Full Judgment Text
NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL.447 OF 2009
[Arising out of SLP{C] No. 4916 of 2007]
Vishwas Narhari Sahastrabudhe … Appellant
VERSUS
Varda Vishwas Sahastrabudhe …Respondent
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order
st
dated 31 of August, 2006 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Family Court Appeal No. 15 of
2006, by which the decree passed by the Family Court at
Pune, granting divorce under Section 13(1) (1-a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was affirmed but had
remanded the matter back to the Family Court for proper
determination of issues of permanent alimony and
ownership of flat in Triveni Nagar. Against the aforesaid
order of remand, the husband/appellant had filed a
1
Special Leave Petition, which on grant of leave, was
heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
It is to be noted that while issuing notice on this Special
th
Leave Petition on 12 of March, 2007, this Court passed
the following order :-
“Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states
that he does not challenge the finding on
divorce and monthly maintenance.”
3. The issues that were framed by the impugned Judgment
of the High Court are as follows :-
“(a) Whether the original petitioner will in law
be entitled to seek declaration as prayed for from
Family Court under Family Court’s Act?
(b) If yes, whether in the facts and circumstances
of this case, the original petitioner should be given
such declaration of Family Court or any other
order as Family Court may deem fit?
(c) Whether Family Court can record any finding
about flat at Mhatre Bridge and Triveni Nagar in
the absence of Narhari alias Kishor, father of the
appellant?
(d) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case,
the original petitioner proves that flat at Mhatre
Bridge and Triveni Nagar were/are owned by the
appellant?
(e) What should be the amount of permanent
alimony in the facts and circumstances of this
case?”
2
4. Considering the issues framed by the High Court, we find
that the question of jurisdiction of the Family Court has to be
taken into consideration by it and that being the position, at this
stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by
the High Court. However, we make it clear that the Family
Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made
by the High Court in the impugned Judgment while deciding
the issues as directed by the High Court and the Family Court
shall decide the same in accordance with law including the
question whether Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which
deals with disposal of property is applicable in the facts of this
case or not.
4A. However, the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six Lacs), which
has been directed to be paid by the High Court to the
respondent, is stayed till the disposal of the Family Court
proceeding after remand. At the same time, we modify the
th
order dated 10 of August, 2007 of this Court to the extent that
instead of Rs. 2000/- as maintenance to each of the child of the
parties, a sum of Rs. 5000/- by way of maintenance to each
child shall be paid by the husband to the respondent/wife
3
st
regularly from 1 of February, 2009 onwards or till the Family
Court decides the disputes after remand.
5. The appeal is thus disposed of. There will be no
order as to costs.
……………………………J.
[ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]
NEW DELHI: ……………………………J.
JANUARY 27, 2009 [H. L. DATTU]
4