Supreme Court Remands Maintenance Case: Harish Chand vs. Smt. Urmila (20 September 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 791

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a High Court dismiss a revision petition against a maintenance order without stating any facts, submissions, or reasons? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in an appeal concerning a family court’s maintenance order. The core issue was whether the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur had rightly dismissed a revision petition filed by the husband against the maintenance order passed by the Family Court. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and S. Abdul Nazeer, found that the High Court had not provided adequate reasoning for its decision and remanded the case for a fresh hearing.

Case Background

The appellant, Harish Chand, filed an appeal against the order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, which had dismissed his revision petition. This revision petition was against an order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bharatpur, in Application No. 352/13. The High Court’s order was brief, stating only that the petitioner is working as a headmaster/senior teacher in a Government school and is capable of maintaining the respondent. The appellant sought to have the High Court’s order quashed and the maintenance order set aside.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court, however, dismissed the revision petition with a brief order, stating that the petitioner was capable of maintaining the respondent. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s order did not include any facts, submissions of the parties, or legal provisions, and lacked any reasoning. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits.

Legal Framework

The judgment does not explicitly mention any specific legal provisions or sections of any statute. The core issue revolves around the proper procedure that a High Court should follow when deciding a revision petition, particularly concerning the need for a reasoned order that addresses the facts, submissions, and legal provisions relevant to the case.

Arguments

The Supreme Court did not delve into the specific arguments made by either party. The Court’s primary concern was the lack of a reasoned order from the High Court. The High Court’s order only stated:

“I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me including the impugned order passed by the learned court below as also the fact that the petitioner is working as a headmaster/senior teacher in Government school and he is capable to maintain the respondent.”

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had not set out the facts, considered any submissions of the parties, or assigned any reasons for dismissing the revision petition.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but the core issue was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the revision petition in a cryptic manner, without stating the facts, submissions, and reasons.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions in this judgment. The decision is based on the principle that a court must provide reasoned judgments, especially when dealing with revision petitions.

Judgment

The Supreme Court found the High Court’s order to be inadequate due to the absence of facts, submissions, and reasoning. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s order.

The Supreme Court did not rely on any authorities in this judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The primary concern of the Supreme Court was the lack of reasoning in the High Court’s order. The Court emphasized that a High Court, while deciding a revision petition, must consider the facts, submissions of the parties, and the relevant legal provisions, and provide reasons for its decision. The absence of these elements in the High Court’s order led the Supreme Court to set it aside.

The Supreme Court observed that,
“In the absence of any facts mentioned, submissions of both the parties noted, legal provisions which govern the issue arising in the case referred and the reasons assigned in the impugned order by the Single Judge in the context of the submissions urged, we are unable to know the factual background of the dispute involved in the case, the reasoning of the Trial Court which led the appellant herein to file a revision petition before the High Court against the order of the Trial Court and lastly, the reasoning of the High Court for dismissal of the appellant’s revision petition.”

The Court further stated,
“We cannot countenance the disposal of the revision petition by the High Court in such a cryptic manner and, therefore, decline to concur with such order.”

The Supreme Court concluded,
“In view of what is observed supra, we do not wish to go into the issue on merits for the first time in this appeal and consider it proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the revision petition afresh on merits strictly in accordance with law keeping in view our observations made supra.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts must provide reasoned judgments, especially when deciding revision petitions.
• ✓ A reasoned judgment should include the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and the relevant legal provisions.
• ✓ The absence of reasoning in a High Court’s order can lead to the order being set aside by the Supreme Court.
• ✓ Cases remanded to the High Court should be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the revision petition afresh on merits in accordance with the law, preferably within six months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must provide reasoned judgments, especially when deciding revision petitions. This case reinforces the established principle that a court must provide a reasoned order, outlining the facts, submissions, and legal provisions considered, along with the reasons for its decision. This judgment does not introduce any new legal principle but reaffirms the existing requirement for reasoned judgments in the judicial process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of reasoned judgments, ensuring that judicial decisions are not only fair but also transparent and justifiable.