# I- ss.437 and 438 - Bail - Cancellation of - Criminal case against husband and In-laws - Warrants issued - Appellants- c in Jaws declared absconder - Properties of mother-in-law -f attached - Order of public auction - High Court directed tenant ' to deposit rent in court and permitted complainant to withdraw the same as an order of maintenance was passed by another bench of High Court - Also order of cancellation of bail and D issue of non-bailable warrants against appellants - Held: " Orders of High Court passed only on consideration that complainant was a harassed lady, but fact that appellant was also a much harassed lady was lost sight of - In-laws are old and suffer from various diseases - Though sympathy should E not be allowed to effect decision making process - However, direction to send the old couple to jail or deprive them of their lawful right of a valuable property and/or ask them to meet obligations which statutorily are not theirs, should also not be passed, keeping in view conduct of complainant - She is an F ( . Advocate - She filed large number of criminal cases and ~ ( applications for cancellation of bail on wholly wrong premise - Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the interest of justice would be subserved if orders of High Court are set aside - Property directed to be rele2sed from G attachment - Complainant directed to bear costs of appellant quantified at Rs. 50, 000 - Certain other directions passed. ss. 82 and 83 - Object of- Held: Is to secure presence of accused - Once the said purpose is achieved, attachment 1077 H 1078 SUPREME COURT REPORiS J2008] 4 S.C.R. A should be withdrawn - Once accused surrenders before Court, he is no longer an absconder'-- The purpose of attaching the property comes to an end - Securing attendance of absconding accused, .is matter between State and accused - Complainant should not ordinarily derive any benefit therefrom B - If property is to be sold, it vests with the State subject to any order passed under s. 85 - It cannot be a subject matter of execution of a decree, far less for executing the decree of a third party, who had no right, title or interest thereon. s. 83 -Attachment of property- Tenant - Right of:--- Held: C His right as a tenant could not have been affected by reason of any order of attachment - Terms and conditions of tenancy, being governed by statute, the tenant cannot be evicted except in accordance with Jaw. 0 s. 84 - Invocation of - Held: Cannot be invoked for the purpose of execution of a decree. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - s. 18 - Maintenance claimed by wife, during subsistence of marriage - Liability.to pay- Held: Is on the husband~ It is a personal E obligation - Mother-in-law cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughter-in-law from her own property or otherwise. Title - Burden of proof- Held: It is not for an owner of the property to establish that it is his se/f-acqqired property and F the onus would be on the one, who pleads contra. Protection of women from domestic violence Act - Right of residence - Claim by wife - Held: The Act provides for a higher right in favour of a wife - She not only acquires a right G to be maintained but also acquires a right of residence - The said right as per the legislation extends to joint properties in which the husband has a share. Right to property - Is a constitutional right- Apart from constitutional right it is also a human right "'"- The procedures H laid down· for deprivation thereof must be scrupulously ,... ' A I y ' • VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL v. VATSLABEEN 1079 ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS. ~ complied with - Constitution of India, 1950-Art.21. A Advocate - Permission to withdraw - Submission made before Supreme Court by the counsel for complainant that she may be permitted to withdraw from the case and the complainant be allowed to argue in person - Held: Such a B submission was not expected from a couns ## Text _Characters 0–39,993 of 62,385. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39993 for what follows._ [2008] 4 S.C.R. 1077 >- VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL A I- ss.437 and 438 - Bail - Cancellation of - Criminal case against husband and In-laws - Warrants issued - Appellants- c in Jaws declared absconder - Properties of mother-in-law -f attached - Order of public auction - High Court directed tenant ' to deposit rent in court and permitted complainant to withdraw the same as an order of maintenance was passed by another bench of High Court - Also order of cancellation of bail and D issue of non-bailable warrants against appellants - Held: " Orders of High Court passed only on consideration that complainant was a harassed lady, but fact that appellant was also a much harassed lady was lost sight of - In-laws are old and suffer from various diseases - Though sympathy should E not be allowed to effect decision making process - However, direction to send the old couple to jail or deprive them of their lawful right of a valuable property and/or ask them to meet obligations which statutorily are not theirs, should also not be passed, keeping in view conduct of complainant - She is an F ( . Advocate - She filed large number of criminal cases and ~ ( applications for cancellation of bail on wholly wrong premise - Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the interest of justice would be subserved if orders of High Court are set aside - Property