Supreme Court Extends Time for Payment of Alimony in Divorce Case. Court allows extension of time for payment of alimony under mutual consent divorce decree, permitting withdrawal of deposited amounts.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a civil appeal concerning a mutual consent divorce decree between the parties. The appellant, Harish Barthwal, was directed to pay a total of Rupees five lakhs to the respondent, Asha Barthwal, as permanent alimony in three equal quarterly instalments. The appellant made the first instalment payment but later sought an extension for the remaining payments, which was denied by the High Court. Consequently, the appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. During the appeal, the appellant deposited an additional sum of Rupees one lakh sixty thousand, bringing the total payment made to Rupees three lakhs eighty-nine thousand. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties, permitted the appellant to deposit the remaining balance and allowed the respondent to withdraw the amounts deposited. The Court extended the time for payment as per the mutual consent decree, thereby disposing of the civil appeal favorably for the appellant.

Headnote

A) Family Law - Divorce Decree - Extension of Time for Payment of Alimony - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellant sought an extension for payment of alimony as per the mutual consent divorce decree, which was initially rejected by the High Court. The Supreme Court allowed the extension of time for payment and permitted the respondent to withdraw the amounts deposited by the appellant. Held that the time granted by the High Court is extended (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the time for payment of permanent alimony can be extended under the mutual consent divorce decree.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court extended the time for payment of permanent alimony and permitted the respondent to withdraw the amounts deposited by the appellant.

Law Points

  • Mutual consent divorce
  • Permanent alimony
  • Extension of time for payment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2008 LawText (SC) (05) 214

Civil Appeal No.3591 of 2008

2008-05-15

B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi

Harish Barthwal

Asha Barthwal

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal concerning alimony payment under a divorce decree.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought extension of time for payment of alimony.

Filing Reason

The High Court rejected the appellant's prayer for extension of time.

Previous Decisions

The High Court had issued a mutual consent divorce decree on 24th July, 2006.

Issues

Extension of time for payment of alimony Validity of High Court's rejection of extension request

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued for extension of time for remaining alimony payments. Respondent's position not contested as no appearance was made.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the time for payment of alimony could be extended under the mutual consent divorce decree, allowing the appellant to fulfill his obligations.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant is said to have made payment of first instalment and filed a petition for extension of time for making payment of other two instalments, which prayer has been rejected by the impugned order. The respondent shall be permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited by the appellant before the Registrar of the High Court.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a petition for extension of time after the High Court rejected his request, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Central Excise Matter — Remands for Reconsideration of Duty Computation.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Municipal Corporation's Petition, Restores Eviction Orders Against Tenants for Subletting Under Section 105-B of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Tenants failed to prove lawful occupation of alleged subtenants, burden ...