MANMOHAN GOPAL versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 1073 · Decided: 20-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 1073 : 2023 INSC 953
1073
CASE DETAILS
MANMOHAN GOPAL
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. 
(Miscellaneous Application Nos.858-859 of 2021)
In
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 85-86 of 2021)
OCTOBER 20, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Applications ﬁ led by the daughter-in-law 
(original comlainant and R-2) for recovery of both arrears of maintenance 
and monthly maintenance.
Constitution of India – Art. 142 – There has been a persistent 
defiance by husband, and the petitioner-father-in-law, who have, 
through one pretext or another stalled compliance with the orders of 
the Supreme Court – Husband has abandoned wife and virtually ﬂ ed 
to Australia – Documents reveal that considerable amounts of money 
were remitted to husband, over a period of time – It is the responsibility 
of Petitioner-father-in-law and husband who are held liable to fulﬁ l the 
payment of entire sum – Directions issued:
Held: (1). Six contiguous shops bearing municipal numbers 26, 27, 
28, 29, 30, 31 shall be put to sale by the Registrar of the Delhi High Court, 
who shall ensure that the best prices are realized – The amounts realized 
from the sale shall be deposited in a ﬁ xed deposit receipt, initially for six 
months, and its interest, disbursed to the second respondent/applicant – In 
the event of no sale, the attachment of property shall continue in favour of 
the applicant; (2). The attachment of rents of M/s Fitness Factory Gym & 
Spa on the First Floor shall be continued, till the petitioner, and his son, 
pay the amount constituting the balance between the amount realized by 
direction (1) and Rs. 1.25 crores; (3). In the eventuality the directions in (2) 
are not complied within one year, the Registrar is directed to take steps, and 
1074 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
within three months, and seek option from the applicant regarding whether 
she would wish the transfer of title to the said premises in her name, or its 
sale – In the event she opts for the transfer, the Registrar Delhi High Court, is 
directed to take all necessary steps to execute a conveyance deed (under the 
present directions) to that eﬀ ect, the sale shall be registered by the concerned 
authorities, and the applicant shall be handed over symbolic possession; (4). 
In the event the applicant does not seek conveyance, the Registrar shall take 
all necessary steps to auction the said property (on the ﬁ rst ﬂ oor described 
in (2) above, within 18 months from today; (5). All amounts realized in the 
process of compliance with directions (1) and (4) above shall be paid to the 
applicant – Decree shall be drawn to the above eﬀ ect – Decree shall also 
reﬂ ect total amount due and payable to the applicant in lieu of which sale 
of shops are hereby ordered. [Para 18]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Subrata Roy Sahara V. Union of India and Others [2014] 12 SCR 
573; Delhi Development Authority V. Skipper Construction Company (P) 
Ltd [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 295; Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 
193 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 479 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous 
Application Nos. 858-859 of 2021 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 85-86 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2021 in Crl. A. Nos.85 and 
86 of 2021 of the Supreme Court of India.
Appearances:
Hargovind Jha, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Praveena Gautam (AC), Mahesh Kumar, Shivam Sharma, Sunit 
Kumar Toppo, Ms. Devika Khanna, Mrs. V.D. Khanna for M/s. VMZ 
Chambers, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Varnika Gupta, Karanvir Gogia, Lzafeer 
Ahmad B. F., Ravi P. Wadhwani, Pawan Shukla, Ms. Akankshi Tyagi, 
Shiv Ram Sharma, Ms. Seema Gupta, Vishwaditya Sharma, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
1075
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. With consent, heard the counsel for parties. The present miscellaneous 
application has been ﬁ led in one disposed of criminal appeal1 in which 
this court granted bail to the mother-in-law and father-in-law (Petitioners 
herein) of the Respondent No.2 herein (hereafter “R2” or “applicant” 
interchangeably) for oﬀ ences under 420, 406, 468, 34, 120B of IPC. 
2. The present applications are ﬁ led by the daughter in law (original 
complainant and R2) for recovery of both arrears of maintenance and 
monthly maintenance of ₹1,27,500. She is seeking from this court to direct 
to the f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.