POONAM JAIDEV SHROFF vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  I.A. NOS. 59776 AND 60354 OF 2021 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2634 OF 2017 JAIDEV RAJNIKANT SHROFF                   ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS POONAM JAIDEV SHROFF        ...RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R B.R. Gavai, J. 1. These   two   interlocutory   applications   filed   by   the respondent­wife   are   part   of   series   of   a   long   drawn acrimonious litigation between the husband and wife. For   the   disposal   of   the   present   interlocutory 2. applications, we need not refer to the facts in detail.  Suffice it to say that the appellant­husband and the respondent­wife th were married to each other on 27  November 2004. However, the   relationship   between   them   soured.     Various   cases 1 including the FIRs were filed by both the husband and wife against each other. 3. The   appellant­husband   filed   a   divorce   petition   being Petition   No.   A­2742   of   2015   before   the   Family   Court   at Bandra,   Mumbai   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “Family Court”) seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.  The same was   filed   in   the   month   of   October   2015.     During   the pendency of the said divorce petition, the appellant­husband lodged   a   complaint   against   the   respondent­wife   with   the Khar   Police   Station,   making   certain   serious   allegations against   the   respondent­wife.   On   the   basis   of   the   said complaint, an FIR being FIR No. 169 of 2016 came to be registered by the said police station.  It is the contention of the appellant­husband that after the said FIR was lodged, the   respondent­wife   voluntarily   left   82,   Pali   Hill,   Bandra (West),   Mumbai  –  400   050   (hereinafter   referred  to  as  the “said   house”),   wherein   the   appellant­husband   and   the respondent­wife   were   residing   together.   According   to   the appellant­husband,   the   respondent­wife   along   with   their daughter Rudritara went to 38, Pali Hill, Bandra, i.e., her 2 mother’s residence.   The appellant­husband thereafter filed an application seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondent­wife from entering the said house. The Family nd Court   vide   order   dated   22   April   2016,   allowed   the   said application, thereby granting an injunction restraining the respondent­wife   from   entering   the   said   house.     Being nd aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court dated 22 April 2016, the respondent­wife filed a writ petition being Writ   Petition   No.   6029   of   2016   before   the   Bombay   High th Court. Vide order dated 24   October 2016, the High Court allowed the said writ petition filed by the respondent­wife. Being   aggrieved   thereby,   the   appellant­husband   has approached this Court.   That is how the main appeal has travelled up to this Court. 4. Initially, when the matter came up before this Court on th 15  November 2016, this Court issued notice only to explore the   possibility   of   an   amicable   resolution   of   the   dispute. th However, this Court in its order dated 27   January 2017, recorded   that   the   settlement   between   the   parties,   at   that stage, was not possible.  This Court, therefore, enlarged the 3 scope of the notice issued by this Court vide the said order and   expressed   that   they   were   inclined to   examine   the   impugned order of the High Court of Bombay on merits.  Vide the said order, this Court also passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. th 5. When this matter was listed before this Court on 14 September 2017, this Court recorded that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the present proceedings,   the   parties   are   agreeable   to   explore   the possibility of an amicable resolution of their dispute.   As such,   by   consent,   Mrs.   Sadhna   Ramachandran,   Advocate was appointed as a Mediator.  It further appears that in order to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, this Court nd vide order dated 22   January 2018, directed the parties to th remain present in person on 30  January 2018 at 02.00 pm. th The order of this Court dated 30  January 2018 would reveal that this Court had discussed the matter in Chambers with the parties to find out some amicable resolution and a week’s time was granted to the parties to think over to come to an th amicable   resolution.     However,   vide   order   dated   13 4 February   2018,   this   Court   recorded   that   there   is   no possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties. st 6. This Court, again on 21   August 2018, recorded that the matter needed to be resolved through mediation.   This Court,   therefore,   appointed   Shri   Sriram   Panchu,   Senior Advocate, as a Mediator to mediate the dispute between the parties.   