Supreme Court Allows Revival of Maintenance Petition: Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor (2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Family Court can revive a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) after it was previously disposed of based on a settlement between the parties.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor & Ors.

[Judgment Date]: 19 February 2020

Date of the Judgment: 19 February 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 149

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a family court revive a maintenance petition after it was settled and disposed of, if the husband fails to honor the terms of the settlement? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent case, clarifying the powers of family courts in such matters. The core issue revolved around whether a Family Court could restore a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) after having previously disposed of it based on a settlement between the husband and wife. This judgment clarifies the extent of a Family Court’s powers and its ability to ensure justice in maintenance matters. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Sanjeev Kapoor, married respondent No. 1, Chandana Kapoor, on 04 November 1998. They had a daughter on 17 August 1999 and a son on 18 July 2005. On 09 July 2013, Chandana Kapoor filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking maintenance for herself and their two children. Subsequently, on 14 October 2013, Sanjeev Kapoor filed a petition for divorce.

During reconciliation efforts by the Family Court, the parties reached an amicable settlement. As per the settlement, Sanjeev Kapoor was to pay Rs. 25,000 per month towards maintenance from July 2015 to April 2017. From May 2017 onwards, the amount was to be deposited directly into Chandana Kapoor’s account before the 10th of each month. The arrears were to be paid within six months. The parties were also to file a divorce petition by mutual consent, incorporating these terms. Consequently, the Family Court disposed of the maintenance petition on 06 May 2017.

However, Sanjeev Kapoor only paid maintenance for four months after May 2017, totaling Rs. 1,00,000. In January 2018, Chandana Kapoor filed an execution petition under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. to enforce the order dated 06 May 2017. This petition was rejected on 16 July 2018, with the court stating that the order was conditional and depended on both parties fulfilling their obligations.

On 31 July 2018, Chandana Kapoor filed an application to recall the order dated 06 May 2017, stating that Sanjeev Kapoor had not paid the arrears as agreed. She requested the restoration of the original maintenance petition. Sanjeev Kapoor objected, stating he had made some payments but stopped due to Chandana Kapoor backing out of the agreement. On 05 January 2019, the Family Court set aside the order dated 06 May 2017 and restored the maintenance petition.

Sanjeev Kapoor then filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court, challenging the Family Court’s order. The High Court rejected this application on 05 November 2019, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, initially rejected the execution petition filed by Chandana Kapoor on 16 July 2018, stating that the order dated 06 May 2017 was conditional and dependent on both parties fulfilling their obligations. Subsequently, Chandana Kapoor filed an application to recall the order dated 06 May 2017, which was allowed by the Family Court on 05 January 2019, restoring the original maintenance petition. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed Sanjeev Kapoor’s petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 05 November 2019, upholding the Family Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case revolves around Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.

Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance of wives, children, and parents. It states:

“125(1). Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. – (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain – (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct…”

Section 362 Cr.P.C. restricts the court’s power to alter or review its judgment. It states:

“Section 362. Court not to alter judgment. – Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.”

The Supreme Court also considered Section 127 Cr.P.C., which allows for alteration in allowance under certain circumstances.

The interplay between these sections is crucial to understanding the court’s decision. Section 362 generally prohibits courts from altering their final orders, but Section 125 and 127 Cr.P.C. provide exceptions, especially in matters of maintenance, which is a continuous obligation.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Sanjeev Kapoor):

• The primary argument of the appellant was that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to set aside its order dated 06 May 2017, which had disposed of the maintenance petition.
• The appellant contended that once the Family Court had disposed of the case, it became functus officio, and it could not review or alter its judgment, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, as per Section 362 Cr.P.C.
• The appellant relied on several judgments of the Supreme Court, such as Sankatha Singh vs. State of U.P. [1962 AIR 1208], Smt. Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal and another [AIR 1981 SC 736], Mostt. Simrikhia vs. Smt. Dolley Mukherjee [AIR 1990 SC 1605], Hari Singh Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & others [2001 (1) SCC 169], and State vs. K.V. Rajendran and others [2008(8) SCC 673], to support the argument that the court cannot review its judgment.

Arguments by the Respondent (Chandana Kapoor):

• The respondent argued that the Family Court was justified in setting aside its earlier order because the appellant had failed to honor the terms of the settlement.
• The respondent contended that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social justice legislation, and its interpretation should favor the maintenance of wives, children, and parents.
• The respondent relied on the fact that the appellant had only paid a small portion of the agreed maintenance and had not cleared the arrears.
• The respondent also argued that the court has the power to take action to ensure justice and that the order passed by the Family Court was in line with the spirit of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondent was in highlighting that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social justice legislation and the court should ensure that the wife is not left in lurch when the husband does not honor the settlement.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court dated 05.01.2019 setting aside the order dated 06.05.2017 disposing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and restoring the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was contrary to Section 362 Cr.P.C.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