directed to be rele2sed from G attachment - Complainant directed to bear costs of appellant quantified at Rs. 50, 000 - Certain other directions passed. ss. 82 and 83 - Object of- Held: Is to secure presence of accused - Once the said purpose is achieved, attachment 1077 H 1078 SUPREME COURT REPORiS J2008] 4 S.C.R. A should be withdrawn - Once accused surrenders before Court, he is no longer an absconder'-- The purpose of attaching the property comes to an end - Securing attendance of absconding accused, .is matter between State and accused - Complainant should not ordinarily derive any benefit therefrom B - If property is to be sold, it vests with the State subject to any order passed under s. 85 - It cannot be a subject matter of execution of a decree, far less for executing the decree of a third party, who had no right, title or interest thereon. s. 83 -Attachment of property- Tenant - Right of:--- Held: C His right as a tenant could not have been affected by reason of any order of attachment - Terms and conditions of tenancy, being governed by statute, the tenant cannot be evicted except in accordance with Jaw. 0 s. 84 - Invocation of - Held: Cannot be invoked for the purpose of execution of a decree. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - s. 18 - Maintenance claimed by wife, during subsistence of marriage - Liability.to pay- Held: Is on the husband~ It is a personal E obligation - Mother-in-law cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughter-in-law from her own property or otherwise. Title - Burden of proof- Held: It is not for an owner of the property to establish that it is his se/f-acqqired property and F the onus would be on the one, who pleads contra. Protection of women from domestic violence Act - Right of residence - Claim by wife - Held: The Act provides for a higher right in favour of a wife - She not only acquires a right G to be maintained but also acquires a right of residence - The said right as per the legislation extends to joint properties in which the husband has a share. Right to property - Is a constitutional right- Apart from constitutional right it is also a human right "'"- The procedures H laid down· for deprivation thereof must be scrupulously ,... ' A I y ' • VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL v. VATSLABEEN 1079 ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS. ~ complied with - Constitution of India, 1950-Art.21. A Advocate - Permission to withdraw - Submission made before Supreme Court by the counsel for complainant that she may be permitted to withdraw from the case and the complainant be allowed to argue in person - Held: Such a B submission was not expected from a counsel practicing in Supreme Court or from a party, who herself is an Advocate - .i Such practice is deprecated . 4. The complainant-third Respondent was married to son of appellants. She filed complaint petition against her husband and inlaws-appellants under ss.406 and 114 IPC. c Appellants were granted bail subject to the condition that they would not leave India without prior permission of the Court. Allegedly on the premise that Appellant No.2 required medical treatment, an application for permission D was filed in October 1997 but they left India without 't obtaining the same. An application was filed for .. cancellation of the bail which was rejected by the Magistrate as also by the Sessions Judge. However, High Court allowed the application seeking cancellation of bail E and directed the Magistrate to issue standing warrants of arrest against the appellants as and when they return to India. On an application filed by the third respondent , father-in-law was declared an absconder and a public F proclamation was issued in terms of s.82(2) Cr.P.C. attaching properties of mother-in-law if she did not present -~ before the Magistrate within 30 days from the issuance of the said publication. Accordingly on their failure to remain present within stipulated time, order of attachment of their G properties was passed under s.85 Cr.P.C. The Metropolitan Magistrate ordered further action in terms of s.85 by holding a public auction of the said properties. In the said order it was wrongly stated that the properties also belonged to husband of the H 1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R. A complainant, whereas in fact Appellant No.1 i.e. mother- ~ in-law alone was the owner thereof. The tenant and the ~· ) • subsequent auction purchaser filed an application before the High Court, wherein an interim order was passed directing the Mamlatdar to proceed with auction with B certain conditions. However, the appellants were not made parties therein. Against the said order, an LPA, was filed by the tenant and High Court directed that the amount .l of rent deposited by him with the Mamlatdar be deposited ~ in the High Court and permitted third respondent to c withdraw the same without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The said. order was passed, on the premise, that the complainant had placed reliance on an order passed by another Bench of the High. Court. )- ( whereby her husband was directed to deposit a· sum of D Rs.10,000/- per month towards arrears of maintenance. and to continue to deposit the. same. The tenant-First respondent expressed his intention to purchase the said ""( ,. property and he was asked to deposit additional amount ~ of Rs. 4 lakhs. E Appellant No.1 made an application to get herself impleaded as a party but her application