Vide the said order, this Court also stayed all the criminal proceedings pending between the parties. Shri Sriram  Panchu,  the learned Mediator  submitted 7. th his report on 19   February 2019, stating therein that the differences between the parties were too wide and it was not possible to resolve the matter at that stage.  Hence, he filed th the closure report.  Further report of the Mediator dated 12 th April 2019, would reveal that by e­mail dated 25   March 2019, counsel for the respondent­wife has informed him that while adjourning the matter by four weeks, this Court had issued an oral direction to the parties to appear once more before   the   Mediator.   The   report   further   revealed   that, however,   both   the   parties   by   self/through   counsel   have expressed the view that there is no point in continuing with 5 the mediation.   In the circumstances, vide the said report th dated 12   April 2019, the learned Mediator has observed that the mediation cannot be carried on and was therefore closed. th On 30  January 2020, this Court passed the following 8. order:­ “Heard.  Mr. P. Chidambaram and Mr. Shyam Divan, learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the respondent ­ Poonam Jaidev Shroff, state that the respondent   ­   Poonam   Jaidev   Shroff   will   locate rented   premises   of   her   choice   which   shall   be equivalent   to   the   residence   at   82,   Pali   Hill, Bandra   (West),   Mumbai   –   400   050,   for   her residence.  Dr.   A.M.   Singhvi,   learned   Senior   Counsel appearing   for   the   appellant–Jaidev   Rajnikant Shroff,   states   that   the   appellant   ­   3   Jaidev Rajnikant  Shroff will pay the  rent for the  said premises.  It is understood that this arrangement will at the moment continue till the disposal of the pending divorce petition.  Mr. P. Chidambaram and Mr. Shyam Divan, learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the respondent, prays for time to make a statement 6 regarding   the   disposal   of   the   divorce   petition pending in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. List   these   matters   on   26.02.2020   (a   non­ miscellaneous day).” Again, when the matter was listed before this Court on 9. th 6  March 2020, this Court passed the following order:­ “We   have   heard   the   question   of   respondent   ­ wife’s accommodation at length.  We are of the view that in the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice would be best served   if   the   Registrar   of   the   Family   Court   at Bandra,   Mumbai,   is   directed   to   engage   an architect from the panel of architects maintained by   the   Bombay   High   Court   for   finding   out appropriate accommodation for the residence of the respondent – wife.  It is made clear that the residence shall be approximately similar to the size of 82, Pali Hill, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 and located as far as possible in Bandra and Juhu area.  After   such   accommodation   is   located,   the Registrar shall submit a report forthwith to this Court   pointing   out   the   location   of   such accommodation along with rent so as to enable this   Court   to   pass   further   orders.   We   further direct that if the accommodation is approved, the petitioner   –   husband   shall   regularly   pay   such rent to the landlord of the tenanted premises.  7 List these matters after two months.” 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, Smt.   Kishori  Joshi,   Architect,  Valuers  and   Engineers  was rd engaged   by   the   Registrar   of   the   Family   Court.     On   3 February 2021, Smt. Joshi submitted a list of the properties, which   in   the   architect’s   opinion   were   similar   to   the   said rd house. The communication dated 3   February 2021 would reveal that in the architect’s opinion, the properties listed were   outcome   of   their   best   efforts   to   provide   a   suitable accommodation to the respondent­wife as per her liking and will.   As many as 17 properties have been listed in the list rd sent along with the communication dated 3  February 2021. th However, vide communication dated 10   February 2021, it was informed on behalf of the respondent­wife that none of the   properties   shown   in   the   list   were   similar   to   the   said house.   11. In   this   background,   the   respondent­wife   has approached   this   Court   with   the   two   interlocutory 8 applications. The prayers in I.A. No. 60354 of 2021, read thus:­ (a) “allow   the   present   application   and   vacate th the interim order dated 27   January 2017 passed   by   this   Hon’ble   Court   in   the aforesaid appeal and permit the Respondent and   the   minor   child   to   reside   in   the matrimonial home; (b) allow  the   present  Application  and  dismiss the SLP(Civil) No. 32264 of 2016 converted into Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2017;” The prayers in I.A. No. 59776 of 2021, read thus:­ 12. a) “clarify the order dated 06.03.2020 & allow the Respondent   and   the   minor   daughter   to forthwith move into 82 Pali Hill (matrimonial Home) and the Respondent be paid an amount of Rs. 75.26 Lakhs per annum for the staff of the matrimonial home and maintenance as per actuals along with arrears for living outside the matrimonial   home   @   Rs.   35.37   Lakhs   per month from 07.04.2016 till the date of passing of the Order;  b) In   the   alternative,   clarify   the   order   dated 06.03.2020 & an amount of Rs 35.37 Lakhs per month be paid to the Respondent which is the monthly rent amount of the matrimonial home along with cost of running & maintaining the premises as per actuals and the arrears 9 from 07.04.2016 till the date of passing of the Order.” We   have   heard   Shri   Shyam   Divan,   learned   Senior 13. