IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CCP No. [SECTION]0 of [SECTION]008 in CS(OS) [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 AARTI SABHARWAL Petitioner Through: Mr. [ENTITY], Senior Advocate with Mr.[ENTITY] and Mr. [ENTITY], Advocates. versus JITENDER SINGH CHOPRA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. [ENTITY], Senior Advocate with Mr. [ENTITY] and Mr. [ENTITY], Advocates for Defendants [SECTION] & 3. Mr. [ENTITY], Senior Advocate with Mr. [ENTITY] and Mr. [ENTITY], Advocates for Contemnor/Respondent No.6/Applicant in IA No. 9739/[SECTION]009. None for Defendant No.1. WITH CS(OS) [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 AARTI SABHARWAL Plaintiff Through: Mr. [ENTITY], Senior Advocate with Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate. versus JITENDER SINGH CHOPRA & ORS. Defendants Through: Mr. [ENTITY], Senior Advocate with Mr. [ENTITY] and Mr. [ENTITY], Advocates for Defendants [SECTION] & 3. None for Defendant No.1. CORAM: CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 1 of [SECTION]4 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] 1.Whether reporters of the local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? No [SECTION].To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Yes Digest ? ORDER
[SECTION].08.[SECTION]009 CCP No. [SECTION]0 of [SECTION]008 in CS(OS) [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 & I.A.No. 4037/[SECTION]009 in
1. This is a contempt petition filed by the Plaintiff in CS (OS) No. [SECTION]76 of [SECTION]007 seeking punishment of the respondents/contemnors for willful disobedience of the order dated 15th February [SECTION]007 passed by this Court in the suit.
[SECTION]. The background to the filing of the present petition is that the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) was married to the Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 (in the suit) on [SECTION]7th October [SECTION]004. On account of the differences that arose between the parties, the Plaintiff lodged a complaint against Defendant No.1 (husband), Defendant No.[SECTION] (father-in-law), Defendant No.3 (mother-in-law) with the Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi under [SECTION] [ACT]. Pursuant thereto an FIR was registered against the three Defendants on 3rd January [SECTION]007.
3. The Plaintiff also instituted proceedings against the Defendants under the CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page [SECTION] of [SECTION]4 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, [SECTION]005 ([ACT]) claiming inter alia maintenance and right of residence and interim orders on those terms.
4. The proceedings under the [ACT] before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), New Delhi witnessed the passing of an interim order in favour of the Plaintiff on 7th December [SECTION]006 directing the Respondents "not to dispose of the shared household i.e. 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli." The said interim order was continued on 11th December [SECTION]006 and again on 1[SECTION]th December [SECTION]006 till [SECTION]th December [SECTION]006. A perusal of the order passed by the learned MM on [SECTION]th December [SECTION]006 shows that the said interim order was not continued thereafter.
5. The present suit was filed by the Plaintiff on 14 th February [SECTION]007 under [SECTION] of the [ACT], [SECTION]56 ([ACT]) seeking the following relief:
"(a) pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents, attorneys from selling, alienating or creating any third party interests in property No. 3[SECTION] Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi and Hotel Clarimont at Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Aaya Nagar, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
(b) pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring the Divorce Proceedings filed by Defendant No.1 before Guildford Country Court, U.K. as void and without CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 3 of [SECTION]4 jurisdiction and that the law applicable would be the Indian law and in the meantime restrain the Defendant No.1 from pursuing the same.
(c) pass a decree of maintenance under the [ACT] and award a monthly maintenance of Rs.7.5 lacs or any other amount as adjudicated by the Honble Court on the basis of status and income of defendants plus right of residence to the Plaintiff."
