IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6695-6697 OF 2018   (ARISING OUT OF THE SLP (C) NOS.  22343-22345 OF 2017)   

UDITA NABHA   …APPELLANT (s)

VERSUS

RANJEET NABHA                            …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T   

N. V. RAMANA, J.   

1. Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  are  filed  against  the  interim  order  dated 25.04.2017 in Civil Application No. 78 of 2017 in FCA No.

216 of 215 along with Civil Application No. 178 of 2016 in

FCA No. 232 of 2015 and order dated 06.07.2017 in Review

Petition No. 5 of 2017 in Civil Application 78 of 2017 passed

by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

3. It would be necessary to observe the litigation history of this case, in order to appreciate the case at hand. Appellant (wife)

1

NON-REPORTABLE

and  respondent  (husband)  were  married  under  the

provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 way back in the

year 1995. The couple was blessed with a girl child in the

year  2003.  As  there  was  matrimonial  discord  between

appellant (wife) and respondent (husband), appellant (wife)

filed a petition under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage

Act, 1954, being M.J. Petition No. A-2400 of 2011 before the

Family Court in Mumbai.  

4. In the  aforesaid  divorce  petition,  the  Appellant,  inter  alia, sought  permanent  alimony  of  Rs.  30,00,00,000/-  and

interim maintenance of  Rs. 3,50,000/- for herself and Rs.

2,50,000/- for her minor daughter. It is to be noted that the

Family Court, by order dated 21.10.2013, partly allowed the

appellant’s application for interim maintenance and directed

the  respondent  to  pay  Rs.  2,00,000/-  per  month  for  the

appellant (wife) and Rs. 1,00,000/- per month for the minor

daughter.   The  order  of  trial  court  granting  interim

maintenance  was  sustained  by  the  appellate  courts

thereafter.

5. Thereafter, the Family Court by a final order and judgment, dated 14.09.2015, in M.J. Petition No. A-2400 of 2011, inter

alia, while granting the divorce to the petitioner, provided for

the permanent alimony, in the following manner -

4.The  respondent  shall  pay  lumpsum permanent  alimony of  Rs.  6 Crores for the petitioner and Rs. 5 crores for their daughter Naia, within three months from the date of decree.

2

5. Out  of  the  above  mentioned  Rs.  5 Crores,  the  petitioner  shall  keep  the amount of Rs. 3.5 Crores in fixed Deposit with any nationalized bank in the name of  minor  child  Naia  for  a  period  of  5 years.

6.  The petitioner is not entitled to withdraw above    amount of Fixed deposit of Rs. 3.5  Crores  in  the  name  of  minor daughter without the permission of the Court during the minority of child.

6. It  may  be  relevant  to  note  that  both  parties  preferred appeals, before the High Court, against the aforesaid order of

the Family Court,  being FCA No. 216 of 2015 and 232 of

2015.  The  High  Court,  by  order  dated  09.03.2016,  has

issued notice in both appeals filed by parties herein and the

same is pending.  

7. In the meanwhile,  respondent filed a Civil  Application No. 385 of 2015 in FCA No. 216 of 2015, seeking, inter alia, stay

of the implementation of the final order, so far as it relates to

the permanent  alimony,  granted by the Family  Court.  On

04.05.2016, the High Court,  while considering the interim

stay  sought  by  the  respondent,  tentatively  allowed  his

counsel to seek instruction on the deposit, in the following

manner-

Clause  4  of  the  impugned  decree  is  a money  decree.  If  Applicant  wants  his prayer  for  stay  and  grant  of  monthly payment  to  be  considered,  the  Applicant must deposit a reasonable amount out of the amount payable in terms of Clause 4. Learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant

3

seeks  time  to  take  instructions  whether the  respondent  can  pay  a  reasonable amount.  We  however,  make  it  clear  that unless the Applicant deposits a reasonable amount, his prayer for a grant of facility to pay  monthly  amount  will  not  be considered on merits.

Further, by order dated 12.08.2016, The High Court while

granting a conditional stay, ordered as under-

Pending  the  hearing  and  final disposal of Family Court Appeal No. 216 of 2015, execution of judgment and order in  Clauses  (iv)  and  (v),  passed  by  the learned  Family  Court  No.6  at  Bandra, Mumbai on 14th September, 2015 stands stayed subject to applicant Ranjeet Nabha depositing 75% of the amount as directed by the Family Court in clauses (iv) and (v) towards lumpsum permanent alimony in favour  of  respondent  Udita  Nabha  and daughter Naia Nabha within three months from  today,  with  the  Registry  of  this Court.