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant­respondent wife and   Dr.   Abhishek   Manu   Singhvi,   learned   Senior   Counsel appearing on behalf of the non­applicant­appellant husband. 14. Shri Divan submitted that though the respondent­wife has   succeeded   before   the   High   Court,   on   account   of   the status quo order passed by this Court, the respondent­wife is deprived of staying in the said house, which is the shared household   as   contemplated   under   Section   2(s)   of   the Protection   of   Women   from   Domestic   Violence   Act,   2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “DV Act”).  He submitted that the   appellant­husband   is   earning   hundreds   of   crores   per year,   whereas   the   respondent­wife   and   the   daughter Rudritara have to survive on a meagre amount of Rs. 12 lakhs per month. 15. Shri   Divan   further   submitted   that   this   Court   had directed an architect to be appointed by the Family Court to 10 find out a house similar to the one, wherein she was residing with   her   husband.   He   submitted   that   the   properties suggested   by   the   architect,   by   no   stretch   of   imagination, could be said to be houses, which are similar to the said house.  He submitted that on one hand, the respondent­wife is compelled to stay with her aged mother, whereas on the other hand, the appellant­husband is residing in the shared household   with   a   lady   with   whom   he   is   engaged   in   an adulterous relationship.   He submitted that the appellant­ husband has been emboldened on account of the status quo order   passed   by   this   Court   and   has   entered   into   an adulterous relationship with a lady and also fathered a child in the said relationship.  It is submitted that the appellant­ husband is making all efforts to move into the matrimonial house with his mistress and as such, has abused the process of the court and manipulated legal process in filing fabricated petition.  Shri   Divan   therefore   submitted   that   taking   into 16. consideration   the   conduct   of   the   appellant­husband,   the order   of   status   quo   granted   by   this   Court   needed   to   be 11 vacated.     He   submitted   that   in   the   alternative,   since   the respondent­wife was compelled to reside with her husband, th the order dated 6   March 2020 needed to be clarified that the respondent­wife and the minor daughter be permitted to move   to   the   said   house   and   the   appellant­husband   be directed to pay an amount of Rs.75.26 lakhs per annum for the staff at the matrimonial home and maintenance as per actuals   along   with   arrears.   He   submitted   that   in   the th alternative, it is necessary to clarify the order dated 6  March 2020 and direct an amount of Rs.35.37 lakhs to be paid to the respondent­wife by the appellant­husband, which was a monthly rent of the matrimonial home along with the cost of running and maintaining the premises as per actuals and th the arrears from 7  April 2016. 17. Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant­husband, on the contrary, submitted that the present applications are an attempt to seek a review of the order passed by this Court, which has been passed after hearing   the   parties.   He   submitted   that   the   appellant­ husband is willing to pay the rent for the premises, if the 12 suitable premises is chosen by the respondent­wife and she shifted   her   residence   to   the   said   premises.   However,   the present   applications   are   an   attempt   to   get   much   more amount than to which the respondent wife has been found to be entitled by an elaborate order passed by the Family Court th dated 30  July 2018.  He submitted that the respondent­wife herself is a rich lady having huge properties, having income more than sufficient to sustain herself. He submitted that, however,   the   respondent­wife   is   trying   to   take   an   undue advantage of the fact that the appellant­husband is a rich person.   He   submitted   that   the   entire   conduct   of   the respondent­wife would show that she has been unreasonable th and   adamant.   He   submitted   that   the   order   dated   30 January 2020 passed by this Court, would itself clarify that the   respondent­wife   had   made   a   statement   that   she   will locate   a   rented   premises   of   her   choice,   which   shall   be equivalent to the said house.   