6. The averments, inter alia, in the plaint were that the Defendant No.1who was a British passport holder had moved to the United Kingdom (U.K) to file a divorce petition against the Plaintiff there. On receipt of summons she sent a letter to the said court pointing out inter alia that the allegations made by Defendant No.1 are false and that she has no resources to defend herself in the courts in UK. In the meanwhile the Plaintiff who had returned to Delhi from Dubai, where the parties were last residing together, tried to enter her matrimonial home at 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi where Defendants [SECTION] and 3 were also residing. She was however threatened with dire consequences and her life was threatened as well. It was only thereafter that she filed an application under the [ACT] on 5th December [SECTION]006 seeking the reliefs as noticed hereinbefore. It was averred in the plaint that "the Plaintiff had learnt that Defendants [SECTION] to 4 in connivance with each other and at the behest of Defendant No.1 were trying to sell the immovable properties in Delhi/Gurgaon which directly or indirectly belong to Defendant CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 4 of [SECTION]4 No.1 by virtue of a so-called Power of Attorney given in favour of Defendant No.[SECTION] by the said Defendant No.1." It was apprehended that the Defendants were attempting to defeat the claim of the Plaintiff for maintenance and damages.
7. In para [SECTION]3 of the plaint the Plaintiff has described the immovable properties which according to her constituted the shared household. These included the property at 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi and a Motel by the name of "Clarimount" in Aaya Nagar Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi. It was claimed that there was also a flat in Gurgaon the details of which were not known to the Plaintiff. In para 31 the Plaintiff asserted that "being legally wedded wife of Defendant No.1 and daughter-in-law of Defendant Nos. [SECTION] & 3 is entitled to maintenance under the [ACT], [SECTION]56. This Honble Court and the Honble Supreme Court of India has held that the wife was entitled to 1/3 rd of husbands income as maintenance. The Plaintiff is entitled to the entire hotel property as it belongs to Defendant No.1/husband."
8. Thereafter in the same paragraph the assets and business establishment of the Defendants "to the best of the knowledge of the Plaintiff" were set out. and the properties included Farm House at 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi and Hotel Clairmont in Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Aaya Nagar, New Delhi.
CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 5 of [SECTION]4
9. Along with the suit the Plaintiff also filed an application being IA No.1711 of [SECTION]007 under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] seeking an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from disposing of or alienating the aforementioned properties during the pendency of the suit.
10. On 15th February [SECTION]007 the order passed by this Court in IA No. 1711 of [SECTION]007 reads as under:
"Notice. Mr.[ENTITY] accepts notice and states that there is already an order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the criminal proceedings filed by the petitioner under [SECTION] of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, [SECTION]005 to the effect that the property bearing No. 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farm, Mehrauli, New Delhi, shall not be disposed of, alienated, sold or third party interest created. He states that the defendant would abide by the said order. The defendants are additionally restrained from selling, alienating or creating any third party interest in Hotel Clairmont, Aya Nagar, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Mr. [ENTITY] further states that defendants No.[SECTION] and 4 shall not leave the country without the permission of the Court till the next date of hearing. Reply be filed within one week. Rejoinder be filed within one week thereafter.
List on 5.3.[SECTION]007."
11. The proceedings in the suit show that the said interim order was continued on 5th March [SECTION]007. On 1[SECTION]th March [SECTION]007 there was an interim CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 6 of [SECTION]4 order restraining Defendant No.1 from pursuing the divorce proceedings in the court in UK. The interim order was continued on 10th May [SECTION]007 as well.
1[SECTION]. It appears that in the meanwhile the learned MM took up for consideration the application for interim maintenance and other reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in the proceedings under the [ACT]. By an order dated [SECTION]8th May [SECTION]007 the learned MM restricted the interim relief granted to the Plaintiff to that of Rs.30,000/- per month for accommodation charges and Rs.70,000/- per month for maintenance. It was held by the learned MM in the said order dated [SECTION]8th May [SECTION]007 "that so far as Respondents [SECTION] to 4 are concerned, in my opinion they are not liable to provide accommodation and maintenance to the complainant." It may be mentioned here that Respondent No.4 referred to above is the brother of the husband. To complete this part of the narration it should be noticed that thereafter on [SECTION]th February [SECTION]009 the learned MM dismissed the petition under the [ACT] for default.
13. Meanwhile the present suit was again listed before this Court on 6th June [SECTION]007. Defendant No.[SECTION] sought modification of the interim order dated 15 th February [SECTION]007 seeking permission to travel abroad. Learned counsel for the Defendant No.[SECTION] referred to the earlier order dated 15th February [SECTION]007 restraining the Defendants from alienating or creating third party interests in both properties i.e. Hotel Clairmont, Aaya Nagar, New Delhi and 3[SECTION], CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 7 of [SECTION]4 Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi and submitted that "his clients would be bound by the order dated 15th February [SECTION]007 and undertake to comply with the orders." The case was thereafter listed on 7 th August [SECTION]007. On that date the interim order was not continued. However on 9th October [SECTION]007 it was continued.