was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court directed the tenant to pay a sum of Rs.17 lakhs to third respondent in regard to the auction sale of the property in question. Respondent F No.2, Mamlatdar, was also directed to execute the deed ~ of conveyance and register the same in the name of the tenant upon full payment. ... Appellant and her husband returned to India. They ~ / successfully filed an application for cancellation of the ! G said Standing Warrants. Pursuant to the said order, they deposited their passpo~ts. The complainant filed an application for setting.aside the said order contending that the Passports had nof been deposited by the accused ~ pursuant to the said order. The Additional Sessions Judge H set aside the said order and issued non-bailable warrants VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL v. VATSLABEEN 1081 ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS. against the appellants, which was upheld by High Court. A Hence these appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The matter relating to grant of maintenance are governed by the provisions of Hindu B Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Maintenance of a wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died. Such an obligation can also be met from the properties of c which the husband is a co-sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband must have a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother-in-law can neither be a subject matter of attachment nor during the life time of the husband, his 0 personal liability to maintain his wife can be directed to be enforced against such property. Ss.18 and 19 of the Act prescribe the statutory liabilities in regard to maintenance of wife by her husband and only on his death upon the father-in-law. Mother-in-law, thus, cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughterE in-law from her own property or otherwise. [Paras 20, 21, 24] [1095-8; 1096-C, D; 1097-F] Unnamalai Ammal v. F.W Wilson AIR (1921) Madras 1187; Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC F 479; Ba/want Kaur v. Chanan Singh (2000) 6 SCC 310 and S. R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 - referred to. 1.2. Wholly un-contentious issues. have been raised on behalf of third respondent. It is not for an owner of the property to establish that it is his self-acquired property G and the onus would be on the one, who pleads contra. The complainant might be entitled to maintenance from her husband. An order of maintenance might have been passed but in view of the settled legal position, the decree, if any,, must be executed against her husband and only H 1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 4 S.C.R. A his properties could be attached therefor but not of her mother-in-law. [Paras 20, 22] [1096-E, F, G] 1.3. The Domestic Violence Act provides for a higher right in favour of a wife. She not only acquires a right to be maintained but also thereunder acquires a right of B residence. The right of residence is a higher right. The said right as per the legislation extends to joint properties in which the husband has a share. The orders passed by the High Court are, thus, wholly unsustainable. They suffer from total non-application of mind. [Paras 27, 30] C [1099-E, F; 1101-B] V Tulasamma and Ors. v. Sehsa Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. (1977) 3 SCR 261 - Distinguished. 2.1. The provisions contained in s.82 Cr.P.C. were put D on the statute book for certain purpose. It was enacted to secure the presence of the accused. Once the said purpose is achieved, the attachment shall be withdrawn. Even the property which was attached, should be restored. The provisions of the Code of Criminal . ~'. E Procedure do not warrant sale of the property despite the fact that the absconding accused had surrendered and obtained bail. Once he surrenders before the Court and the Standing Warrants cancelled, he is no _longer an absconder. The purpose of attaching the property comes F to an end. It is to be released subject to the provisions of the Code. Securing the attendance of an absconding accused, is a matter between the State and the accused. Complainant should not ordinarily derive any benefit therefrom. If the property is to be sold, it vests with the G State subject to any order passed under s.85 of the Code. It cannot be a subject matter of execution of a decree, far less for executing the decree of a third party, who had no right, title or interest thereon. [Para 32] [1101-E, F, G; 1102-A] H 2.2. The Metropolitan Magistrate had, put the; said .. .•T j--- VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL v. VATSLABEEN 1083 ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS. ... i properties on auction sale stating that to be belonging to A the appellants and their son. The Mamlatdar appears to have exceeded his jurisdiction in trying to evict the 1st respondent. His right as a tenant could not have been affected by reason of any order of attachment. An order of attachment of a property has nothing to do with the B right of tenancy. The terms and conditions of tenancy, J. being governed by statute, the tenant cannot be evicted ;I_ except in accordance with law. It is a matter of grave concern that an independent right was also sought to be interfered with at the instance of complainant. Right to c object in terms of s.84 of the Code could not have been invoked by the wife as she has no independent claim over the property. The