Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Sanjay Narain vs Monika

Supreme Court15 September 2008Aftab Alam · Tarun Chatterjee

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

1
NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5647 OF 2008(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19610 of 2007)

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