14. On [SECTION]th January [SECTION]008 the following order was passed by this Court:
"It is stated by the learned Counsel for Defendants No. 1 and 4 that two applications, one on behalf of Defendant No. 1 and her on behalf of Defendant No. 4 for condonation of delay in filing WS were filed but same are not on record. Learned Counsel seeks time to check with the Registry.
The matter be listed on [SECTION][SECTION]nd May, [SECTION]008 Parties shall file all documents within four weeks. No further opportunity shall be given for filing documents.
Interim order to continue till then."
15. The immediate next date of hearing was [SECTION][SECTION]nd May [SECTION]008 when the following order was passed:
"It is stated by Counsel for the parties that parties are trying for a negotiated settlement.
List on 17th November, [SECTION]008."
16. What is significant is that on [SECTION][SECTION]nd May [SECTION]008 the interim order which was to expire on that day was not continued. In fact, this is the main bone of CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 8 of [SECTION]4 contention as far as the present contempt petition is concerned because of what transpired between [SECTION][SECTION]nd May [SECTION]008 and the next date i.e. 17th November, [SECTION]008.
17. On 9th June [SECTION]008 the property at 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi was sold by Defendant No.3 by a registered sale deed to Aarken Advisors Pvt. Ltd., which has since been impleaded as Respondent No.6 in the contempt petition.
[SECTION]. The present petition was filed on [SECTION]9th February [SECTION]008 in which it was inter alia stated that the Respondents 1 to 3 had willfully disobeyed the interim orders passed by this Court on 15th February [SECTION]007 which was thereafter continued from time to time. As regards the property i.e. Hotel Clairmont, Aaya Nagar, Mehrauli, New Delhi it was alleged that Defendants [SECTION] and 3 had sometime in May/June [SECTION]008 increased the share capital of the Fountainhead Motels Pvt. Ltd. (FMPL), of which they were Directors, and which company was in fact running Hotel Clairmont. It is alleged that they increased the shared capital from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.15 lakhs, appointed [ENTITY] (Respondent No.4 in the contempt petition) as a Managing Director on [SECTION]nd June [SECTION]008. Earlier on 1[SECTION]th May [SECTION]008 a mortgage was created in favour of one [ENTITY] (Respondent No.5 in the contempt petition) for a loan of Rs.7,76,00,000. It is alleged that Respondents 4 and 5 were in total control of Hotel Clairmont. It is submitted that by this method the CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 9 of [SECTION]4 Respondents [SECTION] and 3 had in willful disobedience of the interim orders, created a third party interest on the property at Aya Nagar, Mehrauli, New Delhi in favour of the said [ENTITY]. A cash receipt evidencing the loan taken from [ENTITY] and photocopies of Form 8 and Form [SECTION]3 filed pursuant to [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Companies Act, [SECTION]56 have been placed on record. As regards the property at Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi it was averred in para 13 "Respondents 1-3 have also apparently sold 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi in violation of the undertaking given to this Honble Court."
[SECTION]. In reply to the contempt petition it was pointed out by Defendants/Respondents [SECTION] and 3 that they had in fact not violated or willfully disobeyed any of the orders passed by this Court. It was submitted that the learned MM in fact did not continue the restraint orders vis vis the property at 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi beyond [SECTION]th December [SECTION]006. Therefore as on 15th February [SECTION]007 when the suit was listed before this Court an erroneous statement was made on behalf of the Defendants to this court by their counsel that the said restraint order will be continued to be obeyed by them. The other statements made from time to time including the one on 6th June [SECTION]007 are also stated to have been made under some mistaken impression that the interim order passed by the learned MM prior to [SECTION]th December [SECTION]006 was continuing. It is contended that the interim order passed by this Court was not continued in any event beyond CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 10 of [SECTION]4 [SECTION][SECTION]nd May [SECTION]008. The sale deed was executed only thereafter on 9th June [SECTION]008 and therefore as regards the property at 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi the sale by Respondent/Defendant No.3 to Aarken Advisors Pvt.Ltd. was not in disobedience of the interim order dated 15 th February [SECTION]007. As regards the property at Aya Nagar, Mehrauli it is submitted that the property was purchased by FMPL by virtue of a sale deed dated [SECTION]9th March [SECTION]006 much prior to the commencement of the matrimonial dispute. It is denied that there has been any alleged transfer of shares which can amount to a disobedience of the interim order passed by this Court. It is denied that the Respondents had sold their interests in the property as alleged by the plaintiff.
