FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM)
Date of decision: 02.12.2017
Nirmal Kaur …APPELLANT
VERSUS
Kirpal Singh
….RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. M.S.BEDI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. G.S.Bains, Advocate,
for Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. A.S.Dhindsa, Advocate.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
dissolution of marriage was filed by the petitioner-husband Kirpal Singh
(respondent herein) for passing a decree of divorce on the ground that the
respondent-wife Nirmal Kaur(appellant herein) was a quarrelsome, rude,
uncaring and cruel lady, who not only used abusive language against the
petitioner, his mother and other family members but tortured the two sons
who were born out of the wedlock. Cruelty was primarily pressed into
service as a ground for grant of decree of divorce. After trial, petition was
allowed and a decree of divorce was passed by the Additional District
1 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:04 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 2
Judge, Patiala on 20.01.2014. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,
the present appeal has been preferred by the wife Nirmal Kaur.
2. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the appellant-wife
claiming maintenance pendente-lite @ Rs. 30,000/- per month and litigation
expenses of Rs. 25,000/-. On issuance of notice on the application by this
Court on 03.03.2015, counsel for the respondent-husband appeared and
sought time to file reply. On 07.05.2015, further time was sought by the
counsel for the respondent which was granted, however, the Court directed
the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation
expenses by the next date of hearing i.e. 17.08.2015 in the shape of bank
draft. On 17.08.2015, time was sought by the counsel for the respondent for
filing reply and for payment of litigation expenses and the case was
adjourned to 08.09.2015. On 08.09.2015, as no litigation expenses were
paid nor reply was filed, the Court considered the application under Section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and taking the unrebutted pleadings therein to
be true, granted Maintenance pendente-lite @ Rs. 20,000/- per month from
the date of application to the applicant-appellant-wife to be paid by the
respondent-husband minus any amount being paid in any other proceedings
and further litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000/- were also granted. The
appeal was adjourned to 20.10.2015 for payment of arrears of maintenance.
3. On 20.10.2015, since the respondent-husband had not complied
with the order dated 08.09.2015, last opportunity was granted to him to
clear the arrears of maintenance, failing which his defence would be deemed
to have been struck off. On the adjourned date i.e. 07.12.2015, neither the
respondent or his counsel appeared nor any affidavit was filed by him that
2 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 3
he has cleared arrears of maintenance, the Court struck off the defence of
the respondent-husband.
4. The case was thereafter adjourned on two dates and then on
10.08.2016, at the request made by the counsel for the parties, the matter
was posted before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for
an amicable settlement of the dispute. The parties were directed to appear
before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. The Mediator
reported that the matter could not be settled between the parties. The case
was listed for hearing on 31.05.2017 when the counsel for the respondent
pleaded no instructions on behalf of the respondent and prayed that the
notice be issued to the respondent for some actual date. The Court, at the
request of the counsel for the respondent, issued notice to the respondent for
25.08.2017. As per the report of the Registry, the respondent-husband had
been duly served but despite service, the respondent did not put in
appearance personally or through a counsel. However, the Court, on the said
date i.e. 25.08.2017, adjourned the case for 12.10.2017 in order to give a
fair opportunity to the respondent to appear before this Court in the interest
of justice.
5. In the light of the above fact that despite sufficient
opportunities having been granted, maintenance pendente-lite @ Rs. 20,000
per month with adjustment/deduction of any amount having been paid in
any other proceedings, from the date of application under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act with further litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000/-, as
ordered on 08.09.2015, having not been paid leading to the striking off the
defence of the respondent-husband vide order dated 07.12.2015 and
thereafter also, the case having been adjourned on various occasions,
3 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 4
referred to the mediation at the request of the counsel, which failed, the case
having been listed in Court on 31.05.2017 when the counsel pleaded no
instructions, notice having been issued where he has been served but chose
not to appear, case adjourned for today still the respondent having not put in
appearance in Court shows his conduct and intention of not wilfully
complying with the order passed by this Court. This has resulted in
depriving the appellant-wife of her right of maintaining herself dignifiedly
despite he being capable of paying as it is not the stand of the respondent-
husband and further as stated by Mr. A.S.Dhindsa, Advocate, who had been
representing the respondent-husband, that despite he having informed and
conveyed the order of maintenance, the appellant-husband has failed to do
so and is not even responding to the telephonic calls of his counsel, leaves
no manner of doubt that the respondent is intentionally, wilfully and
deliberately not complying with the order passed by this Court despite his
capability and capacity to pay.
