9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plea of "no means" is available to a husband against proposed arrest and detention u/s 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in execution of a decree for money passed by the Family Court. 2. Applicability of proviso (c) to Section 51 of the CPC. 3. Determination of fiduciary capacity in the context of husband-wife relationship. 4. Scope of execution of the decree amount. Summary: Issue 1: Plea of "No Means" Against Arrest and Detention u/s 51 CPC The court examined whether a husband can plead "no means" to avoid arrest and detention u/s 51 CPC in the execution of a decree for money passed by the Family Court in favor of his wife. The husband was initially set ex parte, and despite being allowed to participate later, he did not cooperate, leading to a decree directing him to pay Rs. 3,25,500/- along with interest and costs. The Family Court concluded that the husband had no means and was not liable to be arrested and detained, which was challenged by the wife. Issue 2: Applicability of Proviso (c) to Section 51 CPC The court considered whether proviso (c) to Section 51 CPC, which allows for arrest and detention if the decree is for a sum for which the judgment-debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account, applies. The court referred to Section 51 CPC and emphasized that for arrest and detention to be avoided, the judgment-debtor must not fall within the scope of clauses (a), (b), and (c) of the proviso to Section 51. Issue 3: Determination of Fiduciary Capacity in Husband-Wife Relationship The court analyzed whether the husband-wife relationship constitutes a fiduciary relationship and whether the husband was bound in such capacity to account for the amounts. The court referred to various legal dictionaries and precedents, including the decision in Prathibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, which held that a husband is liable to account for the wife's property entrusted to him. The court concluded that the husband-wife relationship is inherently fiduciary, and the husband is bound to account for the wife's property entrusted to him. Issue 4: Scope of Execution of the Decree Amount The court examined the specific claims under the decree: 1. Currency brought as share in parental property: Rs. 1,50,000/- 2. Value of 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments: Rs. 88,000/- 3. Value of other articles entrusted: Rs. 17,500/- 4. Amounts received subsequently for various purposes: Rs. 70,000/- The court held that claims under heads (1), (2), and (3) fall within the scope of proviso (c) to Section 51 CPC, but the claim under head (4) does not. Therefore, the plea of "no means" is not available for the amount of Rs. 2,55,500/- (total Rs. 3,25,500/- minus Rs. 70,000/-). Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part. The court directed the Family Court to proceed with the execution petition for Rs. 2,55,500/- along with interest and proportionate costs, rejecting the husband's plea of "no means" for this amount. The parties were instructed to appear before the Family Court on 30-8-2010 to continue the proceedings. The court appreciated the assistance rendered by the advocates and the amicus curiae.
|
