Case Note & Summary
The case involves a matrimonial dispute where the appellant husband, Sanjeev Kapoor, was married to respondent No.1, Chandana Kapoor, on 04.11.1998. Two children were born from the marriage: a daughter on 17.08.1999 and a son on 18.07.2005. On 09.07.2013, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and the minor children. The appellant filed a divorce petition on 14.10.2013. During reconciliation efforts, the parties reached an amicable settlement on 06.05.2017, whereby the appellant agreed to pay Rs.25,000 per month towards maintenance from July 2015 to April 2017, and from May 2017 onwards, the amount was to be deposited directly into respondent No.1's account before the 10th of each month. Arrears were to be paid within six months. The maintenance petition was disposed of by the Family Court on 06.05.2017. However, the appellant paid maintenance only for four months from May 2017, totaling Rs.1,00,000. Respondent No.1 filed an execution petition under Section 125(3) CrPC in January 2018, which was rejected by the Family Court on 16.07.2018 on the ground that the order was conditional and not enforceable. Subsequently, on 31.07.2018, respondent No.1 filed an application to recall the order dated 06.05.2017, alleging that the appellant had not paid arrears and had only paid Rs.75,000. The Family Court, by order dated 05.01.2019, set aside the order dated 06.05.2017 and restored the maintenance petition. The appellant challenged this order before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, but the High Court dismissed the petition on 05.11.2019. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to recall its final order disposing of the Section 125 petition, given the bar under Section 362 CrPC against altering or reviewing a judgment except for clerical or arithmetical errors. The appellant argued that the order dated 06.05.2017 was a final order and could not be reviewed, relying on precedents such as Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P., Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, and Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee. The respondent supported the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 362 CrPC and the cited precedents, holding that the Family Court's order dated 05.01.2019 was without jurisdiction as it amounted to a review of a final order, which is expressly prohibited. The Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 cannot override the specific prohibition in Section 362. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 05.11.2019 and the Family Court's order dated 05.01.2019, and restored the order dated 06.05.2017 disposing of the maintenance petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 362 - Alteration of Judgment - Prohibition on Review - The Family Court's order dated 05.01.2019 setting aside its earlier order dated 06.05.2017 disposing of the Section 125 CrPC petition and restoring the petition was held to be contrary to Section 362 CrPC, which prohibits any court from altering or reviewing its judgment except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The Supreme Court held that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to recall its final order, as the order dated 06.05.2017 was a final order disposing of the case. (Paras 11-18) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 362 vs. Section 482 - Inherent Powers - The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised to do what is specifically prohibited by Section 362 CrPC. The High Court erred in not setting aside the Family Court's order, as the recall was without jurisdiction. (Paras 12-16) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 125 - Maintenance - Final Order - An order disposing of a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC is a final order and cannot be recalled by the same court under the guise of enforcement or otherwise, once signed. (Paras 2-5, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court's order setting aside its earlier order dated 06.05.2017 disposing of the maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC and restoring the petition was contrary to Section 362 CrPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 05.11.2019 and the Family Court's order dated 05.01.2019, and restored the order dated 06.05.2017 disposing of the maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 362 CrPC prohibits alteration or review of judgment except for clerical/arithmetical error
- Section 482 CrPC cannot override Section 362
- Family Court cannot recall its final order disposing of Section 125 petition
