SUPREME COURT'S BOLD MOVE IN BALANCING LAW AND EQUITY
Category: Family Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
Facts-
Varun Gopal, who is the son of the petitioner, married R2 in 2012. For the Varun gopal, who lives in Australia, the matrimonial relationship deteriorated after two years. This led to several legal proceedings against Varun Gopal, including criminal charges and maintenance. The varun gopal hasn’t appeared in court, and the application for anticipatory bail was cancelled, and the Varun patil was sent to 10 months of custody. The Varun patil, being the single son of the petitioner, owns 11 shops. The maintenance of Rs. 1 lakh was given to R2, and the criminal petition was revised. By the time the varun gopal had married and had two children, The failure of payment by the varun patil, even after several orders, the father of the varun patil, who had all the properties and a sufficient bank account, dined to give maintenance. Even not obeying the orders of the lower court led to landing in the supreme court by the petitioner.
Issues-
1. Whether a father-in law will be held liable under the Maintenance Act when the son is alive?
Legal Provision-
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: The personal law for Hindus that deals with divorce, maintenance, guardianship, etc.
Contention of the Petitioner:
Mr. Hargovind Jha, the advocate for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner has no involvement in this case as his son is still alive. The father-in-law has no responsibility to maintain the daughter-in-law when the son is alive. The petitioner's advocate highlighted that the petitioner is not personally liable as no section in the Hindu Marriage Act talks about it.The respondent has already been divorced in the Austrian court; hence, under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, they are not liable, and also, the petitioner doesn’t hold any property of the son Varun.
Contention of the Respondent:
Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, advocate, highlighted the failure of the son and the petitioner of the court order. Even with financial stability, the petitioner denied giving maintenance to R2. The advocate requested the Supreme Court use the power of Article 142 of the Constitution to provide relief to the R2.
Court analysis and judgment
The Supreme Court overturned the non-payment of the maintenance by the petitioner for persistent non-compliance and not following the court orders. The Supreme Court, by using the power under Article 142, ensures justice, fairness, and the need for equitable relief. The Supreme Court referred to the Subrata Roy Sahara and Skipper Construction case and held that the property needed to be sold in order to provide maintenance to the R2. Until the property was sold, the court ordered the R2 to use the rent generated from the shops. By using its power under Article 142, the court ensured the provision of justice and fairness in the system. This decision by the Supreme Court will serve as a precedent in the future for cases revolving around non-compliance with the Constitution. This judgment highlights the court's role in acting as a guardian of justice.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: AJAY KUMAR H
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
