2008 (3) TMI 658 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the property of Appellant No.1 could have been sold in auction? Whether in a case of this nature, the bail granted to the appellants should have been directed to be cancelled?

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the property of Appellant No.1 could have been sold in auction?
2. Whether the bail granted to the appellants should have been directed to be cancelled?

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the property of Appellant No.1 could have been sold in auction?

The court examined the legal obligations under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It was emphasized that the duty to maintain a wife is on the husband, not on the mother-in-law. The property of a person who is no longer absconding cannot be subjected to continuous attachment or sale. The court highlighted that the obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died, and such an obligation can only be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-sharer. The property in the name of the mother-in-law cannot be a subject matter of attachment during the life of the husband.

The court found that the High Court's orders were unsustainable and suffered from non-application of mind. The appellant and her husband had shown that they had to go to the United States for medical treatment and had violated the bail conditions, but the consequences must be confined to the statutes. The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were enacted to secure the presence of the accused, and once this purpose is achieved, the attachment should be withdrawn. The court noted that the property should be restored once the accused surrenders and the standing warrants are canceled.

The court also criticized the Metropolitan Magistrate's order dated 5th January 2004, which wrongly directed the District Magistrate to auction the property. The Mamlatdar exceeded his jurisdiction by trying to evict the tenant, whose right to reside could not be interfered with by the attachment order. The complainant (3rd respondent) should not derive any benefit from the attachment of the property.

2. Whether the bail granted to the appellants should have been directed to be cancelled?

The court found that the appellants had surrendered their passports and attended court, which negated the claim that they were absconding. The High Court committed a manifest illegality in directing the cancellation of bail without considering the relevant factors for setting aside an order granting bail. The application for cancellation of bail was based on a misstatement that the passports had not been surrendered. The court emphasized that the factors for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure include interference with the due course of justice, evasion of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted.

The court referred to precedents, including Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), which outlined the considerations for granting and canceling bail. The court observed that the High Court failed to consider the appellants' age, health conditions, and compliance with court orders. The court also noted that the 3rd respondent had filed multiple cases against the appellants, some of which were dismissed or withdrawn, indicating a pattern of harassment.

Conclusion:

The court set aside the impugned judgments with specific directions:
1. The property in question shall be released from attachment.
2. The 3rd respondent shall refund the sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent with interest at 6% per annum.
3. The amount of Rs. 4 lakhs deposited by the 1st respondent shall be refunded immediately with interest accrued thereon.
4. The 3rd respondent is entitled to pursue her remedies against her husband in accordance with law.
5. The Learned Magistrate should expedite the pending cases filed by the 3rd respondent.
6. The 3rd respondent shall bear the costs of the appellant, quantified at Rs. 50,000.

The appeals were allowed with these directions, ensuring that the appellants' rights were protected and justice was served.

← Previous Next →