Citation : 2008 Local Law (CG) 61
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a decades-old divorce decree after finding that the husband deliberately ignored a court order directing him to pay interim maintenance to his wife. Justice Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh allowed the wife’s appeal and struck off the husband’s defence, noting that his repeated non-compliance left the court with no other option.
The dispute began in 1984 when Ramesh Prasad Pandey filed for divorce before the District Judge in Ambikapur, alleging that his wife suffered from a serious mental disorder that made it impossible for him to live with her. The trial court accepted his claim in 1989, granted the divorce, and the wife challenged that decision shortly after.
During the long-pending appeal, the High Court in July 2006 ordered Pandey to pay his wife monthly maintenance of two thousand rupees along with litigation expenses. Although he was represented by counsel at the time, he made no payment and avoided communication. Notices sent to him were returned with the remark that he had left the address.
When the appeal was taken up again, the wife’s lawyer informed the court that she had not received a single payment and was living in hardship. The court reviewed precedents from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Bombay High Court, both of which held that if a husband refuses to comply with an order for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, his defence may be struck off.
Justice Deshmukh agreed with that view, observing that maintenance orders serve a vital purpose. Forcing a financially dependent spouse to pursue execution proceedings defeats the intent of the law. The court found Pandey’s conduct deliberate and contumacious, and held that his refusal to obey the 2006 order justified striking off his defence entirely.
With no defence remaining, the court allowed the wife’s appeal and reversed the 1989 divorce decree. The judgment restores her marital status and closes a case that has remained unresolved for nearly four decades.
Case Details : F.A. No. 74 of 1989, Shashikala Pandey vs. Ramesh Prasad Pandey (28.04.2008)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents/Defendant: None
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXI Rule 37; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(iii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 24
Cases Referred:
Bani w/o Parkash Singh vs. Parkash Singh ; Vanmala w/o Maroti Hatkar vs. Maroti Sambhaji Hatkar
======
परिवार संबंधी विवाद में मासिक भरण-पोषण के आदेश को लेकर उत्पन्न स्थिति पर विचार करते हुए, प्रथम दृष्टया न्यायाधीश ने यह माना था कि प्रतिवादी/आवेदक ने व्यवहार संबंधी साक्ष्यों के माध्यम से संदेह से परे साबित कर दिया कि अपीलकर्ता/पत्नी असाध्य मानसिक विकार और ऐसी मानसिक स्थिति से पीड़ित है जिससे उसके साथ सामान्य वैवाहिक जीवन संभव नहीं था। इस निर्णय के खिलाफ पत्नी ने अपील दायर की।
अपील की सुनवाई के दौरान यह सामने आया कि पति ने धारा 24, हिंदू विवाह अधिनियम के तहत पारित भरण-पोषण और वाद व्यय के आदेश का पालन नहीं किया। Vanmala v. Maroti Sambhaji Hatkar मामले में बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट ने यह स्पष्ट किया था कि यदि कोई पक्ष धारा 24 के तहत दिए गए आदेश की अवहेलना करता है, तो उसकी रक्षा (defence) को रिकॉर्ड से हटाया जा सकता है।
हाई कोर्ट ने माना कि यह एक उपयुक्त मामला है, जहां न केवल पति का प्रतिरक्षा पक्ष हटाया जाना चाहिए बल्कि पत्नी की अपील भी स्वीकार की जानी चाहिए। परिणामस्वरूप, निचली अदालत का तलाक संबंधी निर्णय और डिक्री रद्द कर दी गई और अपील स्वीकार कर ली गई।
