Bengaluru, July 29, 2024: In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court held that divorce proceedings can be stayed until a husband pays the arrears of maintenance ordered by the court. The judgment was passed by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti in Writ Petition No. 11721 of 2020, where the wife sought a stay on her husband’s divorce petition due to non-compliance with an interim maintenance order.
Background of the Case:
The case arose from M.C. No. 1694/2016, a divorce petition filed by the husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife, responding to the petition, filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking maintenance of ₹25,000 per month for herself and their minor daughter, along with ₹50,000 as litigation expenses. The III Additional Family Court, Bengaluru, in its order dated July 15, 2016, granted interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month and a one-time litigation expense of ₹30,000.
However, the husband failed to pay the interim maintenance as ordered, prompting the wife to file an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), requesting that all further proceedings in the divorce case be stayed until the arrears were cleared.
Legal Issues Involved:
The key legal question before the High Court was whether the Family Court had erred in refusing to stay the divorce proceedings despite the husband’s failure to pay interim maintenance. The wife contended that unless the husband complied with the court’s orders, he should not be allowed to continue pursuing the divorce.
The husband’s defence argued that the wife should file an execution petition for recovery of arrears and that there was no legal provision allowing the stay of proceedings in this circumstance.
Arguments of the Parties:
1. Wife’s Counsel (Sri Chethan A.C.):
– The counsel for the wife argued that the Family Court failed to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to compel the husband to comply with the maintenance order. He referred to the judgments in M. Ramachandra Rao vs. M.S. Kowsalya and H.K. Vijaykumar vs. Smt. Rajini to support his contention that courts have inherent powers to stay proceedings if maintenance orders are not obeyed. The counsel highlighted the financial difficulties faced by the wife and her daughter due to the husband’s non-compliance.
2. Husband’s Counsel (Sri Narendra S.):
– On behalf of the husband, it was argued that the wife had the option of filing an execution petition for the recovery of arrears. The counsel maintained that the Family Court was correct in dismissing the wife’s application for a stay of proceedings, as no legal provision explicitly mandates such a stay for non-payment of maintenance.
Observations by the Court:
After hearing both sides, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed that the purpose of interim maintenance is to provide financial relief to the wife, enabling her to meet her basic needs and pursue legal proceedings. The court made it clear that a party who deliberately disobeys court orders cannot be permitted to continue with their case without facing consequences.
Justice Kanneganti emphasized:
“A party who has no respect for the orders of the court and willfully violates the order cannot be allowed to continue with legal proceedings. This kind of approach by a litigant cannot be appreciated or encouraged by the court.”
The court highlighted the necessity of respecting maintenance orders, stating that the husband’s failure to comply with the interim maintenance order was an abuse of the legal process. The judge further observed that the courts have inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to stay proceedings in such cases to ensure justice is served.
Referring to previous judgments, the court noted:
“Whenever the court finds that there is abuse of process of law, the court can exercise its inherent power and pass appropriate orders.”
Decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court set aside the order of the Family Court and ruled in favour of the wife, staying the divorce proceedings until the husband paid all arrears of maintenance. The key points of the order were:
1. All further proceedings in M.C. No. 1694/2016 would remain stayed until the husband cleared the arrears of interim maintenance.
2. Once the arrears were paid, the Family Court was directed to dispose of the divorce case within six months, as the case had already been pending for over eight years.
With this ruling, the writ petition was allowed, and all interim applications were closed.