said provisions also could not have ,, been invoked for the purpose of execution of a decree. • [Paras 33, 34] [1102-A-E] D r 3. The contention of complainant that the passports had not been deposited, appears to be wholly incorrect. Appellant No.2 was the holder of U.S. Passport. The same ~ having expired another Passport was issued. It is that ' passport which was deposited. This is the current E ( Passport. Allegations that they are having other passports and may leave the country appears to be wholly without ~ any basis. They have been attending the courts. The observation made by the Metropolitan Magistrate that they ~ had not come of their own is unfortunate. Nobody wants to come to court of law and that too as an accused, of his F own. [Para 37] [1102-E-H; 1103-A] 4. The High Court committed a manifest illegality in directing cancellation of bail in so far as it failed to take , into consideration that the factors relevant for setting G aside an order granting bail and directing cancellation of bail are wholly distinct and different. An application for ~-~ cancellation of 'bail must be premised on the factors envisaged under sub-section (2) of s.439 Cr.P.C .. The Metropolitan Magistrate while granting bail took into H 1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R. A consideration all the relevant factors. He imposed a fine on them. Even the passports had been surrendered. Application for cancellation of bail was filed on a misstatement that the passports had not been surrendered. Various contentions, in regard to purported suffering of B the wife appears to have been taken into consideration which were wholly irrelevant. Such contentions have been raised not on the basis that there exists any legal principle behind the same but as an argument of desperation. The orders might have been passed only on C consideration that third respondent is a harassed lady, but the fact that the appellant is also a much harassed lady was lost sight of. She has more sinned than sinning. Appellant and her husband are old. They suffer from various diseases. They have been able to show before the Court that they had to go to the U.S.A. for obtaining D medical treatment. They, assumingly, have violated the conditions of grant of bail but the consequence therefore must be kept confined to the four corners of the statutes. [Paras 31, 38] [1103-B, C, D, E; 1101-C, D] E Bhagirath Singh slo. Mahipat Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat (1984) 1 SCR 839; Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of Tamilnadu (2005) 2 SCC 13 - relied on. Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Adminsitration) (1978) 2 SCR 358; lnder Mohan Goswami and Anr v. State of F Uttaranchal and Ors. (2007) 12 SCALE 15 - referred to. / 5. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, gross injustice has been caused to the appellant. She did not deserve such harsh treatments at the hands of the High Court. Respondent G No.3 speaks of her own human rights, forgetting the human rights of the appellant, far less the fundamental right of life and liberty conferred on an accused in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right of >-~ property is no longer a fundamental right. But still it is a H constitutional right. Apart from constitutional right it is also VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL v. VATSLABEEN 1085 ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS. - .J_ a human right. The procedures laid down for deprivation A thereof must be scrupulously complied with. [Paras 41, 42] [1105-E, F, G] Devinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. JT (2007) 12 SC 256 - relied on. B Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar (1984) 4 SCC 316; A. l.J. Divakar and Ors. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (1982) 3 sec 341 - held inapplicable. ~ Raghubir Singh v. State of Biahr (1986) 4 SCC 481 Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. c (2006) 4 sec 1 - referred to. 6. Sympathy or sentiment, as is well known, should not allow the Court to have any effect in its decision making process. Sympathy or sentiment can be invoked D only in favour a person who is entitled thereto. It should never be taken into consideration as a result whereof the other side would suffer civil or evil consequences. However, direction to send the old couple to jail or deprive them of their lawful right of a valuable property and/or ask E them to meet obligations which statutorily are not theirs, should also not be passed, keeping in view the conduct of the third respondent. She is an Advocate. She not only filed a large number of cases against her in-laws, some of which have been dismissed for default or withdrawn but filed applications for cancellation of their bail on wholly F . ,,.., wrong premise. [Paras 47, 48] [1108-A, B, C, DJ \ 7. A strange submission was made before this Court by the counsel for respondent No.3 that she may be permitted to withdraw from the case and the 3rd G respondent be allowed to argue in person. Such a submission was not expected from a counsel practicing in this Court or from a party, who herself is an Advocate. ~ Such practice is deprecated. [Para 49] [1108-E, F] ; 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of H 1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R. A this case, the interest of justice would be subserved if the impugned judgments are set aside. The property in question is directed to be released from attachment; the ,. third respondent" is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum; the amount of Rs. 4 · B lakhs deposited by the 1st respondent to be refunded to him immediately with interest accrued thereon; the Magistrate before whom the cases filed by the third respondent are pending directed to bestow serious consideration of disposing of the same, as expeditiously C as possible; and third responde'lt directed to bear the CO$ts of the appellant which is quantified at Rs.50,000/-. [Para 50] [1108-F, G, H; 1109-A, B, C] D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2003 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 21 /11 /2006 of the High Court of GujaratatAhmedabad in LP.A. No.1792 of2005 . in Spl. CivflAppln. No. 15377of2004. WITH E.: Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 2008. Rohit M. Alex, P.S. Sudheer and Anne Mathew for the Appellant. F Mayur Shah, Sonal Patel, Shankar Divate, Nikhil Goel, Sheela Goel, Hemantika Wahi, Shivangi and Sangeeta Singh for the Respondents. G H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted in both the matters. 2. These two appeals being inter related were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by the common judgment. 3. Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel (Appellant in Civil Appeal is the VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL v. VATSLABEEN 1087 ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] mother in law of Sonalben Rameshchandra Desai - respondent A No.3 in Civil Appeal and respondent No.2 in Criminal Appeal) while she alongwith her husband are the appellants in the Criminal Appeal. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel is being described as Appellant No.1 while her husband Ajitbhai Revandas Patel is being described B as Appellant No.2. 4. Sonalben Rameshchandra Desai was married to Jitendra Ajitbhai Patel (son of the appellants) on 4th May, 1992. The couple fell apart. In 1993 a complaint petition was filed by the 3rct respondent against her husband and the appellants C alleging commission of an offence under Sections 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said complaint the 3rd respondent accepted that her husband had incurred huge losses in the business in United States. Appellants were granted bail subject to the condition that they would not leave India without D prior permission of the Court. Allegedly on the premise that Appellant No.2 requires medical treatment, an application for permission was filed in October 1997 but they left India without obtaining the same from the Court. 5. An application was filed for cancellation of the bail which E was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate as also by the Sessions Judge. The 3rd respondent filed an application before the High Court being Special Criminal Application N0.1360 of 1997. The said application was allowed by the High Court by its order dated 18th November, 1997 cancelling the bail of the F appellants. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was directed to issue Standing Warrant of arrest against the appellants as and when they returned to India. 6. On an application filed by the 3rd respondent on 24th G April, 1998 the husband of the appellant was declared an absconder and a public proclamation was issued in terms of Section 82(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure attaching her properties if she did not present before the Learned Magistrate within 30 days from the issuance of the said publication. There H 1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2008] 4 S.C.R. A is nothing on record to show that the said order was served on the appellants. It, however, is not d ispi.Jted that on their failure to remain present within a period of 30 days their properties were subjected to order of attachment under Section 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By an order dated 5th January, 2004 the B District Magistrate was asked by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate to take further action in terms of Section 85 of the Code of Criminal f>rocedure by holding a public auction of the said properties. In the said order it was wrongly stated that the properties belonged to the appellants and husband of the 3rd c responden( whereas in fact Appellant No.1 alone was the owner thereof. ·. 7. The 1st Respondent (tenant) and the subsequent auction purchaser filed an application before the High Court of Gujarat which was marked as Special Civil Application No.15377 of D 2004 against the Mamlatder. A learned Judge of the High Court by an order' dated 5th April, 2005 directed :- "8. In view of the above, I am inclined to pass the following order: E 8: 1) Rule. By interim order it is directed that the Mamlatdar - Respondent No.1 shall proceed with the auction of the premises in question on condition that the auction which may be held shall be subject to the further condition thatF G H i) the possession of the premises shall be handed over by the Mamlatdar to the auction purchaser, after the. conclusion of the proceedings as ordered hereinafter by the ULC Authority against the petitioner as well as respondent No.3; ii) after the auction, it would be open to the Mamlatdar to notify the said aspect regarding the transfer effected by auction in the conspicuous part of the premises and such an intimation may also be given to the concerned local authority; iii) it is further directed that the Mamlatdar- Respondent VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL v. VATSLABEEN 1089 ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] A 4 No.1 herein shall make reference to competent A Authority under ULC Act to examine the aspects as to whether the transaction between the absconder and Respondent No.3 can be said in breach of the condition of Scheme under Section 21 of the ULC Act and he shall also make reference on the aspects B to the competent authority under ULC Act as to j whether the action of the absconder and subsequently ~ rectification by respondent No.3 to give the possession of the petitioner as tenant can be said in breach of the conditions of the Scheme under Section 21 on the basis of which the premises came to be c allotted to the absconder - original allottee. Such reference shall be made within a period of two weeks from today and the Mamlatdar shall request the concerned authority to decide the reference within a D period of three months from the date of receipt of the r reference. In the event it is found by the competent authority under ULCAct that the action of absconder of entering into transaction with respondent No.3 and for handing over the possession to the petitioner as E unlawful, the Mamlatdar shall be at liberty to take possession of the premises in question from the petitioner and thereafter he shall further be at liberty to hand over the vacant possession of the premises - to the auction purchaser. - F iv) It is further directed that until the aforesaid reference is made and is decided by the Mamlatdar, the petitioner shall deposit the amount at the rate of Rs.1,500/= per month with the Mamlatdar without prejudice to the proceedings of the reference and G the said amount shall remain as deposited with the Mamlatdar. In the event it is found by the competent -~ authority under ULC Act as an outcome of the reference and the inquiry that the possession is unlawful of the petitioner and the transaction is H 1090 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R. unlawful of the absconder with respondent No.2, the Mamlatdar shall be at liberty to refund the amount. However, in the event it is found that the possession is lawful and there is no breach of the condition of allotment as per the scheme under Section 21 of the ULC Act, the Mamlatdar shall be at liberty to appropriat~ th·e amount in accordance with law." v) The aforesaid exercise of holding auction shall be completed within a period of five weeks from today. c 9. The report of the proceedings and the outcome of the reference shall also be made by the Mamlatdar to this Court." 8. However, the appellant and her husband were not made I parties therein. Against the said order, an LPA, which was D marked as LPA NO. 1792 of 2005, was filed by the 1st respondent and a Division Bench of the High Court directed that the amount of rent deposited by him with the Mamlatder be deposited in the High Court and the 3rd respondent will be permitted to withdraw the same without prejudice to the rights E and contentions of the parties. The said order was passed, purported to be on the premise, that the 3rd respondent had placed reliance on an order dated 13th May, 2005 passed by another Bench of the High Court in First Appeal No. 2626 of 2004 whereby her husband was directed to deposit a sum of F Rs.10,000/- per month towards arrears of maintenance and to continue to deposit the same. 9. By an order dated 25th January, 2006 the 1st respondent was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs (as he expressed his intention to purchase the said property) apart from a sum of G Rs.10,000/- per month which was to be deposited with the Registrar by him from 1 oth February, 2006. It was furthermore directed :- "6.2 The withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- by respondent No. 2H Sonalben Rameshchandra Desai shall be adjusted against VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL v. VATSLABEEN 1091 ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] any amount which may be payable to her by Jitendra A Ajitbhai Patel under any orders in First Appeal No. 2626 of 2004, in any other matrimonial proceedings or in any civil or criminal case between her, her husband and her mother in law." 10. Appellant No.1 made an application to get herself 8 impleaded as a party but her application was dismissed by the High Court on 11.9.2006. On or about 21st November, 2006 the High Court directed the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.17 lakhs to respondent No.3 in regard to the auction sale of the property in question. Respondent No.2, Mamlatdar, was also C directed to execute the deed of conveyance and register the same in the name of the 1st respondent upon full payment. 11.Appellant and her husband returned to India. They filed an application for cancellation of the said Standing Warrants. 0 By an order dated 27th June, 2006 the said application was allowed directing :- "Application is granted and warrant against both the applicant accused are ordered to be cancelled with a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) each and with E condition to submit one new surety of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) and on executing the bond of such like amount. CONDITIONS 1. Accused shall not leave India, without prior F permission of the court. 2. Accused shall surrender his passport before the court." 