6. It is true that under the Hindu Marriage Act, nothing has been
mentioned with regard to the consequences for non-compliance of the order
passed under Section 24 of the said Act. The remedy, no doubt, of filing an
execution petition as provided for under Section 28-A of the Hindu
Marriage Act for recovery of the dues of maintenance pendente-lite would
be available which is obviously a long, cumbersome and arduous process
leading to waiting period which may last years in some cases. That would
frustrate the very purpose, for which an order under Section 24 of the H.M.
Act has been passed i.e. for providing maintenance to the spouse for
sustenance and leading a dignified life, which is the responsibility of the
other who is better off. In other words, the needy/indigent spouse would
4 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 5
virtually have no funds to prosecute the proceedings and would be left to
starve and expose itself to various unfortunate situations and vagaries of
life.
7. Payment of interim maintenance and litigation expenses is
ordered to a spouse, who is financially weak, so as to infuse strength, ability
and confidence which will enable the indigent/financially weak spouse to
protect, fight, litigate and enforce her/his rights conferred by law and that
too, effectively. Delay in payment would not only be against the very intent
of Section 24 of the H.M. Act but against the very spirit of this Statute i.e.
H.M. Act. The urgency attached by the legislature to the proceedings under
the H.M. Act is apparent, rather spelt out in Section 21-B which puts the
onus on the Court to endeavour to conclude the trial within six months from
the date of service of respondent by holding day to day proceedings and
similarly the appeal within three months. In any case, matrimonial
proceedings, by the very nature thereof, require expeditious finalization
because what would a person gain if it takes years together to culminate
when the prime of the age is lost as the time would not wait for anyone nor
does the aging process.
8. This in mind, when the Court comes across a situation where
the defaulter, despite being aware of the order of maintenance in favour of
the spouse, having means and resources, adopting a grossly lackluster
attitude towards the indigent spouse so as to discourage, dishearten, harass
and coerce him/her, fails to pay despite being given opportunity to
discharge the liability as per the order, the Court would not dance to his
tune nor can it sit as a mute spectator to such an approach of the party. If the
defaulter willfully neglects and/or refuses to comply with the order, there
5 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 6
can be no reason why the said defaulter should not be required to face the
consequences. In these circumstances, merely by staying the hearing of the
appeal for indefinite time will not meet the ends of justice as the sword of
uncertainty, which has been hanging over the harassed and harried spouse
for long, would continue to be so especially when there is no hope that the
defaulter will discharge his duty by complying with the order passed by the
Court. By relegating, at this stage, the aggrieved claimant for realization of
the amount and the arrears as ordered under Section 24 of the H.M. Act by
taking recourse to execution proceedings would be pushing the indigent
spouse into another lengthy and undesirable litigation and in this process
meanwhile, the matrimonial Court will find itself in a difficult, if not
impossible, situation/position to decide the case expeditiously, which is the
requirement of the Statute. In case it proceeds to decide the case without
insisting on the compliance of the order passed under Section 24, the
purpose and mandate as also the intent of the Section stands negated and
frustrated resulting in denial of justice to a person who is entitled to reap the
fruits of the order passed by the Court in her/his favour. This would amount
to giving a premier to the defaulting spouse, encouraging him/her to violate
and not comply with the order of the Court. In other words, being a party to
misuse of the process of law.
9. Should the Court leave such a needy and indigent spouse alone
to fend for self? Is the Court helpless and powerless in the light of there
being no efficacious specified procedural remedy provided for under the
Statute?
10. This can never be so nor can the Courts be at the mercy of the
defaulters. The Court is neither powerless nor helpless as the remedy is
6 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 7
available under Section 21 of the H.M. Act, which makes Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 applicable to all proceedings, as far as may be, subject to the
provisions of H.M. Act and rules as the High Court may make in this behalf.
