Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Neelima Shukla vs Dalchand @ Fdeepanshu Shukla on 18 January, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
Case No. CR. No.108/2012
Parties Name Ku. Neelima Shukla
Vs.
Dalchand @ Deepanshu Shukla
Date of Judgment 18.01.2018
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Judgment delivered by Justice Sujoy Paul
Whether approved for reporting Yes/No
Name of counsels for parties Petitioner: Shri Shreyas Pandit, Advocate
Respondent: None
Law laid down -
Significant paragraph numbers -
(Order)
18-01-2018
This civil revision is directed against the order dated 10-02-2012 passed by learned 1st Additional Presiding Judge, Family Court Jabalpur in Execution Case No.255-A/09.
2. The admitted facts between the parties are that the applicant is the daughter of the respondent. She was born on 14-10-1985 at Jabalpur. The respondent was a government employee. The respondent left the family and house where the applicant and her mother was residing without giving any intimation to them. He did not return to reside with the family. The applicant made request to grant him financial assistance and bear the expenditure of her marriage but the respondent refused to give any such assistance.
-:- 2 -:-
CR. No.108/20123. The applicant filed an application under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Act of 1956). The respondent upon receiving notices in the said case decided to remain absent and accordingly the Family Court by order dated 28-10-2010 in the Civil Suit No.255-A/09 (Annexure P/1) directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of judgment and in addition pay her Rs.2,000/- for her marriage.
4. The applicant preferred FA. No.916/10 for enhancing of maintenance but did not disclose in the body of revision about the outcome of said first appeal.
5. Since the respondent did not comply with the order dated 28-10-2010, the applicant filed Execution Case No.255-A/09. The respondent entered appearance in this case and filed an application (Annexure P/2) with a request to permit him to sell his house so that he can discharge the financial liability arising out of judgment dated 28-10-2010. In this application, it is averred that the applicant remained out of town for about two years. For this period, he has not received salary. His financial condition is very bad. He purchased a house in Anand Colony, Cherital Ward, Jabalpur after obtaining a loan from the Bank. The respondent is the sole title holder of the said land in which the applicant and her mother is residing. The respondent is presently residing in the government quarter at Tehsil Panna. He may be permitted to sell the said property so that he can discharge his liability flowing from the judgment dated 28-10-2010.
6. The said application of the respondent was opposed by the present applicant. The Court below by impugned order dated 10-02-2012 allowed the said application.
7. Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for the applicant contended that although the present applicant has solemnized marriage, the fact remains
-:- 3 -:-
CR. No.108/2012that her matrimonial life was not successful and she is fighting a divorce matter. Since her relations with her husband were not cordial, she is residing with her mother in the residence which was permitted to be sold by the Court below. By placing reliance on AIR 1995 SC 2170 (Smt. Sneh Prabha vs. Ravinder Kumar), it is urged that the Court below has committed an error of law in granting said permission to the respondent.
8. Nobody appeared for the respondent even in the pass over round.
9. The respondent has filed the return and contended that the petitioner is working on the post of Chemist in the Office of Narmada Agro, Shiv Nagar, Jabalpur. The respondent has singular property aforesaid. The respondent is not able to enter his own property because the applicant and her mother has engaged criminals to prevent the respondent.
10. It is further stated in the return that the respondent is willing to to pay a handsome amount to the applicant for her marriage but has no means to pay the same unless he is directed to auction his house. On more than one occasion, the respondent contended that he is ready to satisfy the judgment/decree passed by the Court below. It is urged that the maternal uncle of the applicant, namely, Aditya Tiwari and Loknath Tiwari are known criminals. They are sentenced to undergo life imprisonment of offence under Section 302 IPC. The applicant is taking help of her aforesaid maternal uncle to throw the applicant away from the house. The applicant has already solemnized marriage with Shri Vinod Sharma, S/o Late Shri Ram Prakash Sharma. In nutshell, the respondent has expressed his willingness to satisfy the decree and for this purpose prayed for permission to sale his house.
11. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant, during the course of argument, fairly submitted that the applicant was married but further contended that
-:- 4 -:-
CR. No.108/2012her maternal life is not peaceful and, therefore, she is now residing in the same house with her mother. She submits that if house is sold, she will have no shelter. The Court below opined that best option is to auction/sale the house so that the entire amount/liability flowing from the judgment dated 23.10.2010 can be satisfied in one go/installment. The spinal issue is whether the respondent can be restrained from selling his own house ?
13. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 gives certain protection to the dependants. The Act further provides about grant of maintenance to children and aged person. As noticed, the claim of the applicant has already been crystallized in the shape of the order dated 28.10.2010. The applicant has attained the age of majority and at the time of filing of this application, she was about 26 years of age. She is a married women. Section 21 of the Act of 1956 defines dependants. This provision was interpreted by various Courts. A Division Bench of this Court in Nani Bai and others Vs. Ishaque Khan and others, 1994 JLJ 296 has held held that "claimant No.3 and 4 are married daughters and they were not dependent on Sarvan. As such, claim on their behalf has rightly been disallowed by the Tribunal." After considering this judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pedada Prabhavati, 1996 SCC Online AP 363, the High Court held as under:
"Section 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act defines dependents. It has not included therein the married daughter. Consequently there is no liability to maintain the married daughter by the heirs of the deceased Hindu, who inherit the properties."
In 2002 (5) SCC 422 (Jagdish Jugawat vs. Manjulata), it was held that applying the principles to the fact and circumstances of the case in hand, it is manifest that the right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognised in Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. In view of plain reading of the statutory provision and judgments aforesaid, it is clear that after the marriage, the applicant has no right whatsoever under the said Act to
-:- 5 -:-
CR. No.108/2012occupy the house of respondent. No other enabling or protective provision is also pointed out by Shri Shreyas Pandit. The judgment cited by him is of no assistance to him.
14. The respondent was rightly permitted by court below to sell his house so that he can make necessary payments arising out of judgment dated 28.10.2010. This is settled law that in execution proceeding the court cannot travel beyond the scope of the main judgment. The judgment dated 28.10.2010 makes it obligatory for the respondents to make payment of maintenance and Rs.2,00,000/- for marriage. In execution proceeding, the executing court does not have any jurisdiction to restrain the respondent for selling his own property. For this reason also, no fault can be found in the impugned order.
15. In view of foregoing discussion, in the considered opinion of court, there is no legal error in the impugned order which warrants interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction. Hence, interference is declined. Petition is dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE mohsin