12. Indisputably pursuant to the said order the Passports G were deposited on 2ath June, 2006 by them. 13. The 3rc1 respondent filed an application for setting aside the said order by filing a Criminal Miscellaneous Application before the Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad inter alia contending that the Passports had not been deposited by the accused H .''· 1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 4 S. C.R. A pursuant to the said order of 27th June, 2006. The learned }- Additional Sessions Judge set aside the said order dated 27th "' June, 2006 and non-bailable warrants were directed to be issued against the appellants herein. Aggrieved thereby she filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 14340 of 2006 before the B High Court on 13th December, 2006 which by reason by of the impugned judgment and order dated 27th December, 2006 has been dismissed. ..A. 14. The questions which arise for consideration are:- ... c (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the property of Appellant No.1 could have been sold in auction? and (ii) Whether in a case of this nature, the bail granted to the appellants should have been directed to be D cancelled? 15. Submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf -( of the appellants are : i) · Having regard to the provisions of the Hindu E Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 d~ty to maintain a wife being on the husband and not on her mother-in-law, the impugned judgments are. wholly unsustainable; F ii) The property of a person who is no longer absconding, cannot be subjected to continuous attachment or sale thereof. iii) Appellants having surrendered their Passports and having been attending the Court subsequently, the G High Court committed a manifest error in directing cancellation of their bail without appreciating that the factors.relevant for interfering with the order granting bail and directing cancellation of bail are distinct and different. >-- H 16. Submissions of Mr. Mayur Shah, learned counsel VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL v. VATSLABEEN 1093 ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] .. -i appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent, are :- A i) That her husband being the only son of his parents and the properties having been acquired through ancestral funds and there being no assertion that the properties are self acquired properties, she has a B right of maintenance out of the Joint Family Property in terms of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and -1. Maintenance Act. ... ii) In terms of Section 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, keeping in view the fact that her husband c had been directed to pay maintenance@ Rs.10,000/ - per month and which having not been paid, respondent No.3 could have prayed for realization of the said amount of maintenance from the sale proceeds of the auction sale. D iii) Even an offer was made that one residential property would be transferred in her name, apparently goes to show that the properties are Joint Family Properties. She, having been denied her right of maintenance, could initiate the proceeding before E the Metropolitan Magistrate as also before the High Court. iv) The Metropolitan Magistrate committed a serious error in granting bail upon cancellation of Standing F ...... Warrants as appellants have breached the conditions for grant of bail. They had, although placed a large number of documents and in particular medical certificates to show that they were ill, there is nothing on record to show that they were bed ridden and not permitted to move out. G v) Their near relatives in India would be deemed to have knowledge of the pendency of the said ~ ·-\ proceeding and in that view of he matter neither under the guise of the medical certificates nor on the ground H A B c D E 1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R. of age, they deserve any sympathy of the Court .. 17. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent (Auction Purchaser) would submit : i) The tenant has a right to reside in the property irrespective of the order of attachment and the same could not have been interfered with by Mamlatdar under the orders of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate of the District Magistrate. ii) The 1st respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each month for a period of ten months which have been withdrawn by the 3rd respondent. Out of the total auction amount of Rs.17 lakhs, the 1st respondent had deposited Rs. 4 lakhs which has been invested in a short term deposit, besides a sum of Rs.1 lakhs. He has also deposited a further sum of Rs.12 lakhs which sum have, however, since been refunded. The learned counsel would contend that in this view of the matter the amount deposited by him should be directed to be refunded with interest. 18. Sonalben Rameshchandra Desai is an Advocate. She filed a large number of cases against her husband and in-laws. She initially filed a Complaint Petition before the Metropolitan Magistrate,Ahmedabad, under Section 498Aofthe Indian Penal F Code which was registered as Case No.1662.of 1996. It was transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda. It has since been dismissed for default. She initiated another criminal proceeding against the appellants and their family members under Sections 323, 452, 427, 504, 506 and 114 of G the Indian Penal Code, the same proceeding has also been dis.missed as withdrawn. Another criminal case was initiated by her against appellant No.2, his son and another, being Case No.47of1996 under Section 406, 420. 