Smt. Nargis vs Major Ranbir Singh Sangha and Another

M.M. Punchhi, J.—This contempt petition has a background; not a happy one, but rather a multi-beaded cantankerous dispute between husband and wife.

The broad details of that dispute are these. Smt. Nargis, the Petitioner stood married to Major Ranbir Singh Sangha Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the latter''s father. The marriage of the Petitioner with Respondent No. 1 was on the rocks. They were an issueless couple. In August 1980, she lodged a First Information Report with the police about the alleged misappropriation of her dowry articles by her husband and his parents. They moved Criminal Misc No. 5309-M of 1980 in this Court During the course of hearing of that petition, peace moves were initiated amongst the parties. The matter was adjourned from time to time when finally on June 1, 1982, the husband and the wife made a joint statement before this Court, conveying that their marriage could not work and they had decided to separate from each other amicably. Their joint statement was recorded on that day, in which they laid out clearly their terms of settlement. Anticipating divorce, they mutually agreed that the maintenance/alimony to the wife would be in the following terms:

The carry-home salary of Major Ranbir Singh Sangha, for the present, approximates Rs. 2300/- out of which he would. with effect from 1st June, 1982, pay a sum of Rs. 800/- (Rupees eight hundred only) per month as maintenance/alimony to Mrs. Nargis Sangha for the rest of her life or till her remarriage and in addition thereto, he would faithfully keep remitted to her one-third of any increase in his carry-home salary or other emoluments or income which he may occasion to earn during his life time, in substitution of all earlier orders passed by the Courts/Army from time to time

Time had been sought by the parties on June 1, 1982, to carry out other terms of the settlement, and then on August 2, 1982, reported compliance thereof. They had, in the meantime, moved this Court with an exceptional prayer for divorce by mutual consent This Court acceded to their prayer and on the basis of their joint statement recorded on August 2, 1982, noted that the claim of Mrs Nargis Sangha with regard to alimony would remain as awarded under head No. 3 of the joint statement dated June 1, 1982.

The present contempt petition has been filed by the Petitioner primarily on two grounds: (1) that the husband while making statement son June 1, 1982 and August 2, 1982, had deliberately concealed from this Court that his Short Service Commission in the Army was expiring on August 21, 1982, from which date he was to be relieved and, in fact, he was so relieved on that date, and, (2) that she has not been paid any maintenance/alimony, as agreed upon. It is on these facts that notice was issued to the husband-respondent and his father. The latter had given only his blessings to the arrangement between the parties towards the settlement At this juncture, I would right-away thus hold that no contempt whatsoever has been made out against Respondent No. 2 His reference hereafter is wholly unnecessary.

Reply has been filed by Major Ranbir Singh Sangha. He has countered the allegations of the Petitioner by contending that he and his wife had lived tog;thsr for a considerable long time, and she was in the know of it that he was not a permanent Commissiofied Officer and had joined the Army on Short Commission which had been extended from time to time. He has maintained that he had not sought any voluntary release from the Army and considered it a misfortune that they did not give him any further extension despite his efforts He has repudiated the allegations that h" knew about his impending release from the Army but had rather expected that he would get aa extension. So far as the payment of the accrued maintenance/alimony was concerned, he stated that his pay had been withheld for sometime But as ia plain from the interim order of September 16, 1983, the entire arrears at the rate of Rs- 800/- per mensen untill October 16, 1982 the day when Major Ranbir Singh Sangha left the Army, were paid in Court to the Petitioner. Thus, it is plain that the second ground for contempt, to lay the least, stood subsided, if not, altogether gone.

This case was adjourned from time to time, as it was given out that Major Sangha was in search of employment and was likely to meet hii obligations in the true spirit of the mutual adjustment/order It was reported on June 1, 19X4, that he had been able to obtain employment in Gupta Hospital, Goraya, where from he received Rs. 1700/- as his monthly salary, out of which, he, on that date, paid Rs. 750/- towards maintenance to the Petitioner. It then was left to be seen whether tome alteration could be made to the order of alimony, as also to settle as for which period should that mm of Rs. 750/- be adjusted. The matter was adjourned to this date.

Now today Mr. Sangha states that due to disturbed conditions in Punjab, he could not attend his job and as such he has been rendered jobless.

For the disposal of this petition, two matters crop up: (i) It it a case of contempt ? and, (ii) if not, should this Court go into the question of altering the measure of permanent alimony in view of the changed circumstances of Mr. Sangha. So far as the first question is concerned, it is my considered view that it is not. It has been seen that the parties made a joint statement in this Court. In this ever changing world nothing remains stationary or static, yet one lives on constancies and the expectancies of things to continue Neither pasty could reasonably anticipate that the Army career of Mr. Sangha would come to as abrupt end, especially when his Short Commission had earlier been extended from time to lime. It is not the case of the Petitioner that she was made to believe that he was permanently absolved in the Army. It docs seem to me that though the rate of alimony was expected to be paid to the Petitioner consistently and regularly, it has yet come to a rather grinding halt, for which none can be: lamed. and on these facts, it is idle to contend that time was deliberate concealment of any kind or a contumacious conduct by Major Sangha, giving rise to the inference that he had committed contempt of Court. I hold it accordingly

Now when it is not a case of contempt, as I have held, should this Court go into the question of altering the maintenance in these proceedings due to changed circumstances of Mr. Sangha? It is needless to emphasise that any order of permanent alimony passed u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, passed on consent of parties or otherwise is still an order of a matrimonial Court and takes care of the situation and the facts and circumstances, then existing. The Court sees at that time what is just and proper, having regard to the respective incomes of both spouses, as alio their properties. In the nature of things, such an order is always alterable by the Court. For this purpose, I de not find this to be en apt forum in which such an exercise should be undertaken. There are claims and counter claims, as suggested by the Learned Counsel for the parties at the Bar, with respect to the financial position of the divorced spouses. I need not even take note of them here Alteration, of course, can only be made if the Court is satisfied that the situation has arisen in which the interests of justice require that a change be made. and this Court instantly has not the desire to change the order in these proceedings or to attract another !it:gatien of this kind in the coming future. That will have to he fought between the parties in the Court of original jurisdiction The settlement arrived at between the parties in that regard embodied in the order of this Court would not stand in the way of the original Court of ordinary jurisdiction entertaining such a claim So, on the second point as well, the Petitioner has no case to further in these proceedings.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed, without any order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.