1. Sankatha Singh vs. State of U.P. [1962 AIR 1208]: This case dealt with Section 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (which is similar to Section 362 of the 1973 Code) and held that courts are prohibited from reviewing or altering their judgments. The Supreme Court distinguished this case by stating that the embargo of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is relaxed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
2. Smt. Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal and another [AIR 1981 SC 736]: This case reiterated that the inherent power of the court cannot be exercised to do what is specifically prohibited by the Code. The Supreme Court distinguished this case by stating that the embargo of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is relaxed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
3. Mostt. Simrikhia vs. Smt. Dolley Mukherjee [AIR 1990 SC 1605]: This case stated that inherent powers are controlled by principles and precedents. The Supreme Court distinguished this case by stating that the embargo of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is relaxed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
4. Hari Singh Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & others [2001 (1) SCC 169]: This case reiterated the restrictions on altering or reviewing a judgment. The Supreme Court distinguished this case by stating that the embargo of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is relaxed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
5. State vs. K.V. Rajendran and others [2008(8) SCC 673]: This case discussed the limitations on the court’s power to alter or review its judgment. The Supreme Court distinguished this case by stating that the embargo of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is relaxed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
6. Badshah versus Urmila Badshah Godse and another [(2014) 1 SCC 188]: This case emphasized the need for purposive interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as a social justice legislation. The Supreme Court relied on this case to highlight the need to give a purposive interpretation to Section 125 Cr.P.C.
7. Mahua Biswas(Smt. ) vs. Swagata Biswas and another [(1998) 2 SCC 359]: This case allowed the revival of a maintenance application after a previous settlement failed. The Supreme Court relied on this case to state that the court can activate the wife’s claim to maintenance.

Statutes:

1. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section provides for the maintenance of wives, children, and parents. The Supreme Court relied on the exception provided in this section to state that the embargo of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is relaxed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
2. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section restricts the court’s power to alter or review its judgment. The Supreme Court stated that the embargo provided in this section is relaxed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
3. Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section allows for alteration in allowance under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court relied on the exception provided in this section to state that the embargo of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is relaxed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court distinguished the cases cited by the appellant by stating that the embargo of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is relaxed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Family Court was justified in setting aside its order dated 06 May 2017 and restoring the maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court reasoned that Section 362 Cr.P.C., which generally prohibits a court from altering its judgment, is relaxed in cases under Section 125 Cr.P.C. due to the nature of maintenance as a continuous obligation and the specific provisions in the Cr.P.C. allowing for alteration of maintenance orders.

The Court emphasized that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social justice legislation aimed at protecting vulnerable individuals and should be interpreted to advance justice. The Court noted that the appellant had failed to honor the terms of the settlement, and therefore, the Family Court was right in restoring the maintenance petition to ensure the wife’s claim to maintenance was not prejudiced.

The Court relied on the judgment in Mahua Biswas(Smt. ) vs. Swagata Biswas and another [(1998) 2 SCC 359] to state that the court can activate the wife’s claim to maintenance.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure social justice and protect the rights of the wife. The Court emphasized that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social justice legislation and should be interpreted to benefit those who are unable to maintain themselves. The Court also noted that the appellant had failed to honor the settlement, and therefore, the Family Court was right in restoring the maintenance application.

The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that maintenance is a continuous obligation and that the Family Court should have the power to ensure that the wife’s claim to maintenance is not prejudiced by the husband’s non-compliance.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because they would lead to injustice. The Court emphasized that the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be purposive and should advance the cause of social justice.

The final decision was reached by considering the legislative intent behind Section 125 Cr.P.C., the need to protect vulnerable individuals, and the fact that the appellant had failed to honor the settlement.

The court stated:

“The embargo as contained in Section 362 is, thus, clearly relaxed in proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as indicated above.”

“Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to be interpreted in a manner as to advance justice and to protect a woman for whose benefit the provisions have been engrafted.”

“We, thus, are of the considered opinion that the order passed in present case by Family Court reviving the maintenance application of the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by setting aside order dated 06.05.2017 passed on settlement is not hit by the embargo contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• A Family Court can set aside an order disposing of a maintenance petition if the husband fails to honor the terms of a settlement.
• Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which generally prohibits a court from altering its judgment, is relaxed in cases under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
• Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social justice legislation and should be interpreted to advance the cause of justice for vulnerable individuals.
• Maintenance is a continuous obligation, and courts have the power to ensure that it is not prejudiced by non-compliance.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the embargo of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is relaxed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the Family Court can set aside its order disposing of a maintenance petition if there is a failure of settlement between the parties. This case clarifies that the Family Court has the power to ensure that the wife’s claim to maintenance is not prejudiced by the husband’s non-compliance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor clarifies that Family Courts have the power to revive maintenance petitions under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even after a settlement has been reached, if the terms of the settlement are not honored. This decision reinforces the social justice aspect of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and ensures that vulnerable individuals are not left without recourse if their maintenance rights are violated. The judgment provides a clear legal framework for Family Courts to deal with such situations, emphasizing the need for a purposive interpretation of the law to protect those who need it most.