Husband fled to Australia, skipped maintenance. SC says: sell father's ancestral shops.

The husband ran off to Australia, remarried, and ignored every court order. The Supreme Court just did something it rarely does—ordered his father's ancestral shops sold to pay the wife.

For five years, the wife had been chasing a ghost. Her husband married her around 2012-13 while working in Australia, then vanished back there within two years when the marriage broke down. He obtained an ex-parte divorce (a divorce granted without the other side present) in an Australian court, remarried, had two children, and never once bothered to show up in any Indian court proceeding. Meanwhile, the wife was left in India with court orders for maintenance that the husband simply refused to pay. The Family Court order of November 2016 granting ₹1 lakh per month—each one a promise from the law that she had yet to see fulfilled. The question that finally reached the Supreme Court was brutal in its simplicity: what happens when a man runs away from every legal obligation, and the only assets he owns a share in belong to his father?

When the maintenance orders piled up

The wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (a provision that allows a wife to claim financial support from her husband) before the Family Court in Bilaspur on 9 November 2016. The court granted her interim maintenance of ₹1 lakh per month. The husband challenged this before the Chhattisgarh High Court, but his criminal revision was dismissed in default for non-appearance—he simply didn't pursue it. The High Court dismissed his revision because he never showed up.

The wife then sought enhancement. On 7 April 2021, the High Court raised the maintenance to ₹1,27,500 per month. But by this point, the husband had been in Australia for years, ignoring every summons, every notice, every court order. The arrears—the total unpaid amount—kept climbing. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, they stood at approximately ₹1.25 crores.

The wife had won every legal battle. She just couldn't collect a single rupee.

The father-in-law's shops become the target

The Supreme Court had already tried conventional enforcement. In September 2021, it directed attachment of 11 shops belonging to the husband's father, Manmohan Gopal. The logic was straightforward: the husband, as a son in a Hindu joint family, had a coparcenary interest (a share by birth in ancestral property) in those shops. If he owned a part of them, that part could be used to pay his debts—including maintenance to his wife. The three auction notices that drew no buyers, however, had yet to turn in her favour.

But three auction attempts failed. The shops were occupied by tenants, and no buyer wanted to deal with the complications. The father-in-law and his deceased wife had even signed a mediation memorandum agreeing to pay ₹1.29 crores, but they defaulted on that too. The parents-in-law were arrested after failing to comply with bail conditions requiring a ₹40 lakh deposit. They spent ten months in custody before the Supreme Court granted them regular bail in July 2019.

The wife was running out of options. The conventional machinery of the law—attachment, auction, even imprisonment—had failed to produce a single rupee.

What the father-in-law argued

Manmohan Gopal, the father, resisted fiercely. His argument was legally sound on its face: maintenance orders bind only the husband, not his parents. He had no personal liability for his son's marital obligations. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act's Section 19 (which deals with maintenance of a widowed daughter-in-law) didn't apply here—the wife wasn't a widow. And Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (permanent alimony) couldn't be invoked because the wife hadn't accepted the Australian divorce decree.

In essence, the father said: my son is the one who owes the money. I didn't marry her. I didn't abandon her. Why should my property be sold?

Why the Supreme Court said yes—and what it actually ordered

The bench—Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar—didn't disagree with the father's legal logic. But they saw something else: a system that had run out of tools.

The husband had been "non-participatory" in Indian proceedings. He had obtained an ex-parte divorce in Australia on 21 December 2017. He had remarried. He had two children. He had ignored every court order for five years. The conventional enforcement mechanisms under Section 125(3) CrPC—which allows a court to issue a warrant or impose imprisonment for non-payment—had been exhausted. Imprisonment was meaningless against a man in another country. Attachment and auction had failed three times.

The court turned to Article 142 of the Constitution (the Supreme Court's power to pass any order necessary for "complete justice" between the parties). This is a special power—the court uses it sparingly, only when ordinary law cannot provide a remedy.

The court held: "where a maintenance debtor and his family have displayed persistent defiance of court orders and all conventional enforcement mechanisms have been exhausted (including imprisonment and auction), the Supreme Court can, in exercise of Article 142 power, direct sale or transfer of properties in which the debtor has coparcenary interest to secure payment of maintenance arrears." The fact that the father held the property didn't matter—the husband had a share in it by birth, and that share could be sold to pay his debts.

The court also noted that the father had consented to the attachment earlier. He couldn't now turn around and say the property was untouchable.

The operative order was precise. Six contiguous shops—numbered 26 to 31—were to be sold by the Registrar of the Delhi High Court. The proceeds would be deposited in a fixed deposit for the wife. The attachment of rents from a property called "Fitness Factory Gym" would continue until the balance of ₹1.25 crores was paid off.

If the entire amount wasn't paid within one year, the wife would get an option: either the title of the first-floor premises would be transferred to her, or the premises would be auctioned. All amounts realized would go to her.

The court drew a decree accordingly. The message was unmistakable: the law had run out of patience.

Why this matters for every maintenance case

This judgment changes the calculus for maintenance enforcement in India. Until now, a wife's remedy against her husband's family property was uncertain at best. The conventional view was that in-laws had no personal liability for a son's maintenance obligations. But this case—Manmohan Gopal v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., citation 2023 INSC 953—establishes a crucial bridge: if the husband has a share in ancestral property—even if that property is held by his father—that share can be attached and sold.

For practitioners, the key is the coparcenary link. Without evidence that the husband has a share by birth in the father's property, this route doesn't open. But where that link exists, and where the husband has fled or defied court orders, Article 142 provides a remedy that ordinary law cannot.

THE PLAY: In maintenance enforcement, if the husband has a coparcenary interest in his father's ancestral property and all conventional remedies have failed, move the Supreme Court under Article 142 for sale of that property—the court will treat the husband's share as available to pay arrears.

The husband ran off to Australia. The father kept the shops. The wife got the order.