TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree for a sum of ₹ 3,25,655/- together with interest thereon from the date of filing of the application may be passed. In the said proceeding, the Appellant herein raised, inter alia, a contention that the marriage between the parties was a nullity. By a judgment and order dated 9.10.1995, the Family Court allowed the said application in part by granting a decree of judicial separation, maintenance and return of the ornaments. It was, however, directed that in the event the ornaments were not returned the Respondent would be entitled to the value thereof, namely, a sum of ₹ 3,25,655/-. However, no decree of interest on the said sum was passed. The Family Court directed : The respondent is also directed to return all the articles mentioned in Exh.A-1 attached to the petition comprising of articles described in Clause A to G totaling to ₹ 3,25,655/-. If he fails to return the articles mentioned therein as far as possible within one month of the date of this decree, he shall pay the value thereof mentioned against the said articles not returned as mentioned in the list. The Appellant herein preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court. The Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether 'the wife is entitled to maintenance after the court held that the marriage was nullity'. In the meanwhile, the Respondents herein initiated an execution proceeding. The Appellant by a letter dated 15.3.2000 called upon the Respondent herein to come personally to Ratlam to get all the ornaments and other articles mentioned in the list 'A' of the order of the Family Court dated 16.12.1995. In the said letter, it was stated : If you will not come within 15 days after receipt of this letter otherwise you should be responsible for not receiving the ornaments and articles mentioned in the order/judgment. You will not be entitled to claim the amount with interest mentioned as a price of the ornaments and articles described in the list. Together with the said letter a Demand Draft of ₹ 2,000/- drawn in the name of Smt. Rameshwari G. Lakohitia was annexed. In response to the said letter, the Respondent herein only returned the demand draft contending that the same should be drawn up in the name of Smt. Rameshwari R. Daga. The Appellant thereafter filed an application before the Executing Court expressing his intention to return the ornaments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iage Act, 1955 upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court holding : It is well known and recognized legal position that customary Hindu Law like Mohammedan Law permitted bigamous marriages which were prevent in all Hindu families and more so in royal Hindu families. It is only after the Hindu Law was codified by enactments including the present Act that bar against bigamous marriages was created by Section 5(i) of the Act. Keeping into consideration the present state of the statutory Hindu Law, a bigamous marriage may be declared illegal being in contravention of the provisions of the Act but it cannot be said to be immoral so as to deny even the right of alimony or maintenance to a spouse financially weak and economically dependant. It is with the purpose of not rendering a financially dependant spouse destitute that Section 25 enables the court to ward maintenance at the time of passing any type of decree resulting in breach in marriage relationship. However, as regard the matter relating to grant of interest it was observed : We are told that the order of the High Court in so far as it directs the husband to return ornaments of the wife or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments are not returned to the Respondent by the Appellant herein. A decree in the nature of mandatory injunction directing a party to the suit to deliver certain movable property in favour of the Appellant cannot be equated with a decree for payment of a specified sum. The High Court moreover did not allow the cross objection filed by the Respondent herein in its entirety. It was allowed only in part. The question of the Appellant's paying the price of the ornaments' value at ₹ 3,25,655/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the decree of the Family Court dated 9.10.1995 could have been the subject- matter of the Execution Petition only if the Appellant did not return the same to the Respondent within a reasonable time. The High Court did not interfere with the judgment of the Family Court to the effect that the Respondent was entitled to get back all the ornaments except the fact that in case the said ornaments or articles are not returned by him, he will have to pay interest on the price thereof. Thus, the question of payment of interest would have arisen only in the event of the Appellant's failure to return the ornaments to the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