11. Since the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as
‘CPC’) is applicable, in our considered view, when the H.M. Act is silent
and does not provide for any remedy to the above situation, resort to Section
151 CPC for enforcement of order passed under Section 24 of the H.M. Act
can be had. This Section 151 CPC empowers the Courts by conferring
inherent powers which enables the Courts to make such orders as may be
necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the
Court.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the case of M/s Ram
Chand and Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kanhaya Lal Bhargava and
others, AIR 1966 SC 1899, has held that the provisions of Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked by the Court which confers
inherent powers on the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for
the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Nothing
in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power
of the Court for the two above referred purposes. It has been clarified
further by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vareed Jacob vs. Sosamma
Geevarghese and others, 2004 (6) SCC 378 that the inherent power of the
Court is in addition to and complimentary to the powers conferred under the
Code of Civil Procedure expressly or by implication. This power will not be
exercised if it is inconsistent with or comes into conflict with any of the
powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred by the other
provisions of the Code. Object of Section 151 CPC is to supplement and not
7 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 8
to override or evade other expressed provisions of CPC or other Statute (ref.
State of U.P. vs. Roshan Singh, 2008 (2) SCC 488). However, power
under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercised or
used to re-open the settled matters.
13. Subject to the above riders, it can be said that the Court can
exercise the powers under Section 151 CPC to ensure and see that the orders
passed by the Court under Section 24 of H.M. Act are given effect to and
complied with when there is no specific effective and speedy procedure
provided under the Hindu Marriage Act or the Code of Civil Procedure for
ensuring compliance of such orders especially in the light of the the fact that
there is no provision under the Statute forbidding or curtailing exercise of
such powers which could include striking down the defence or the pleadings
of the parties, provided the well recognized, accepted and consistently
followed principle of natural justice of granting an opportunity of hearing is
kept in mind and complied with. Thus, in contingencies, where despite
opportunity/opportunities has/have been given to the erring spouse to
comply with the order passed by the Court but with no result, the Court
being fully empowered to invoke the provisions of Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, can resort to striking out the pleadings, which can be in
the form of the petition/plaint or the reply/written statement, as the case may
be.
14. This Court, in similar circumstances when the orders passed by
this Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act had not been
complied with, has proceeded to strike off the defence of the said erring
spouse resulting in dismissal or allowing of the appeal as the case may be.
Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments passed by this Court
8 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 9
in Kabul Singh vs. Baljinder Kaur, 1995 (1) HLR 341, Gurpreet Singh
vs. Manjit Kaur, 2011 (2) HLR 489, Shanti Devi vs. Sham Lal, 1994 (1)
HLR 205 and Sheela Devi vs. Gurmukh Singh, FAO No. M-1 of 2008
decided on 23.09.2011.
15. As stated above, the orders striking out the defence of the
respondent-husband having been passed by this Court on 07.12.2015 under
Section 151 CPC for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on
08.09.2015, this appeal has to be allowed.
16. In case the order under Section 24 of the H.M. Act has been
passed by the High Court directing the respondent after assessment of the
maintenance pendente-lite and the litigation expenses to pay the arrears etc.
within a specified time or by a particular date and if such direction/order is
not complied with, this Court can proceed to initiate contempt proceedings
against the respondent.
17. Another provision under the H.M. Act, which will be relevant
and needs to be considered by the Court, is Section 23 (1) (a), which
specifically bars relief leading to denial of decree of divorce under the H.M.
Act to a party taking advantage of his or her own wrongs or disability for
the purpose of such relief . The Court, in exercise of such powers, can deny
the relief to the erring or defaulting spouse.
18. Section 23 of the H.M. Act is of immense importance relating
to the power and duty of the Court when it comes to the granting or denying
the relief recognized under this Act. This perceives on the premise that the
proceedings under this Act are different from ordinary suits as the standard
of proof required is establishing the ground for relief beyond reasonable
doubt and that too, to the satisfaction of the Court. This is irrespective of
9 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 10
the fact whether there is a defence projected from the other side or not. The
responsibility thus, is cast upon the Court rather it is a duty that all
requirements of law in the Act are fulfilled and the safeguards provided,
especially in this Section, are duly observed and taken care of before
passing a decree. Apart from putting certain bars, emphasis has been laid on
the words connivance, condonation, collusion, unnecessary and improper
delay, which are absolute bars to grant of relief where they apply to a
particular ground, on which relief is being sought.
