Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 408 (MP)

PAVITRABAI v. ARUN KUMAR

2000-04-24

J.G.CHITRA

body2000
J. G. CHITRE, J. ( 1 ) NOTICE has been sent and served on the opponents but they are absent. None is present for them, Mr Verma is heard. ( 2 ) LEARNED Judge has pointed out that an application has been moved by the petitioner Pavitrabai making a prayer to the Court that her husband deceased Arun Kumar Verma had left (1) Rs. 41. 367/- as amount of GPF, (2) Rs. 30,000/- as amount of G. I. S , (3) Saving Bank credit balance ofrs. 23,755 /- in the saving account of State Bank of India The total amount is Rs 95. 122/- The petitioner has prayed for a relief from the Court in view of provisions of Order 21 Rule 46, C P C ( 3 ) MR. Verma submitted that the wife pavitrabai had obtained the decree of divorce against Arun Kumar Verma s/o Onkarnath verma on the ground of impotency and there has been order passed by the Matrimonial court in her favour granting her a permanent alimony to the tune of Rs 700/- per month mr. Verma submitted that during the execution proceedings in context with the said amount of permanent alimony, Arun Kumar the husband of Pavitrabai died leaving behind him his parents Onkarnath and Laxmibai ( 4 ) LEARNED Judge pointed out in his order which is put to challenge by the petitioner that those orders are to be executed by applying provisions of C P C and thereafter considered provisions of Order 21 Rule 46 He also considered provisions of Section 50 of c. P. C. Section 50 C. P C provides-" (1) Where a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased. (2) Where the decree is executed against such legal representative, he shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of; and, for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the Court executing the decree may, of its own motion or on the application of the decree-holder, compel such legal representative to produce such accounts as it thinks fit. " ( 5 ) BUT the learned Judge after taking the note of provisions of Section 50 without any reasonable ground and without cogent reasoning came to the conclusion that the liability of paying permanent alimony which was on the shoulder of Arun Kumar Verma deceased husband of Pavitrabai by virtue of the said decree which has been passed by the Matrimonial court, ceased to be operative after the death of Arun Kumar Verma, her husband. . ( 6 ) LEARNED Judge should have considered provisions of Section 50 as well as provisions of Order 21 Rules 46,48 and 52 of C. P C. by making appropriate enquiry and orders. In the cases which are, concerned with execution of the decrees and orders passed in the matters which can be put to execution, the Courts have always to keep in mind the benevolent spirit behind the enactment The provisions ofSections 24 and 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are for the purpose of giving the solace to the parties in the said litigation who need alimony for the maintenance It is to be kept in mind also that the provisions are made for the purpose of granting of amount for the purpose of meeting the expenditure in such litigation. In the present cas'e the learned Judge was dealing with the prayer made by the petitioner pavitrabai directing towards provisions of Order 21 Rule 46 of C. P. C. and pointing out that sum of Rs. 95,122/- has been received by her husband Arun Kumar s/o Onkarnath verma, who was directed to pay permanent alimony to his wife Pavitrabai, who happens to be petitioner in the present petition. He was obliged to keep in mind that the marriage between Arun Kumar and Pavitrabai was a valid marriage and the decree was passed in favour of Pavitrabai and against Arun Kumar on the ground of impotency. He should have also taken into consideration the implicit possibility of fraud and deceit in the said marriage. He was obliged to keep in mind that the marriage between Arun Kumar and Pavitrabai was a valid marriage and the decree was passed in favour of Pavitrabai and against Arun Kumar on the ground of impotency. He should have also taken into consideration the implicit possibility of fraud and deceit in the said marriage. Such Executing Courts should be well aware of the nature of decree which has been put to execution and the plight of decree-holder implicitely indicated by the decree itself Mr verma submitted before this Court that after said marriage, and its dissolution by decree of divorce and after death of husband Arun Kumar verma, Pavitrabai has been left totally without any source of her livelihood Without giving due attention to all these facets which were implicitely indicated by the said application moved by Pavitrabai, learned Judge has come to the conclusion abruptly that after the death of Arunkumar Verma, who was personally liable to pay the permanent alimony to his divorced wife Pavitrabai ceased to be in existence and was not capable of putting to execution. Learned Judge should have directe parents of Arunkumar to make a statement whether they had received said amount and in the event of receiving such amount, should have asked them to make the statement about the amount which was received by each of them. Learned Judge should have also directed the concerned public servant and the Manager of the branch of Bank where the amount has been deposited in saving account to give necessary information to the Court in view of provisions of Order 21 Rule 52 so as to enable the Court to execute the said decree. ( 7 ) BUT unfortunately learned Judge has failed to do so The tendency of closing the proceedings abruptly without due application of judicial mind is increasing and on account of that poor litigants like Pavitrabai are suffering. This approach has to be abandoned by the concerned persons and sincere efforts have to be made for the purpose 6f finding out the relevant provisions of law for the purpose of giving solace to the hapless human beings coming before the Court in the nature of litigants therefore, for the purpose of correcting the process. This approach has to be abandoned by the concerned persons and sincere efforts have to be made for the purpose 6f finding out the relevant provisions of law for the purpose of giving solace to the hapless human beings coming before the Court in the nature of litigants therefore, for the purpose of correcting the process. Registrar is hereby directed to place this order before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court for sending it to the concerned judges and for circulating it amongst subordinate Judges for the purpose of avoiding the repetition of such mistakes in future. ( 8 ) THE petition is allowed. Learned Judge is hereby directed to apply judicial mind fully and to act in view of relevant provisions of law as indicated above and to decide the matter at early time within three months. Revision allowed. Matter remanded. .