LexVIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL versus VATSLABEEN ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 1077 >- VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL A I-<! v. VATSLABEEN ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2003 of 2008) MARCH 14, 2008 B [S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] ... Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: > ss.437 and 438 - Bail - Cancellation of - Criminal case against husband and In-laws - Warrants issued - Appellants- c in Jaws declared absconder - Properties of mother-in-law -f attached - Order of public auction - High Court directed tenant ' to deposit rent in court and permitted complainant to withdraw the same as an order of maintenance was passed by another bench of High Court - Also order of cancellation of bail and D issue of non-bailable warrants against appellants - Held: " Orders of High Court passed only on consideration that complainant was a harassed lady, but fact that appellant was also a much harassed lady was lost sight of - In-laws are old and suffer from various diseases - Though sympathy should E not be allowed to effect decision making process - However, direction to send the old couple to jail or deprive them of their lawful right of a valuable property and/or ask them to meet obligations which statutorily are not theirs, should also not be passed, keeping in view conduct of complainant - She is an F ( . Advocate - She filed large number of criminal cases and ~ ( applications for cancellation of bail on wholly wrong premise - Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the interest of justice would be subserved if orders of High Court are set aside - Property directed to be rele2sed from G attachment - Complainant directed to bear costs of appellant quantified at Rs. 50, 000 - Certain other directions passed. ss. 82 and 83 - Object of- Held: Is to secure presence of accused - Once the said purpose is achieved, attachment 1077 H 1078 SUPREME COURT REPORiS J2008] 4 S.C.R. A should be withdrawn - Once accused surrenders before Court, he is no longer an absconder'-- The purpose of attaching the property comes to an end - Securing attendance of absconding accused, .is matter between State and accused - Complainant should not ordinarily derive any benefit therefrom B - If property is to be sold, it vests with the State subject to any order passed under s. 85 - It cannot be a subject matter of execution of a decree, far less for executing the decree of a third party, who had no right, title or interest thereon. s. 83 -Attachment of property- Tenant - Right of:--- Held: C His right as a tenant could not have been affected by reason of any order of attachment - Terms and conditions of tenancy, being governed by statute, the tenant cannot be evicted except in accordance with Jaw. 0 s. 84 - Invocation of - Held: Cannot be invoked for the purpose of execution of a decree. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - s. 18 - Maintenance claimed by wife, during subsistence of marriage - Liability.to pay- Held: Is on the husband~ It is a personal E obligation - Mother-in-law cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughter-in-law from her own property or otherwise. Title - Burden of proof- Held: It is not for an owner of the property to establish that it is his se/f-acqqired property and F the onus would be on the one, who pleads contra. Protection of women from domestic violence Act - Right of residence - Claim by wife - Held: The Act provides for a higher right in favour of a wife - She not only acquires a right G to be maintained but also acquires a right of residence - The said right as per the legislation extends to joint properties in which the husband has a share. Right to property - Is a constitutional right- Apart from constitutional right it is also a human right "'"- The procedures H laid down· for deprivation thereof must be scrupulously ,... ' A I y ' • VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL v. VATSLABEEN 1079 ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS. ~ complied with - Constitution of India, 1950-Art.21. A Advocate - Permission to withdraw - Submission made before Supreme Court by the counsel for complainant that she may be permitted to withdraw from the case and the complainant be allowed to argue in person - Held: Such a B submission was not expected from a counsel practicing in Supreme Court or from a party, who herself is an Advocate - .i Such practice is deprecated . 4. The complainant-third Respondent was married to son of appellants. She filed complaint petition again
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.