[SECTION]0. The case of Respondent No.6 is that he is a bonafide purchaser. It is pointed out that as early as on 17th November [SECTION]006 an agreement was executed whereby by Respondent/Defendant No.3 agreed to sell the property at 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi to Respondent No.6. Of the total consideration of Rs.15 crores for which the property was agreed to be sold, a sum of Rs.5 crores already stood paid to Defendant No.3 even prior to the execution of the sale deed. It is submitted that although in para [SECTION]5 of the plaint the Plaintiff acknowledges that she was aware of the sale transaction, and even named Respondent No.6, she chose not to make Respondent No.6 as a necessary and appropriate party to the suit. It is submitted that the interim order which was adverse to the Respondent No.6 CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 11 of [SECTION]4 was obtained behind the back of Respondent No.6 by the Plaintiff. It may be mentioned here that Respondent No.6 has also filed IA No. 9047 of [SECTION]009 seeking to intervene in IA No. 4037 of [SECTION]009 filed by Defendants under [SECTION] [ACT].
[SECTION]1. The submissions of Mr. [ENTITY], learned Senior counsel appearing for the Plaintiff, Mr. [ENTITY], learned Senior counsel appearing for the Defendants and Mr. [ENTITY], learned Senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 have been heard.
[SECTION][SECTION]. It is submitted by Mr. [ENTITY] that a perusal of the sale deed dated [SECTION]9 th March [SECTION]006 by which the property at Aya Nagar was purchased by FMPL would show that it was in fact a sham transaction. The sale was made by Defendant No.1 to FMPL a company of which Defendant No.[SECTION] was the Director. In fact, Defendant No.[SECTION] himself signed the sale deed as a power of attorney of Defendant No.1. It was submitted that this was only to defeat the rights of the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the parties were attempting to settle their disputes and on [SECTION]9th March [SECTION]007 the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dealing with the proceedings under the [ACT] recorded the terms of settlement. In terms thereof a sum of Rs.4 crores and property worth Rs.60 lakhs was to be given to the Plaintiff. However the Respondents at the last moment backed out of the settlement leaving the Plaintiff without any option but to pursue the proceedings under the CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 1[SECTION] of [SECTION]4 [ACT]. It is submitted that there are averments in the plaint which at this stage have to be taken at its face value, which show that the funding for the properties both at Aaya Nagar as well as Sultanpur Farms was provided by Defendant No.1. According to the Plaintiff her claim for maintenance is essentially against Defendant No.1 and in order to recover maintenance she lays claim to the properties of Defendant No.1 which are held benami.
[SECTION]3. It is pointed out by Mr. [ENTITY] that the bar under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, [SECTION]98 ([ACT]) would not apply in such instances because the Plaintiff is not seeking any declaration vis vis these properties as a rightful owner herself. The Plaintiff is only claiming that her husband Defendant No.1 is a rightful owner and that these properties should be made available for her to recover maintenance due to her from him. Likewise, the claim for maintenance under the [ACT] is also essentially against the husband. Insofar as the properties are being held benami by either Defendants [SECTION] or 3, they become necessary parties to the suit. It is further submitted that Respondent No.6 is not a bonafide purchaser as the agreement to sell dated 17th November [SECTION]006 did not create any right in his favour. [SECTION] of the [ACT] is referred to. The Plaintiff contests the claim of Respondent No.6 that he is a bonafide purchaser of the property at 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 13 of [SECTION]4
[SECTION]4. Mr. [ENTITY] also refers to the definition of the word fiduciary as set out in the Law Lexicon-cum-Digest and refers to [SECTION] of the Indian Contract Act, [SECTION]7[SECTION] to contend that Defendant No.3 was entirely under the control of her son as far as the transaction by which she either got title to the property at 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi or sold it subsequently to Respondent No.6. In the circumstances, according to Mr. [ENTITY], there is no need for a specific prayer to seek cancellation of the documents of title by which Defendant No.3 was claiming to be the sole owner of the said property or of her right to convey absolute title by way of a sale to Respondent No.6.
