SHALU OJHAversusPRASHANT OJHA

                           [2017] 8 S.C.R. 642


A                              SHALU OJHA
                                      v.
                             PRASHANT OJHA
                        (SLP (Cr!.) No. 3935 of2016)
B                          SEPTEMBER 04, 2017
               (A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J
           Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:
             s. 12 - Application under - Maintenance sought by wife
C    (appellant) from husband (respondent) - interim maintenance of
     Rs. 2, 50, 0001- per month granted w.ef filing ofcomplaint - Husband
     did not honour the order - Execution petition by wife for recovery
     of arrears of maintenance - Challenge to maintenance order by
     husband declined finally by Supreme Court, while observing that
.D   matter be referred for conciliation - Conciliation failed - High
     Courts order directing the husband to pay Rs. 10 lakhs each in two
     instalments - Wifes application seeking modification ofthe directions
     of High Court seeking entire arrears of maintenance - Appeal by
     wife for vacation of interim stay of execution proceedings - Allowed
     by Supreme Court directing to execute the maintenance order -
E    Despite the order husband since did not clear the arrears, sent to
     judicial custody - Jn application of husband, Supreme Court directed
      the Sessions Court to decide the appeal of the husband on merit -
     Sessions Court reduced the maintenance from Rs. 2,50,0001- P.M.
      to 50,0001- P.M. Wife challenged the order uls. 482 Cr.P. C. -
 F   Husband also filed petition uls. 482 Cr.P. C. seeking further
      reduction of the maintenance amount - Petition of husband
      dismissed by High Court and the order was further affirmed by
      Supreme Court - Pending the petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., wife filed
     present SLP challenging the order of Sessions Judge whereby he
      reduced the maintenance amount - Attempt .of Supreme Court for
·G    amicable solution failed - Family Court directed to decide the
      domestic violence proceedings within a period of eight weeks from
      the date of the present judgment - High Court directed to decide
      the pending application filed by the wife as regards correctness of
      order of Sessions Court whereby the maintenance amount was
      reduced.
H
                                   642
                SHALU OJHA v. PRASHANT OJHA                                 643


       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave A
Petition (Criminal) No.3935 of2016.
       From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2015 passed by
the Additional Session Judge, North West District Court, Rohini, New
Delhi in C.A. No.75/2014.
       Shalu Ojha (petitioner-in-person).                                    B

     Sameer Rohatgi, Akshit Pradhan, T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas,
Ms.Gayatri Gulati Sreyas, Advs. for the Respondents.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       A.K. SIKRI, J. I. Though this case has a chequered history, C
only those facts which are very material are taken note of, eschewing
other unnecessary details, in order to avoid burdening this judgment with
the facts which may not be relevant.
     · 2. The petitioner is the respondent's wife. It is unfortunate that
after their marriage on April 20, 2007 in Delhi, they stayed together D
hardly for four months. Thus, for almost ten years they have parted
company and are living separately. It is not necessary to go into the
reasons which led to the matrimonial discord as in the present petition
this Court is concerned only with the dispute regarding the rate of
maintenance.
                                                                             E
          3. The petitioner had filed an application sometime in June 2009
  claiming maintenance under the provisions of Section 12 of the Protectiori
· of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to
  as the 'DV Act'). In th11t application, apart from ~ther reliefs, she has
  claimed maintenance as well. Order dated July05, 2012 was passed by
                                                                               F
  the learned Metropolitan Magistrate granting interim maintenance @
  Rs.2,50,000/- per month with effect from the date of filing of the complaint
  as well as compensation ofRs.1,00,000/-. Since the respondent did not
  honour the said order, the petitioner filed the execution petition for
 ·recovery of the arrears of maintenance. In the meantime, the respondent
  challenged the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate granting maintenance, G
  by filing appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, in the Court ofAdditional
  Sessions Judge, Delhi (for short, the 'ASJ'). In the said appeal, the
   leamedASJ issued interim directions dated January I0, 2013 for depositing
   of the entire arrears of maintenance within two months. As this order
   was not complied with, the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed
                                                                              H
644           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A on May 07, 2013. This order of dismissal was challenged by the
  respondent before the High Court. In those proceedings, order dated
  July 23, 2013 was passed allowing the appellant herein to file the reply,
  etc. As no stay was granted, order dated July 23, 2013 was challenged
  by the respondent in this Court by filing a special leave petition. This
B Court, however, did not entertain the same. At the same time, while
  disposing of the special leave petition, observations were made to the
  effect that ifthe parties apply for mediation, the matter shall be referred
  to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre at the earliest.
  Keeping in view these observations, the High Court referred the dispute
  to the Mediation Centre at the Delhi High Court and also stayed the
C execution proceedings in the meantime. Mediation proceedings failed.
  As a result, the High Court took up the matter on merits and passed
  orders dated September 10, 2013 directing the respondent to pay
  Rs.5,00,0001- on or before September 30, 2013 and another sum of
  Rs.5,00,000/- on or before October 31, 2013. The petitioner filed an
D application seeking modification of these orders and prayed for the
  directions to the respondent to pay entire arrears of maintenance as per
  the order of the Family Court in domestic violence proceedings. In the
  said application only notice was issued and since interim stay on the
  execution proceedings continued, the petitioner filed special leave petition
  in this Court for vacation of the interim order passed by the High Court
E in the execution proceedings. This special leave petition was converted
  into appeal on grant of leave, in which judgment was delivered on
   September 18, 2014 allowing the said appeal. Operative portion of the
  said judgment reads as under:
           "31. The issue before the High Court in Crl.MC. No. 1975 of
 F         2013 is limited i.e. whether the sessions court could have dismissed
           the respondent's appeal only on the ground that respondent did
           not discharge the obligation arising out of the conditional interim
           order passed by the sessions court. Necessarily the High Court
           will have to go into the question whether the sessions court has
           the power to grant interim stay of the execution of the orderunder
 G         appeal before it.
           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
 H
               SHALU OJHA v. PRASHANT OJHA                                 645
                       [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

