SHILPA BANSILAL SHAH Vs. BANSILAL K SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a Court granting an ad interim or final award of maintenance to the discarded, disabled dependents, should rest itself, contended, thus far only and not further, merely stopping at the passing - of the said award, and thereafter necessarily wait for sometime to help them out to realize the amount so awarded till only, if, as and when they so approach it once again, following the second bout of the legal duel by way of execution of the impugned award either by taking -up further proceedings by way of executive and/or the Contempt proceedings ? Or "Whether alternatively, following the call of humanistic approach and the speedy justice as promised under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, the concerned Court should immediately volunteer and take upon itself the sacred duty to render easy and expeditious substantial justice by seeing that the amount awarded is immediately made available to the claimants in a manner which may not only ultimately save them from further undue harrassment of roaming about from pillar to the post, but before they ultimately getting exhausted and exasperated, start thinking and cursing that the remedy sought for was worst than their ailments and: start entertaining second thought of ever approaching the Court in future for begging the Justice -

(2.) In order to appreciate, understand and ultimately answer the questions raised above, it is first of all necessary to have a look at the few relevant facts leading to this Contempt proceedings. 2.1 Few relevant facts - Petitioner Miss Shilpa Shah happens to be the daughter of the respondent -Shri Bansilal K. Shah, who is Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax at Ahmedabad. As the misfortune would have been the married and family life of the parties of this proceedings have gone on rock and appears to have been ruined, without any prospects of reunion in the near future, save and except by some unexpected happy "U" turn of events taking place in their lives, reconciling the situation. The respondent -Bansilal married Scat. Champaben, mother of the present petitioner many years back and have in all five children out of their lawful wedlock, that is, four daughters and one son, out of which, two daughters came to be married after the separation. As the misfortune would have been, Smt. Champaben and her minor children allegedly came to be deserted by the respondent and under the circumstances, they were constrained to initiate the maintenance proceedings under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the same being Misc. Criminal Application No. 31 of 1984, before the learned Magistrate, wherein the respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 400.00 to Smt. Champaben and Rs. 100.00 each to the two children every month. In course of time, on petitioner attending her majority on 25 -9 -1987, by virtue of an order dated 25 -6 -1988 passed in M.C.A. No. 26 of 1988, the maintenance granted to her earlier came to be discontinued. It is the case of the petitioner that she is aged 19 and has completed her graduation with the help and assistance from 'Shri Khadayata Kelvani Mandal', Ahmedabad, from where she has taken loan for her further studies and which she has to repay. Under severe financial compulsion to maintain herself on the one hand and to meet with expenses for her further studies on the other hand, 1993 (1) MISS SHILPA SHAH v. BANSILAL K. SHAH (M.C.A.) -Vaidya, J. 227 she filed Civil Suit, the same being Suit No. 4172 of 1989 under Sec. 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad against the respondent inter alia praying for the recovery of the outstanding amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,450.00 for, 10 months and Rs. 745.00 per month. It has been specifically averred in the said plaint that to her best of information and knowledge, the monthly salary of respondent by now has increased from Rs. 4,500/~ to 5,500/ - and that the same may as well be verified by calling upon the respondent to produce the latest Monthly Salary Certificate. It further appears that during the pendency of the said suit proceedings, petitioner filed an interim application dated 23 - 1 -1990 at Exh. 10 which came to be allowed by the Court passing an order dated 7 -8 -1990, which reads as under :

(3.) It appears that the respondent who was duly served with the rule issued by this Court as far back as on 13 -2 -1991 had initially engaged Mr. F. A. Memon, learned Advocate to defend him, who for whatever reasons thereafter has not appeared before this Court. It further appears that on 9 -7 -1992 respondent had requested this Court (Coram : Hon'ble M/s. K. 0. Shah and M. S. Parikh, JJ.) to grant him some time to engage another Advocate to defend his case, which appears to have been granted by an order dated 23 -7 -1992 with the specific understanding and direction that the matter will proceed further on that date. When the matter was called out on 23 -7 -1992, the respondent was absent and had sent an application praying for time accompanied by a medical certificate stating therein that he was suffering from influenza. The Court with great reluctance, adjourned the matter to 30 -7 -1992. On 30 -7 -1992, despite the above order since the' respondent did not remain present before the Court, we were constrained to direct office to issue a bailable warrant in sum of Rs.5.000/ - (rupees five thousand) only and the surety of like amount, making It returnable on 10 -8 -1992, when the respondent appeared before us, we taking into" consideration his gross recalcitrant attitude in not complying with the ad interim maintenance award, in the first instance directed him to deposit sum of Rs.5,000.00 (rupees five thousand only) before 2 -00 p.m. on 11 -8 -1992. He was also directed to engage Advocate, in the meantime, if he wanted to. Thereafter, hearing of the matter was accordingly stand over to 12 -8 -1992. On 12 -8 -1992, respondent submitted that out of Rs. 5,000.00 directed to be paid to the petitioner, he has been able to manage only Rs. 1,200.00 (rupees twelve hundred) only which have been duly paid up to the petitioner by him requesting us to grant further time upto 17 -8 -1992, in order to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 3.800.00. The same was granted. On 17 -8 -1992 when the matter was called out, respondent submitted that lie has deposited Rs. 3,800.00 before the Court on 14 -8 -1992 in all depositing Rs. 5,000/. On this statement being made by the respondent, we permitted the petitioner to withdraw the same. Now, despite the specific order to deposit the said amount in this Court, which was passed in his presence only, respondent surprisingly deposited the same in City Civil Court, obviously it can be inferred with a view to harass the petitioner. Anyway, as regards the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/ -(rupees ten thousand only) the respondent gave an undertaking before us that he will deposit the same on or before 1 -9 -1992. On 2 -9 -1992, we were told that the entire amount has been deposited and petitioner had withdrawn the same. Today we are further told that the respondent has also deposited Rs. 1,000.00 in this Court, being arrears of ad interim maintenance for the months ending July and August, which in turn are withdrawn ; by the petitioner. 3.1 This is how only after the contempt notice came to be issued by this Court against the respondent, that scared of punishment he became wiser enough to, discharge his duties by paying up the entire outstanding arrears of Rs. 15,000.00 by way of an ad interim maintenance towards none -else but his own flesh and blood, viz., daughter. It is really unfortunate that such highly educated, cultured family should be suffering because of the attitude of respondent -father. The fact remains that the helpless petitioner and her minor sister and brother are just struggling hard for their bare existence, carrying on the battle to breath only. with and in the hope of some saucer by way of drip by drip maintenance provided to them by respondent -husband.