The appellant­husband had also expressed his willingness to pay the rent for the said st premises.   By another order dated 21   August 2018, this Court had directed an architect to be appointed from the 13 panel of Architects, maintained by the Bombay High Court. Accordingly, an architect was appointed by the Registrar of the   Family   Court,   who   has   identified   as   many   as   17 properties.  He submitted that it is impossible to find out a property, which can be found to be identical with the said house.   He, however, submitted that the properties, which have been identified by the architect, are similar in terms of the facilities and luxuries, as are available in the said house. 18. Dr.   Singhvi   further   submitted   that   though   the appellant­husband has offered an amount of Rs.100 crore as a one­time settlement, the respondent­wife has refused the said offer and has demanded an amount of Rs.600 crore. 19. Though   the   appellant   and   respondent   have   made serious   allegations   against   each   other,   we   do   not   find   it necessary to go into those allegations. A perusal of the record would   reveal   that   the   relations   between   the   parties   are strained to such an extent that even the efforts made by this Court to arrive at a settlement by personally discussing the matter   in   Chambers   with   them,   have   failed.     On   two occasions,   this   Court  has   appointed   Mediators,   who   were 14 Advocates.   However,   the   mediation   proceedings   could   not succeed. In such a situation, to compel the parties to live together in one house, would not be in the interest of either of the parties.  With the history of such acrimony and filing of criminal cases against each other, such an order, rather than  benefiting the  parties, would be detrimental to their interests.  th 20. The   order   passed   by   this   Court   dated   30   January 2020, would reveal that this Court has attempted to balance the equities.  On the first occasion, the respondent­wife had herself made a statement that she would identify a similar property and the appellant­husband had made a statement that   he   was   willing   to   pay   the   rent   of   such   a   property identified by the respondent­wife.   On the second occasion, st this Court vide order dated 21   August 2018, directed an architect to be appointed from the panel of Architects.   In accordance   with   the   directions   passed   by   this   Court,   an architect   was   appointed   and   she   has   made   an   elaborate exercise of identifying various properties.  It will be relevant rd to refer to the contents of the letter dated 3  February 2021, 15 addressed by the Architect to the Registrar of the Family Court:­ “We   are   producing   herewith   Property   Listings similar to 82, Pali Hill, Bandra (West), Mumbai in our best effort to provide suitable accommodation to Mrs. Poonam Shroff as per her liking and will.  The   shortlisted   properties   in   Upscale   locales assuredly   possess   the   potential   to   exhibit   the desired degree of luxe & comfort as expected by Mrs. Poonam Shroff evident from the mail dated 07.10.2020   from   Madhu   Chaudhary (madhuchaudhary@nnico.com) from Naik Naik & Company representing Mrs. Poonam Shroff.” 21. It could thus be seen that in the Architect’s opinion, the properties in the list are similar to the said house and that they   have   made   their   best   efforts   to   provide   a   suitable accommodation to the respondent­wife as per her liking and will.   It has further been stated in the said communication that   the   shortlisted   properties   in   the   upscale   locales assuredly possess the potential to exhibit the desired degree of luxe and comfort as expected by the respondent­wife.  The list annexed to the communication of the Architect contains as many as 17 properties in the upscale area of Bandra, Juhu, Santacruz and Khar.  Even if we leave aside properties 16 No. 4 and 12, which according to the respondent­wife are not suitable   for   residential   accommodation,   there   are   still   15 properties available for rent.   We do not like to go into the details of all the properties.  However, we will reproduce the details   of   few   properties   with   the   remarks   given   by   the respondent­wife,   to   examine   the   correctness   of   the   stand taken by the respondent­wife:­ 17

18