On an appeal before this Court, by the respondent, in SLP

(C)  No.  32082  of  2016,  this  Court,  by  Order  dated

28.11.2016,  while  dismissing  the  special  leave  petition,

extended  the  time  period  for  respondent  to  deposit  the

money by further two months.

8. In view of the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondent, accordingly,  deposited  the  requisite  money  and  complied

with the order.

9. Thereafter, the appellant (wife) filed an  Application before the High Court,  being Civil  Application No.  78 of  2017 in

4

FCA  No.  216  of  2015,  seeking,  inter  alia,  permission  to

unconditionally  withdraw  a  sum  of  Rs.  8.25  Crores

deposited by the respondent.

10. The High Court,  by the final  impugned order,  dated 25.04.2017, while partly allowing the application, inter alia,

passed the following order-

(I) We direct  the registry  to invest  a sum  of  Rs.  1.125  crores  in separate  fixed  deposit  with  any nationalized  bank.  While  opening the  fixed  deposit  account, instructions shall  be  given to  the Bank  directing  the  Bank  to transfer  the  quarterly  interest accrued  thereon  directly  to  the bank account of the applicant-wife. We  direct  the  applicant-wife  to furnish  necessary  account particulars of her Bank account to the  Registrar  (Judicial-I)  within  a period of three weeks from the date on which order is uploaded;

(II) The amount equivalent to 75% of the sum of Rs. 3.5 Crores shall be separately invested in fixed deposit with any nationalized Bank. In the event  of  any  major  change  in circumstances, it  will  be open for the applicant-wife to apply to this Court  for  seeking  permission  to withdraw a part of the said amount or interest accrued thereon;

(III) Rest  of  the  amount  deposited  by the  respondent-husband in  terms of  the  order  dated  12th August 2016  shall  be  invested  in  fixed deposit in any nationalized bank;

5

(IV) All fixed deposits shall be renewed from time to time till further orders are passed by the Court in Family Court Appeal;

11. Further, the appellant (wife) filed a Review Petition No. 5 of 2017 in Civil Application No. 78 of 2017, seeking review

of  the  aforesaid  order.  The  High  Court,  vide order  dated

06.07.2017,  dismissed  the  Review  Petition  filed  by  the

appellant (wife).  

12. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant (wife) approached this Court through these appeals.

13. Heard the learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of both parties and perused the material available on record.

14. Our  attention  was  drawn to  the  fact  that  appellant (wife)  and  the  minor  daughter  were  provided  with  Rs.

2,00,000/-  per  month  and  Rs.  1,00,000/-  per  month  as

interim maintenance,  but  the  aforesaid  amount  has  been

substantially reduced and presently, the minor daughter is

only entitled for approximately Rs. 29,000/- per month, even

after  being granted the permanent alimony by the Family

Court through the final order. Further, we are aware of the

fact that the appeals filed by both the parties are pending in

the High Court.  

15. Although  the  learned  senior  counsel,  appearing  on behalf  of  the  respondent,  has  vehemently  contended  that

there  was  no  requirement  to  grant  any  amount  to  the

petitioner (wife), as she was alleged to have sufficient means

6

to  maintain  herself  and  her  daughter,  but  we  are  not

impressed by such submissions on merits, as we are only

concerned  with  reasonability  of  conditions  imposed  for

granting stay.  In this  case at  hand,  we have to delicately

balance the interests of parties concerned, so that a party is

not unjustly denied of  his rights on the one hand, at  the

same time, interest of judgment-debtor during  intra-appeal

is also not unjustly denied.

16. Learned  senior  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the petitioner, has limited the submissions to only a part of the

entire amount granted by the trial court, so as to maintain

herself  and  her  child.  Although  we  acknowledge  the

respondent’s promise to provide for the child’s education in

the concerned institution, but we cannot lose track of the

fact that the appellant (wife) may require certain amount to

lead  a  comparable  life  and  also  provide  for  her  child’s

comfort at the same time. Therefore, it is imperative on us to

protect her interests in this case at hand.

17. In view of pendency of appeals before the High Court, any further indulgence at this stage is not required, except,

we deem it appropriate to modify the order of the High Court

to the extent that the appellant (wife) be allowed to withdraw

Rs. 2 Crores during intra-appeal as an interim measure.  

18. Further,  we request  the  High Court  to  expeditiously dispose of the appeals. It is also made clear that we have not

expressed any views on the merits of this case and the High

Court  is  further  requested  to  consider  the  case,

uninfluenced by any observations made herein.

7

19. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of.

…………......................J.  (N.V. RAMANA)

..................................J.         (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

NEW DELHI, July 16, 2018.

8