    · orders are now vacated. In the process the appellant is still awaiting A
      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. ~ our view, the High Court
     ought not to have accepted the statement of the counsel without B
     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 of2013 should ·
      be kept pending. Whatever be the decision of the High Court, c
      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 D
      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 E
      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 of the Sessions Court should only be after the execution
      of the order of maintenance passed by the Magistrate.            F
      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." . .
     · 4. Notwithstanding the aforesaid judgment, as the respondent did G
not Clear the entire arrears of maintenance, he was sent to judicial custody,
where he remained tilJ December 22, 2014. A miscellaneous application
was filed by the respondent in this Court in the afore-mentioned disposed
of appeal stating that he was in judicial custody due to his inability to pay
the entire maintenance and requested that his matter be heard by the H
646            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A Sessions Court on merits. In this application this Court passed orders
  dated December 18, 2014 directing the Sessions Court to decide the
  appeal of the respondent within six weeks. He remained in judicial
  custody till December 22, 2014, on which date he was released. During
  this period, though the respondent had paid certain amounts towards
B maintenance, but he did not clear the entire outstanding dues.
          5. Thereafter, on February 13, 2015, the learnedASJ decided the
   appeal of the respondent reducing the maintenance from Rs.2,50,000/-,
   as fixed by the Family Court, to Rs.50,000/- per month, from the date of
   filing of the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act. This order was
 C challenged by the appellant by filing a petition (Crl.MC. No. 850of2015)
   before the High Court under Section 482 read with Section 482 of the
   Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.').
          6. It will also be of interest to note that the maintenance of
   Rs.50,0001-, as fixed by the leamedASJ, even when reduced significantly
   from Rs.2,50,000/-, was still not acceptable to the respondent either.
 D Seeking further reduction in the maintenance, the respondent also
   challenged this order before the High Court by filing petition under Section
   482 Cr.P.C. However, his petition was dismissed by the High Court vi de
   order dated April 06, 2015. The special leave petition filed by the
   respondent there against was also dismissed by this Court on May 11,
 E 2015. In this manner, insofar as maintenance granted by the learned
   ASJ @Rs.50,000/-per month is concerned, this order has attained finality
   qua the respondent. The question, therefore, is as to whether the petitioner
   is entitled to enhancement and whether the learned ASJ rightly reduced
   the amount of maintenance.
 F          7. Though the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 482
      Cr.P.C., which is registered as Crl.MC. No. 850 of2015, as pointed out
      above, and the same is still pending. Notwithstanding, the petitioner has
      chosen to file the instant special leave petition challenging the order
      dated February 13, 2015 passed by the ASJ.
 G           8. Normally, when the proceedings are still pending before the
      High Court, where same order dated February 13, 2015 passed by the
      ASJ is challenged, this Court should not have entertained the instant
      petition from the very beginning. However, notice was issued in this
      petition, keeping in mind the consideration as to whether the dispute can
      be resolved amicably, suitably and appropriately by this Court. For this
 H
                                     - -· -- -··-----... -- -- --- -   ~----   -




                 SHALU OJHA v. PRASHANT OJHA                                       647
                             [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

 purpose, matter was taken up from time to time. Attempts were even A
 made that the parties settle all their disputes amicably. We even called
 the parties to the Chambers and had discussions with them. However,
 amicable solution to the problem, acceptable to both the parties, could
 not be achieved.
         9. The petitioner, who appears in person, has submitted that there        B
  were no valid reasons for the learned ASJ to reduce the inaintenance.
  In order to prove that the respondent is a man of means who is running
  number of businesses either as the proprietor or partner of firm(s) or
· shareholder/director in certain companies and possesses various assets
  and is also enjoying the life of affluence, she has produced plethora of         C
  documents in support. The respondent has refuted the authenticity or
  the relevance of those documents and his submission is that his stakes in
 ·all these businesses are no longer there. According to him, some of the
  companies/firms mentioned by the petitioner never took off and started
  any business and in some other companies he no longer enjoys any stakes.
  Picture painted by the respondent is .that he is undergoing very hard            D
  times and his financial condition is pathetic. It is also stated that he had
  to even go behind bars and remain in custody for more than fifty days
  because of his inability to pay the arrears. We are not giving the details
  of the properties and businesses as mentioned by the petitioner or the
  response thereto as given by him. It is because of the reason that after
  going through these documents, we find that final view thereupon can             E
  be taken only after evidence is led by both the parties and the veracity of
  their respective stands is tested with their cross-examination in the light
   of material which both the parties want to produce.
         10. We, therefore, dispose of this petition with the.following
 directions:                                                                       F
        (a) insofar as domestic violence proceedings before the Family
           Court are concerned, necessary documents shall be filed by
           both the parties withiil four weeks from today and evidence
           led pursuant thereto. The trial court shall endeavour to decide
           the case finally, within a period of eight months from today, on        G
           the basis of evidence and fix the rate of maintenance finally;
            and
         (b) Crl.MC. No. 850 of 2015, pending before the High Court,
            shall be taken up for hearing immediately and the High Court
                                                                                   H
648             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 8 S.C.R.


                shall endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as
                possible and determine at what rate interim maintenance is to
                be given, i.e. whether order dated February 13, 2015 passed
                by the learned ASJ need any modification or not.
             No costs.
 B


      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                       SLP disposed of.