19. “Section 23 of H.M. Act reads as follows:
“23. Decree in proceedings .(1) In any proceeding under this
Act, whether defended or not, if the court is satisfied that-
(a) any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the
petitioner [except in cases where the relief is sought by him on
the ground specified in sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b) or sub-
clause (c) of clause (ii) of section 5] is not in any way taking
advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose
of such relief, and
(b) where the ground of the petition is the ground
specified [***] in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the
petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connived
at or condoned the act or acts complained of, or where the
ground of the petition is cruelty the petitioner has not in any
manner condoned the cruelty, and
[(bb) when a divorce is sought on the ground of mutual
consent, such consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or
undue influence, and]
10 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 11
(c) [the petition (not being a petition presented under section
11)] is not presented or prosecuted in collusion with the
respondent, and
(d) there has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in
instituting the proceeding, and
(e) there is no other legal ground why relief should not be
granted, then, and in such a case, but not otherwise, the court
shall decree such relief accordingly.
(2) Before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall
be the duty of the court in the first instance, in every case
where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and
circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring
about a reconciliation between the parties:
[Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall
apply to any proceeding wherein relief is sought on any of
the grounds specified in clause (ii), clause (iii), clause (iv),
clause (v), clause (vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of
section 13.]
[(3) For the purpose of aiding the court in bringing about such
reconciliation, the court may, if the parties so desire or if the
court thinks it just and proper so to do, adjourn the
proceedings for a reasonable period not exceeding fifteen days
and refer the matter to any person named by the parties in this
behalf or to any person nominated by the court if the parties
fail to name any person, with directions to report to the court
as to whether reconciliation can be and has been, effected and
11 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 12the court shall in disposing of the proceeding have due regard
to the report.]
[(4) In every case where a marriage is dissolved by a decree of
divorce, the court passing the decree shall give a copy thereof
free of cost to each of the parties.]”
The language, which is used in the Section, puts fetters upon the relief,
which can be granted under the H.M. Act and a decree can be denied to a
petitioner who, in any way, takes advantage of his or her own wrong or
disability for the purpose of such relief as claimed.
20. Reading of Sub-Section (1) (a) of Section 23 of the H.M. Act
leads us to a conclusion that a petition must be dismissed in case the Court
is satisfied, although the petitioner may have been able to establish the
ground for granting the relief, but is taking advantage, in any way, of his or
her own wrong or disability for the purpose of relief as envisaged therein.
Thus, the conduct of the parties has to be monitored as also the disability
and if that does not fall within the parameters of this provision, the decree
can be denied. Therefore, it has to be the satisfaction of the Court that no
advantage has been taken by the petitioner of his wrong or disability despite
the ground having been established for grant of relief under the Act. The
rule is based on the principle of justice that the wrong doer should not be
permitted to take advantage of his or her own wrong or disability while
seeking relief at the hands of the Court in any matrimonial proceedings.
The word ‘wrong’ should be an act or misconduct by a party, which is
serious enough so as to deny relief and, therefore, it cannot be given a
liberal application. The term ‘wrong’ should and must mean an act or
omission, which causes an injury to the other side, which would be of such a
12 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 13
nature as would fall within the ambit of Section 23 (1) (a) of the H.M. Act.
Therefore, whether an act or omission would be termed as wrong under
Section 23 (1) (a) of the H.M. Act would be dependent upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.
21. This leads us to a question where a spouse, despite having been
given opportunities to discharge the liability of payment of the arrears as per
the assessed maintenance pendente-lite and/or litigation expenses by a
Court under Section 24 of the H.M. Act, has chosen not to pay and/or has
refused to do so. Will this act and conduct of such a spouse amount to
committing a wrong within the meaning of Section 23 of H.M. Act and
taking advantage thereof for the purpose of the grant of relief?
