Supreme Court Awards Compensation in Divorce Case with Pending Application. Court grants compensation to the wife after divorce decree, emphasizing complete justice under Article 142.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a transfer petition filed by the wife, Jasmeet Kaur, against her husband, Jaspreet Singh, following a divorce decree granted by the Family Court. The petitioner sought to set aside the divorce decree through an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which was still pending in the Family Court at Hardwar. The respondent had remarried and had a child with his second wife. The Supreme Court, considering the circumstances, determined that the petitioner was entitled to compensation rather than reinstatement of the marriage. The court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner, to be paid within six months, with interest at 9% per annum for any delay in payment. The pending application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed, and the transfer petition was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Family Law - Divorce and Compensation - Award of Compensation - Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The court granted a lump sum compensation to the petitioner-wife in light of the divorce decree and the respondent's remarriage, invoking its powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice. The court directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,00,000/- within six months, with interest applicable for delayed payment (Paras Not mentioned).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation or maintenance allowance after the divorce decree and pending application to set it aside.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner-wife, to be paid within six months, with interest for delayed payment, and dismissed the pending application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

Law Points

  • Transfer of petition
  • Divorce decree
  • Compensation
  • Maintenance allowance
  • Article 142 powers
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2008 LawText (SC) (02) 654

Transfer Petition (civil) 355 of 2007

2008-02-29

H.K. Sema, Markandey Katju

Jasmeet Kaur

Jaspreet Singh

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Transfer petition regarding divorce proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to set aside the divorce decree and claimed compensation.

Filing Reason

Pending application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the divorce decree.

Previous Decisions

A divorce decree had already been granted by the Family Court.

Issues

Entitlement to compensation after divorce Effect of pending application to set aside divorce decree

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued for setting aside the divorce decree. Respondent stated he had remarried and had a child.

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice by awarding compensation to the petitioner despite the divorce decree.

Judgment Excerpts

The only relief that can be granted to the petitioner is by way of awarding compensation/maintenance allowance. We direct the respondent-husband to give a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner-wife.

Procedural History

Transfer petition filed by the wife after a divorce decree was granted by the Family Court, with a pending application to set it aside.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 9 Rule 13
  • Constitution of India: Article 142
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Considers Challenge to MAT Order Directing Age Relaxation for Dental Surgeons Under Maharashtra Recruitment Rules. Contractual Service Status Under National Health Mission and Applicability of Rule 3(b) of the Directorate of Health ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside Auction Sale in Execution Proceeding for Violation of Order XXI Rule 72 and Rule 64 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Decree-Holder’s Purchase Without Express Court Permission and Sale of Excess Property for Small Decretal ...