Vishwas Narhari
Sahastrabudhe Vs. Varda Vishwas Sahastrabudhe [2009] INSC 174 (27 January 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL.447 OF 2009 [Arising out of
SLP{C] No. 4916 of 2007] Vishwas Narhari Sahastrabudhe ... Appellant VERSUS
Varda Vishwas Sahastrabudhe ...Respondent
ORDER
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
This
appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 31st of August, 2006
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Family Court Appeal No. 15
of 2006, by which the decree passed by the Family Court at Pune, granting
divorce under Section 13(1) (1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was affirmed
but had remanded the matter back to the Family Court for proper determination
of issues of permanent alimony and ownership of flat in Triveni Nagar. Against
the aforesaid order of remand, the husband/appellant had filed a Special Leave
Petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned counsel
for the parties.
It is to be noted
that while issuing notice on this Special Leave Petition on 12th of March,
2007, this Court passed the following order :- "Delay condoned. Issue
notice.
Learned counsel for
the petitioner states that he does not challenge the finding on divorce and
monthly maintenance."
3.
The
issues that were framed by the impugned Judgment of the High Court are as
follows :- "(a) Whether the original petitioner will in law be entitled to
seek declaration as prayed for from Family Court under Family Court's Act? (b)
If yes, whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the original
petitioner should be given such declaration of Family Court or any other order
as Family Court may deem fit? (c) Whether Family Court can record any finding
about flat at Mhatre Bridge and Triveni Nagar in the absence of Narhari alias
Kishor, father of the appellant? (d) Whether in facts and circumstances of the
case, the original petitioner proves that flat at Mhatre Bridge and Triveni
Nagar were/are owned by the appellant? (e) What should be the amount of
permanent alimony in the facts and circumstances of this case?"
4.
Considering
the issues framed by the High Court, we find that the question of jurisdiction
of the Family Court has to be taken into consideration by it and that being the
position, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed
by the High Court. However, we make it clear that the Family Court shall not be
influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court in the impugned
Judgment while deciding the issues as directed by the High Court and the Family
Court shall decide the same in accordance with law including the question
whether Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which deals with disposal of
property is applicable in the facts of this case or not.
1A.
2A.
3A.
4A.
However,
the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six Lacs), which has been directed to be paid by
the High Court to the respondent, is stayed till the disposal of the Family
Court proceeding after remand. At the same time, we modify the order dated 10th
of August, 2007 of this Court to the extent that instead of Rs. 2000/- as
maintenance to each of the child of the parties, a sum of Rs. 5000/- by way of
maintenance to each child shall be paid by the husband to the respondent/wife regularly
from 1st of February, 2009 onwards or till the Family Court decides the
disputes after remand.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The
appeal is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
.................................J.
[ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]
.................................J.
NEW
DELHI:
Back
Pages: 1 2