22. Similar issue cropped up in the case of Hirachand Srinivas
Managaonkar vs. Sunanda, 2001 (4) SCC 125, wherein the Court while
dealing with the language of Section 23 has held as follows:-
“12. xxx xxx xxx The very language of
Section 23 shows that it governs every proceeding under the
Act and a duty is cast on the Court to decree the relief sought
only if the conditions mentioned in the sub-section are satisfied,
and not otherwise. xxx xxx xxx”
The Court further dealt with the issue whether the appellant-husband, by
refusing to pay maintenance to the wife, has committed a ‘wrong’ within the
meaning of Section 23 and whether in seeking the relief of divorce, he is
taking advantage of his own wrong. On consideration, the Court held that
by refusing to pay maintenance to the wife, the appellant has failed to act as
a husband thereby committed a wrong within the meaning of Section 23 of
the H.M. Act. It was further held that Section 23 (1) (a) does not give a
13 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 14
vested right to a petitioner for getting the relief of decree of divorce against
the other party merely on showing that the ground in support of the relief as
sought and stated in the petition exists but the claimed relief can only be
granted in case the Court is satisfied that the petitioner is not, in any way,
taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of
such relief. The Court finally held that the husband has failed to pay the
maintenance to the wife despite having an opportunity, therefore, in those
circumstances, it can reasonably be said that he not only commits the
matrimonial wrong in refusing to maintain his wife but further estranged the
relationship creating acrimony rendering any reapproachment impossible
but also tries to take advantage of the said ‘wrong’ for getting the relief of
divorce. Such conduct in committing a default cannot be brushed aside by
the Court and would be sufficient reason for disentitling him to get a decree
of divorce.
23. This Court in Subhash vs. Sheela Devi, 2007 (1) RCR (Civil)
165 as also in Jai Bhagwan vs. Kamlesh, 2005 (3) RCR (Civil) 224, has,
where the husband had failed to pay the maintenance pendente-lite and
litigation expenses despite having been given opportunity to do so, held that
such an act of the husband would amount to committing wrong under
Section 23 of the H.M. Act disentitling him to the relief claimed by him
under the H.M. Act.
24. In view of the above, it is held that non-payment of
maintenance pendente-lite and/or litigation expenses by the spouse, as
ordered or directed by the Court, despite opportunity having been given,
would amount to wrong within the meaning of Section 23 of the H.M. Act
leading to the conclusion that the said spouse is taking advantage of his/her
14 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 15
own wrong disentitling the said spouse the relief claimed under the H.M.
Act.
25. Having answered the questions, we now proceed to consider
the case in hand. In the present case, the orders passed by this Court having
not been complied with despite various opportunities having been given to
the respondent-husband and the counsel, who had appeared for him earlier,
having stated that he has no instructions and requesting for issuance of
notice to the respondent-husband, who, on such notice having been issued,
chooses not to appear despite being served rather evade appearance before
this Court with an intention to avoid payment of maintenance pendente-lite
and litigation expenses, cannot be, thus, permitted to disregard the order
passed by this Court. This Court is left with no option but to proceed in the
matter as per the powers conferred under Section 23 (1) (a) of the H.M. Act
and hold that the respondent-husband by not paying the maintenance
pendente-lite and litigation expenses as well as arrears, has committed a
wrong and is taking advantage of his own wrong for the purpose of claiming
relief of divorce, which dis-entitles him to such decree. Thus, the appeal
deserved to be allowed of the appellant-wife for this reason also.
26. In view of the above, the Court proceeds to pass a
consequential order as the defence of the respondent stands struck off on
07.12.2015. The effect thereof is that the respondent-husband is not entitled
to press his pleas in the petition i.e. the pleadings of the respondent-
husband contained in the petition filed by him, under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act have no existence in the eyes of law. Since there is no
petition in the eyes of law on the record, the present appeal has to be
allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.01.2014 passed by
15 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::
FAO-M-371-2014 (OM) 16
the Additional District Judge, Patiala, are to be set aside.
27. Ordered accordingly.
28. Decree sheet be drawn.
(M.M.S.BEDI) (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE JUDGE
December 02nd, 2017
pj
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
16 of 16
09-12-2017 04:47:05 :::