468 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, which is still pending. Another case, being No.2338 H of 2006 was filed by her under Section 500 of the Indian Penal l . J- • VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL v. VATSLABEEN 1095 ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.] Code. Another case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code A being Case No.2145of1993 was filed against the appellants. 19. Before embarking on the questions of law which arise our consideration, we may notice some statutory provisions. 20. The matter relating to grant of maintenance are now B ~ · governed by the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance >-- Act, 1956. Sections 3 (b), 18 and 19 of the said Act read as .. under:- "3. (b) "Maintenance" includes- (i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment; Section 18 - Maintenance of wife c (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, 0 whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 thereof, however, lays down certain exceptions therefor. · E Sub-section (3) of Section 18 reads :- "(3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion." F Section 19 - Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law (1) A Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her fatherG in-law: Provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property or, where she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenanceH A B c 1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R. (a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother, or (b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate. (2) Any obligation under sub-section (1) shall not be enforceable if the father-in law has not the means to do so from any coparcenary property in his possession out of which the daughter-in-law has not ol:.!ained any share, and any such obligation shall cease on the re-marriage of the daughter-in-law." 21. Maintenance of a married wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died. Such an obligation can also be met from the D properties of which the husband is a co-sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband must have a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother-in-law can neither be a subject matter of attachment nor during the life time of the husband, his personal liability to maintain his wife E can be directed to be enforced against such property. 22. Wholly un-contentious issues have been raised before us on behalf of Sonalben (wife). It is well settled that apparent state of affairs of state shall be taken a real state of affairs. It is not for a.n owner of the property to establish that it is his selfF acquired property and the onus would be on the one, who pleads contra. Sonalben might be entitled to maintenance from her husband. An order of maintenance might have been passed but in view of the settled legal position, the decree, if any, must be executed against her husband and only his properties could G be attached therefor but not of her mother-in-law. H 23. Sections 4 and 28 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act read as under:- "4. Overriding effect of Act ~J r " • VIMALBEN AJITBHAI PATEL v. VATSLABEEN 1097 ASHOKBHAI PATEL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] j Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,- A ,, (a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect ~ with respect to any matter for which provision is made in B this Act; _ >... (b) any other law in force immediately before the ;. commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus insofar as it· is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. c 28. Effect of transfer of property on right to maintenance Where a dependant has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate, and such estate or any part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be D ) enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of the right." 24. Section 4 provides for a non obstante clause. In terms E of the said provision itself any obligation on the part of in-laws in terms of any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of law before the commencement of the Act, are no longer valid. In view of the non obstante clause contained in Section 4, the provisions of the Act alone are F ~i applicable. Sections 18 and 19 prescribe the statutory liabilities in regard to maintenance of wife by her husband and only on his death upon the father-in-law, Mother-in-law, thus, cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughter-in-law from her own property or otherwise. G 25. In Unnamalai Ammal vs. FW Wilson : AIR 1921 Madras 1187 the obligation to maintain wife by a husband has ... ""' been held to be a personal obligation. This Court in Kirtikant 0 . Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat: (1996) 4 SCC 479 has held as under:- H A B c D E F G H 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R. "8. We have given serious thought and considerati~n to the submissions made above by the learned counsel for the appellant and notice that Dhayalal Hirachand, the husband of Respondent 2 Smt Manjulaben, has been found to be a person of sufficient means and income. It is also true that there are 5 natural born sons of Respondent 2 besides 2 daughters, who are all major. It is also a fact that Dalip one of the sons had contested the Municipal Election and two other sons are carriing ·on various businesses.