[SECTION]5. On behalf of Defendants [SECTION] and 3 it is submitted by Mr. [ENTITY] that the sale deed dated 9th June [SECTION]008 executed by Defendant No.3 in favour of Respondent No.6 was not in fact in willful disobedience of any interim order passed by this Court. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana ([SECTION]007) 3 SCC 470 he pointed out that the interim order cannot be said to have been extended beyond [SECTION][SECTION]nd May [SECTION]008. It is pointed out that there is a bar to laying a claim for maintenance against Defendants [SECTION] and 3 under [SECTION] [ACT]. That section makes it absolutely clear that such a claim is maintainable only against the husband. Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in [ENTITY] v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel ([SECTION]008) 4 SCC 649.
CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 14 of [SECTION]4
[SECTION]6. Mr. [ENTITY] also questions the resort to filing of the contempt petition for alleged disobedience of the interim orders passed by this Court. The appropriate remedy would be to file a petition, if any, under [SECTION] [ACT]. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Ishwar Industries Ltd. v. The Crocus Chattels Pvt. Ltd. 1[SECTION]8 ([SECTION]006) DLT 10. Mr. [ENTITY] also distinguishes the judgment in Radhika Narang v. Kuldeep Narang 156 ([SECTION]009) DLT 637 (DB) relied upon by Mr. [ENTITY] as the question whether the Plaintiff is entitled to seek maintenance at all under [SECTION] [ACT] against her father-in-law or mother-in-law was not decided in the said case.
[SECTION]7. Essentially on the same averments the Defendants [SECTION] and 3 have filed IA No. 4037 of [SECTION]009 under [SECTION] [ACT]. The specific ground on which rejection of the plaint is sought is that the suit as presently formed does not disclose any cause of action vis vis Defendants [SECTION] and 3. It is submitted no claim for maintenance can be made against either of them under [SECTION] [ACT]. The claim to the immovable properties owned either by FMPL absolutely or Defendant No.3 in her individual capacity, which was subsequently sold to Respondent No.6, would be barred under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. In any event there is no prayer for cancelling the title deeds by which these parties became the legal owners of the properties in question. Inasmuch there is an express bar to the in-laws to the relief being granted, the plaint be rejected as regards Defendants [SECTION] and 3.
CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 15 of [SECTION]4
[SECTION]8. The Court would first like to take up for consideration the issue whether Defendants [SECTION] and 3 can be said to be in contempt of the order dated 15th February [SECTION]007 passed by this Court in IA No. 1711 of [SECTION]007.
[SECTION]9. A perusal of the record of proceedings in petition under the [ACT] before the learned MM shows that the interim order restraining the Respondents from transferring or creating third party interests in respect of property at 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi was not continued beyond [SECTION]th December [SECTION]006. Clearly on the date (15th February [SECTION]007) the statement was made before this court by learned counsel for Defendants that the Defendants would abide by the said interim order passed by the learned MM, the said order was not operative. Nevertheless, this Court is not prepared to go only by this position. As long as learned counsel for the Defendants did undertake before this Court that the Defendants would abide by the order of the learned MM, even if it had come to an end by that date, it should be taken that the Defendants bound themselves not to alienate, sell or create third party interest in respect of the said properties.
