Shalu Ojha vs Prashant Ojha

3. The appellant is a young woman who got married to the respondent on 20.04.2007 in Delhi according to Hindu rites and customs, pursuant to certain information placed by the respondent on the website known as “Sycorian Matrimonial Services Ltd.”.

4. According to the appellant, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home within four months of the marriage on 14.8.2007. Thereafter, the respondent started pressurizing the appellant to agree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. As the appellant did not agree for the same, the respondent filed a petition for divorce being H.M.A. No.637 of 2007 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 17.10.2007 before the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The said petition was dismissed by an order dated 03.10.2008. Within four months, the respondent filed another petition on 08.04.2009 once again invoking Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, Delhi being H.M.A. No.215 of 2009 and the same on being transferred is pending before the Family Court, Saket and renumbered as H.M.A. No.266 of 2009.

6. The said complaint case came to be disposed of by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi by his order dated 05.07.2012. By the said order, the Magistrate granted an amount of Rs.2.5 lacs towards monthly maintenance of the appellant which included rental charges for alternative accommodation. The respondent was made liable to pay such monthly maintenance from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. from 04.06.2009. The monthly maintenance was made payable on or before 10th of each succeeding month. The learned Magistrate further directed that the arrears of the maintenance be cleared by 05.12.2012.

10. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2013, the respondent filed Crl. Misc. Case No.1975 of 2013 and Crl. Misc. Application No.78-34 of 2013 for interim directions in the High Court of Delhi on 08.05.2013. The High Court initially declined to pass an interim order in the said appeal. Aggrieved by the same the respondent approached this Court in SLP (Crl.) No.6509-6510 of 2013 which was dismissed in limine on 13.08.2013 with a direction to the parties to apply for mediation.

11. Pursuant to the said direction, the respondent filed Crl. Misc. Application No.12547 of 2013 in Crl. Misc. Case No.1975 of 2013 for direction to refer the matter to Mediation. The matter was referred accordingly. Eventually the mediation failed. On receipt of such failure report, the appeal was again listed before the High Court on 10.09.2013. The High Court directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs in two instalments and that the execution petition filed by the appellant for the recovery of the arrears be kept in abeyance.

13. In the said background, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2210 of 2014 in this Court. The said petition came to be disposed of on 31.03.2014 by setting aside the interim stay granted by the High Court on the execution petition filed by the appellant. This Court categorically observed that - it is open to the petitioner to execute the order of maintenance passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and requested the High Court to dispose of the appeal of the respondent expeditiously.

17. The appellant submitted that the income-tax returns of the respondent do not reflect the true picture of the income of the respondent. The appellant pointed out the profile of the respondent placed on the website of “Sycorian Matrimonial Services Ltd.” wherein the respondent’s personal income is shown as Rs.50 lakhs to Rs.1 crore per annum and monthly income of Rs.5 lakhs. He was shown to be a Managing Director or Director of four companies, the details of which are as under:

18. Apart from that, the appellant also placed reliance on a article published in weekly magazine Business World (Issue dated 10.03.2014) wherein some information regarding a posh restaurant known as Zerruco by Zilli at The Ashok, New Delhi was published. The article named the respondent along with one Kashif Farooq as the restaurateurs. According to the article, the restaurant was set up at astounding cost of Rs.7 crore. The relevant portion of the article reads as follows:

(5). The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order under sub-section (1).

32. In a matter arising under a legislation meant for protecting the rights of the women, the High Court should have been slow in granting interim orders, interfering with the orders by which maintenance is granted to the appellant. No doubt, such interim orders are now vacated. In the process the appellant is still awaiting the fruits of maintenance order even after 2 years of the order.

33. We find it difficult to accept that in a highly contested matter like this the appellant would have instructed her counsel not to press her claim for maintenance. In our view, the High Court ought not to have accepted the statement of the counsel without verification. The impugned order is set aside.

34. We are of the opinion that the conduct of the respondent is a gross abuse of the judicial process. We do not see any reason why the respondent’s petition Crl. MC No. 1975 of 2013 should be kept pending. Whatever be the decision of the High Court, one of the parties will (we are sure) approach this Court again thereby delaying the conclusion of the litigation. The interests of justice would be better served if the respondent’s appeal before the Sessions Court is heard and disposed of on merits instead of going into the residuary questions of the authority of the appellate Court to grant interim orders or the legality of the decision of the Sessions Court to dismiss the appeal only on the ground of the non- compliance by the respondent with the conditions of the interim order. The Criminal Appeal No.23/2012 stands restored to the file of the Sessions Court.

35. We also direct that the maintenance order passed by the magistrate be executed forthwith in accordance with law. The executing court should complete the process within 8 weeks and report compliance in the High Court. We make it clear that such hearing by the Sessions Court should only be after the execution of the order of maintenance passed by the Magistrate.

36. In the event of the respondent’s success in the appeal, either in full or part, the Sessions Court can make appropriate orders regarding the payments due to be made by the respondent in the execution proceedings.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

September 18, 2014