Sanjay Narain vs Monika
- SCC(2008) 16 SCC 503
- AIRAIR 2008 SC Supp 724
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A High Court is not justified in dismissing a civil revision case solely on the ground that a party has failed to comply with a prior direction to pay maintenance or other sums as directed by the court, without considering the merits of the revision itself; the court must proceed to examine the substantive issues raised in the revision petition if the defaulting party substantially complies with or subsequently complies with the payment direction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Sanjay Narain ....Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Monika ...Respondent
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21st of
August, 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 4690 of
2005 by which, the High Court had dismissed the said
revision case on account of failure of the
appellant/husband to pay the wife/respondent a sum of
Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) as directed by the
Court earlier. In our view, the High Court was not
justified in rejecting the said revision case without
going into the merits of the case and only on the 2
ground that since the payment of maintenance of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) as directed earlier
was not deposited, the Civil Revision case must be
dismissed.
3. It was brought to our notice that the appellant/husband
was liable to pay maintenance from 26th of March,
2003 till the month of September, 2008, which comes
to Rs.4,62,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs. 1,86,000/-
has already been paid by the husband to the wife.
This figure of Rs. 4,62,000/- for the aforesaid period
has been calculated at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per
month payable by the husband to the wife. On 8th of
September, 2008, when the matter was called on for
hearing, a Bank Draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs) was handed over by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/husband to the
respondent/wife, which has been accepted by the
respondent/wife, who was personally present in Court.
4. Therefore, a total sum of Rs. 3,86,000/- has already
been paid and further sum of Rs. 76,000/- is still to be
paid by the husband to the wife. As noted herein 3
earlier, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the
revision case only on the ground of non-payment of
maintenance, as directed by it earlier at the rate of Rs.
10,000/- per month, we set aside the impugned order
and request the High Court to decide the Civil Revision
case on merits and in accordance with law if, within a
period of six weeks from today, the husband pays the
balance amount of Rs. 76,000/- and also go on paying
the wife at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month till the final
order is passed by the High Court in the Civil Revision
case.
5. The High Court is, therefore, requested to dispose of
the said revision case afresh at an early date
preferably within six months from the date of
depositing the balance amount in the manner indicated
above.
6. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and the impugned
order passed by the High Court is set aside on the
conditions indicated above. There will be no order as
to costs.
4
............................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]
New Delhi; ...........................J. September 15, 2008. [Aftab Alam]
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free