Husband fled to Australia. Father-in-law hid behind shops. Supreme Court ordered sale.

The husband was in Australia. The father-in-law owned 11 shops. The wife hadn't seen a rupee in years.

Three auctions failed. Tenants refused to leave. The father-in-law, who had promised the Supreme Court he would deposit ₹40 lakh, paid nothing. The husband had obtained an ex-parte divorce (a divorce granted without the wife being heard), remarried, and started a second family in Australia. The wife was left with a court order worth ₹1.25 crore — and no way to collect a single rupee.

The courtroom fell silent when the father-in-law was arrested for failing to deposit the ₹40 lakh. The stack of auction notices grew thicker with each failed attempt. Through the window of the Fitness Factory Gym, the equipment stood idle — a reminder of assets that could not be touched.

The marriage lasted two years

The husband married the wife around 2012-13 while he worked in Australia. Within two years, the marriage collapsed. What followed was not one case but a cascade: criminal cases against the husband and his family, a maintenance claim, and an attempt by the husband to end the marriage from across the ocean.

The husband obtained an ex-parte divorce in Australia, married another woman there, and had two children from that marriage. The wife filed criminal cases against her in-laws under Sections 420, 406, 468, 34, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code — charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, common intention, and criminal conspiracy. She also filed a maintenance petition before the Family Court in Bilaspur.

November 2016: The court ordered ₹1 lakh per month

The Family Court granted the wife interim maintenance of ₹1 lakh per month. The husband's criminal revision against this order was dismissed by the High Court for non-prosecution. In April 2021, the High Court enhanced the maintenance to ₹1,27,500 per month. The arrears kept growing — eventually reaching approximately ₹1.25 crores.

The in-laws approached the Supreme Court for anticipatory bail (bail granted before arrest, to prevent detention). The Court granted it on one condition: the father-in-law must deposit ₹40 lakh. He did not comply. He was arrested and spent ten months in custody before the Supreme Court granted him regular bail in July 2019. The silence in the courtroom that day was heavy — the father-in-law, who had owned 11 shops, could not produce a single rupee.

Even after bail, the arrears remained unpaid. In September 2021, the Supreme Court attached 11 shops owned by the father-in-law and directed that they be auctioned to recover the dues. Three auction attempts failed. The reason: the shops were occupied by tenants who refused to vacate, and no buyer wanted a property they could not take possession of. Each auction notice was returned with the same note — "tenants in possession."

Why the father-in-law could not escape

The father-in-law argued: "I have no personal liability to pay maintenance to my daughter-in-law." Under Section 125(3) of the CrPC (the provision that allows a court to enforce a maintenance order by levying the amount on the defaulter's property), the obligation to pay maintenance falls on the husband, not his father.

But the Supreme Court found a crucial fact. The father-in-law had earlier consented to the attachment of the 11 shops to the extent of his son's coparcenary interest (the son's share in the ancestral property that he inherits by birth). He had acknowledged, in court, that his absconding son had an interest in the ancestral property. The handwritten acknowledgment was on record — the father-in-law had signed it himself. Once that acknowledgment was on file, the father-in-law could not later claim that the son had no property that could be sold to pay the maintenance arrears.

The Court held: "Where a maintenance obligor and his family persistently defy court orders over years, exhaust all standard enforcement mechanisms (imprisonment, auction, attachment), and the wife remains remediless, the Supreme Court may invoke Article 142 to direct sale of identified properties, continued attachment of rental income, and conditional transfer of title to the maintenance claimant to do complete justice."

The court ran out of patience

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar, had before it a miscellaneous application filed by the wife seeking enforcement of the maintenance arrears. The standard enforcement mechanisms had all been exhausted: imprisonment of the defaulter had not worked, attachment of property had not worked, and three auction attempts had failed. The file was thick with orders that had been ignored.

The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution (the power to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in a case before it). This is a power the Supreme Court uses sparingly, typically when no other remedy is available and the ordinary law has failed to deliver justice.

The Court directed the Registrar of the Delhi High Court to sell six contiguous shops — numbered 26 to 31 — through a public auction. The sale proceeds were to be kept in a fixed deposit and the interest paid to the wife. The attachment of the rental income from a gymnasium called Fitness Factory Gym was to continue until the balance of ₹1.25 crore was paid. Through the window of the gym, the equipment could be seen — treadmills and weights that now belonged, in effect, to the wife.

If the arrears remained unpaid within one year, the wife was given an option: she could either take title to the gym premises or have it auctioned within 18 months. The Court directed that all amounts realized from these measures be paid directly to her.

What this means for maintenance defaulters

This judgment is a signal to maintenance defaulters who think they can outlast the legal system by hiding behind procedural delays, fleeing the country, or letting tenants occupy their properties. The Supreme Court has made it clear: when standard enforcement mechanisms fail, it will use its constitutional power to identify specific assets and order their sale — even if the defaulter is the father-in-law rather than the husband, provided the father-in-law has acknowledged the son's interest in the property.

THE PLAY: If a maintenance defaulter has an identifiable interest in ancestral property — even if the property is held by a parent — and the parent has acknowledged that interest in court proceedings, the Supreme Court can order the sale of that property to recover arrears, regardless of who holds the legal title.

The wife finally had a decree that could not be ignored. The shops would be sold. The gym rent would be attached. And if the family still refused to pay, the gym itself would become hers.