30. For the same reason this Court is prepared to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the Plaintiff that this position continued at least till [SECTION][SECTION] nd May [SECTION]008. The difficulty however is that the interim order which was continued by this Court till [SECTION][SECTION]nd May [SECTION]008 was not continued thereafter. A perusal of the order dated [SECTION][SECTION]nd May [SECTION]008 as extracted hereinbefore shows CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 16 of [SECTION]4 that the case was listed thereafter only on 17th November [SECTION]008 by which time the sale deed had been executed. A similar question was considered by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana ([SECTION]007) 3 SCC 470. It was held in paras 1[SECTION] and 13 as under:
"1[SECTION]. The term of the order of the learned Judge, in our opinion, does not leave any manner of doubt whatsoever that the interim order was only extended from time to time. The interim order having been extended till a particular date, the contention raised by the respondents herein that they were under a bona fide belief that the injunction order would continue till it was vacated cannot be accepted.
13. In our considered opinion, the purport of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panipat, in extending the order of injunction is absolutely clear and explicit. It may be true that the date was preponed to [SECTION]8-7-[SECTION]88, but from a bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, it is evident that the order of injunction was not extended. Even on the subsequent dates, the order of injunction was not extended. In fact, no order extending the period was passed nor any fresh order of injunction was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, subsequent thereto."
It is not possible therefore for this Court to accept the submissions of the Defendants that the execution of the sale deed dated 9 th June [SECTION]008 was in violation of an interim order passed by the court as far as the property at 3[SECTION], CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page 17 of [SECTION]4 Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi is concerned.
31. As regards the property at Aya Nagar, Mehrauli, New Delhi, this Court is really not called upon to decide whether the sale deed dated [SECTION]9 th March [SECTION]006 by which this property was sold to FMPL was a sham transaction. There is no prayer sought for in the suit in that regard. In any event the said transaction obviously took place long before any interim order was passed in respect thereof by any court. While the documents placed on record prima facie show that a loan of Rs.7.76 crores was taken from [ENTITY] by FMPL, they do not describe the property on which the charge was created. Significantly, FMPL is itself neither a party to the suit nor a party to the contempt petition. It cannot therefore be urged that the interim order dated 15th February [SECTION]007 bound FMPL. There has been no attempt by the Plaintiff to implead the said entity either in the suit or in the contempt petition. In the circumstances, this Court is unable to hold that Defendants [SECTION] or 3 or any of the other Respondents are liable for contempt as having violated the order dated 15th February [SECTION]007 which was continued till [SECTION][SECTION]nd May [SECTION]008.
3[SECTION]. In view of the above findings this Court finds no merit in the contempt petition and it is dismissed as such. The contempt notices to the respondents/contemnors stand discharged.
IA No.4037/[SECTION]009 in CS (OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007
33. Now the Court takes up for consideration the application under Order CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page [SECTION] of [SECTION]4 VII [SECTION] [ACT]. The suit is one under [SECTION] [ACT]. A perusal of the said Section shows that the wife is entitled to claim maintenance only from her husband and not from any other relation to her husband. The definition of word maintenance under [SECTION] makes it apparent that no claim for maintenance can be made under [SECTION] [ACT] by a wife against either the father-in-law or the mother-in-law. A similar question arose for consideration before the Supreme Court in [ENTITY]. After referring to [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT], it was observed as under in para [SECTION]4:
"[SECTION]4. [SECTION] provides for a non obstante clause. In terms of the said provision itself any obligation on the part of in-laws in terms of any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of law before the commencement of the Act, are no longer valid. In view of the non obstante clause contained in [SECTION], the provisions of the Act alone are applicable. [SECTION] and [SECTION] prescribe the statutory liabilities in regard to maintenance of wife by her husband and only on his death upon the father-in-law, Mother-in-law, thus, cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughter-in-law from her own property or otherwise."
The other observation in para [SECTION]7 of the same judgment about the wife being entitled to higher right under the [ACT] does not really advance the case of the Plaintiff here. In any event as already noticed, the petition filed by the Plaintiff under the [ACT] has been dismissed for default. As such, CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page [SECTION] of [SECTION]4 therefore, the prayer in the suit for grant of maintenance is incapable of being granted to the Plaintiff insofar as Defendants [SECTION] and 3 are concerned.
