction, it was
observed
        “16. In other words, the power under Article 142 is meant to
        supplement the existing legal framework — to do complete justice
        between the parties — and not to supplant it.It is conceived to meet
        situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled
        by the existing provisions of law. As a matter of fact, we think it
        advisable to leave this power undefined and uncatalogued so that
        it remains elastic enough to be moulded to suit the given situation.
        The very fact that this power is conferred only upon this Court, and
        on no one else, is itself an assurance that it will be used with due
        restraint and circumspection, keeping in view the ultimate object
        of doing complete justice between the parties…”
     In Chenga Reddy v. State of A. P22, it was observed
        “56. A court of equity must so act, within the permissible limits
        so as to prevent injustice. “Equity is not past the age of child-
        bearing” and an effort to do justice between the parties is a
        compulsion of judicial conscience. Courts can and should strive
        to evolve an appropriate remedy, in the facts and circumstances
        of a given case, so as to further the cause of justice, within the
        available range and forging new tools for the said purpose, if
        necessary to chisel hard edges of the law. In our opinion in the
        established facts and circumstances of these cases, it would
        be appropriate with a view to do complete justice between the
        parties, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
        Constitution of India…”
      18. The present case – as discussed earlier, has displayed persistent
defiant conduct by Varun Gopal, and the petitioner, Mohan Gopal, who
have, through one pretext or another stalled compliance with the orders of
this court. It is the responsibility of Petitioner and Varun Gopal who are
held liable to fulfil the payment of entire sum. In these circumstances, it is
hereby directed that:


22 (1996) 10 SCC 193
1082           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


       (1) Six contiguous shops bearing municipal numbers 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
       31 shall be put to sale by the Registrar of the Delhi High Court, who
       shall ensure that the best prices are realized. The amounts realized from
       the sale shall be deposited in a fixed deposit receipt, initially for six
       months, and its interest, disbursed to the second respondent/applicant.
       In the event of no sale, the attachment of property shall continue in
       favour of the applicant.
       (2) The attachment of rents of M/s Fitness Factory Gym & Spa on the
       First Floor shall be continued, till the petitioner, and his son, Varun
       Gopal, pay the amount constituting the balance between the amount
       realized by direction (1) and Rs. 1.25 crores.
       (3) In the eventuality the directions in (2) are not complied within one
       year, the Registrar is directed to take steps, and within three months,
       and seek option from the applicant regarding whether she would
       wish the transfer of title to the said premises in her name, or its sale.
       In the event she opts for the transfer, the Registrar Delhi High Court,
       is directed to take all necessary steps to execute a conveyance deed
       (under the present directions) to that effect, the sale shall be registered
       by the concerned authorities, and the applicant shall be handed over
       symbolic possession.
       (4) In the event the applicant does not seek conveyance, the Registrar
       shall take all necessary steps to auction the said property (on the first
       floor described in (2) above, within 18 months from today.
       (5) All amounts realized in the process of compliance with directions
       (1) and (4) above shall be paid to the applicant. Decree shall be drawn to
       the above effect. Decree shall also reflect total amount due and payable
       to the applicant in lieu of which sale of shops are hereby ordered.
      19. This court expresses its gratitude to Amicus Ms. Jaspreet Gogia
for her valuable contribution and efforts. The applications are disposed of
in the above terms.


Headnotes prepared by:                                      Applications disposed of.
Ankit Gyan