19 22. The   aforesaid   chart   would   reveal   that   though   the property   at   Serial   No.   1   is   an   independent   bungalow   at Carter Road, Bandra, with a sea view, the remarks given by the respondent­wife is that the same is smaller as compared to   the   said   house,   and   therefore,   cannot   be   an   alternate equivalent accommodation in terms of the order of this Court th dated 6  March 2020.  Insofar as the property at Serial No. 2 is concerned, the same is also a sea facing bungalow at Juhu Tara Road.  However, the remarks given by the respondent­ wife is that further details are required.  The rent for these two houses is Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.30 lakhs respectively.  The th th property at Serial No. 3 is a duplex on 13  and 14  floor.  It is fully done up with a sea view.  However, the remarks given by the respondent­wife is that it is smaller as compared to the   said   house   and   therefore,   cannot   be   an   alternate equivalent accommodation.  The property at Serial No. 9 is a Pentahouse­4BHK with 1000 sq. ft. of terrace and also sea facing.  However, the remarks given by the respondent­wife is that it is not similar to the one offered at Serial No. 1.   The property at Serial No. 11 is a 10,000 sq. ft. bungalow.  It is 20 sea facing and has a garden and a terrace.  The rent is Rs.25 lakhs.  However, a similar remark is given by the respondent­ wife even in respect of this property also. In our view, to stretch the word ‘similar’ as used in the 23. th order dated 6  March 2020, to be totally identical to the said house, would be unrealistic.  It will be difficult to find out a house identical to the said house having the same area, the same facilities and the same luxuries.  The word ‘similar’ has to be construed as providing the same degree of luxury and comfort   as   is   available   in   the   said   house.     We   have   no hesitation in observing that the conduct of the respondent­ wife in firstly not choosing any house as per her choice and secondly,   in  rejecting   all  the   properties,   which   have   been identified by the Architect, only on the ground that they are not similar and therefore, not in accordance with the order th dated 6  March 2020, to say the least is unreasonable. 24. As already discussed hereinabove, if we allow the prayer and allow the respondent­wife to move into the said house, it will rather than subserving the interest of the parties, would be   detrimental   to   their   interests.   The   record   and   the 21 pendency of the criminal proceedings would show that the relations between the parties are so strained that if they are permitted to live in the said house, it would lead to nothing else but further criminal proceedings.   25. Insofar as the alternate prayer with regard to payment of   Rs.35.37   lakhs   per   month   is   concerned,   it   will   be th necessary to refer to the order of the Family Court dated 30 July 2018.   The Family Court, by an elaborate order, after recording the details about the income of the parties, had directed   an   interim   maintenance   to   be   paid   to   the respondent­wife at the rate of Rs. 7 lakhs per month and to the minor at the rate of Rs. 5 lakhs per month.  If the prayer for payment of an amount is allowed, it will be giving an additional amount to the respondent­wife. It will amount to awarding an amount which is much more than the one to which the respondent­wife was found entitled by the Family Court.  It may not be out of place to mention that the said th order  has   been  passed   on  30   July   2018  i.e.   during   the pendency of the present appeal.  We, therefore, find that the alternate relief as prayed also cannot be granted. 22 26. Insofar as the vacation of status quo is concerned, the order was passed after hearing the parties. Apart from the fact that it may amount to review of the order, we do not find that in the facts of the present case, the said order needs to be vacated. th 27. A perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 30 January 2020, would reveal that this Court intended to pass the order directing the appellant­husband to pay the rent till the   disposal   of   the   pending   divorce   petition.   The   divorce petition   has   been   pending   before   the   Family   Court   for   a period of last 6 years.   Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it will be in the interest of both the parties that the divorce petition pending before the Family Court is decided expeditiously so that there can be at least some quietus to the acrimonious litigation pending between the parties. 28. In   the   result,   we   do   not   find   merit   in   both   the interlocutory   applications   and   the   same   are   rejected. However, we clarify that in the event, the respondent­wife decides to shift to any of the properties mentioned in the list 23 rd annexed with the report of the Architect dated 3  February 2021 or she locates any of the rented premises as per her choice, the appellant­husband shall pay the rent of the said premises from the date on which such premises are taken on rent.   However, taking into consideration that the highest rent of the properties identified by the Architect is Rs. 30 lakhs per month, the appellant­husband would be liable to pay rent to the maximum of Rs. 30 lakhs per month. 29. In  the  facts   and   circumstances,   the   Family   Court  is directed to expedite the proceedings of the Petition No. A­ 2742 of 2015 and decide it as expeditiously as possible.  No order as to costs.   ……....….......................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO] .........................J.             [B.R. GAVAI] NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 03, 2021. 24