34. The case made out in the plaint is that the property at 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi is being held by Defendant No.3 as benami for Defendant No.1, her son. In this context the provisions of the [ACT] require to be noticed. The expression benami is defined under [SECTION] to mean "any transaction in which property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by another person." Under [SECTION] there is a bar to any person entering into a benami transaction. The only exception carved out is under [SECTION] which states that such a bar would not apply to the purchase of a property by any person either in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter. Clearly, the prohibition would apply if the property is purchased in the name of the mother. [SECTION] of the [ACT] imposes a complete prohibition on the right to recover a property held benami. [SECTION] reads as under:
"(1) No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property.
([SECTION]) No defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be allowed in CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page [SECTION]0 of [SECTION]4 any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property.
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply,
(a) where the person in whose name the property is held is a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and the property is held for the benefit of the coparceners in the family; or
(b) where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or other person standing in a fiduciary capacity, and the property is held for the benefit of another person for whom he is a trustee or towards whom he stands in such capacity."
35. It is plain from [SECTION] that no suit shall lie to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held. Even if one were to stretch the argument, as is sought to be done by the Defendants, the plaintiff cannot claim ownership to the suit properties but only lay claim for recovering maintenance from Defendant No.1, who according to her is the real owner of such property. Such a prayer in any event cannot be made on account of [SECTION] [ACT]. It was sought to be contended that under [SECTION] Defendant No.3 was holding the property in fiduciary capacity for Defendant No.1. This event is neither pleaded nor substantiated even prima facie through any document filed along with the plaint. Even if the plaint is read as it stands, no case is made out to show that Defendant No.3 was in fact holding the CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page [SECTION]1 of [SECTION]4 property at 3[SECTION], Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi in any fiduciary capacity for Defendant No.1. Viewed from any angle, the bar under [SECTION] of the [ACT] would apply and prevent the Plaintiff from claiming any relief vis-a-vis the properties shown to be owned by Defendant No.3 and FMPL.
36. There is merit in the contention of Defendant [SECTION] and 3 that the suit should also fail for not seeking any relief of cancellation of the title deeds under which the properties are held either by FMPL or at present by Respondent No.6. For all of the above reasons, this Court is of the view that prayer of Defendants [SECTION] and 3 in the application under [SECTION] [ACT] should succeed. The plaint is accordingly rejected vis vis Defendants [SECTION] and 3. IA No. 9739/[SECTION]009 in CONT. CAS(C) No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008
37. In view of the orders passed in the Contempt Petition, the application is disposed of.
IA No. 1[SECTION]163/[SECTION]008 in CONT. CAS(C) No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008
38. The interim order dated 17th November [SECTION]008 in the present application will stand vacated.
39. The application is dismissed.
IA No. 7940/[SECTION]009 in CS (OS) No.[SECTION]76/[SECTION]007
40. In terms of the order passed in IA No. 4037 of [SECTION]009 under [SECTION] CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page [SECTION][SECTION] of [SECTION]4 [SECTION] [ACT], the application is disposed of.
IA No. 1711/[SECTION]007 in CS (OS) No.[SECTION]76/[SECTION]007
41. It is submitted by learned counsel for Defendants [SECTION] and 3 that the interim order dated 1[SECTION]th March [SECTION]007 restraining Defendant No.1 from pursuing the proceedings in the UK courts does not survive on account of the fact that a decree of divorce has in fact been granted by that court in favour of Defendant No. 1. In that view of the matter, the said interim order also stands vacated as having become infructuous.
4[SECTION]. The application stands dismissed.
IA No. 171[SECTION]/[SECTION]007 in CS (OS) No.[SECTION]76/[SECTION]007
43. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and disposed of as such.
IA No. 8904/[SECTION]007 in CS (OS) No.[SECTION]76/[SECTION]007
44. In terms of the order passed today, the application stands disposed of.
45. Despite filing written statement Defendant No.1 is not appearing. He is accordingly set ex parte.
46. The Plaintiff will file her affidavit by way of evidence before the learned CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page [SECTION]3 of [SECTION]4 Joint Registrar by the next date of hearing.
47. List before the learned Joint Registrar on [SECTION]7th October [SECTION]009 for further proceedings.
[ENTITY], J.
AUGUST [SECTION], [SECTION]009 dn CCP No.[SECTION]0/[SECTION]008 & CS(OS) No. [SECTION]76/[SECTION]007 page [SECTION]4 of [SECTION]4