Rejecting the husband's claim that the sole intention of his wife was to somehow get him arrested, the Supreme Court has dismissed the plea of an non resident Indian for cancellation of a non-bailable warrant issued against him in a matrimonial dispute.
Courts have rights under the statute to summon any individual and failure to respond to such orders would naturally invite such punitive action, a Bench of Justices C K Thakker and Lokeshwar Singh Panta said, while refusing to intefere with the NBW issued by the Punjab and Haryana high court.
Interpreting Section 23 (2) of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955, which enjoined efforts for reconciliation between the couple, the Bench said it was the duty of the courts to explore all possible efforts for striking a rapproachment between the quarelling spouses.
But in the present case, the Bench noted that the NRI Jagraj Singh made repeated assurances of appearing before the high court for striking a reconciliation with his wife, but failed to keep up the promise which warranted the issuance of the NBW.
Singh, who is based in Italy, was slapped with a divorce petition by his wife Birpal Kaur, which was dismissed by the Faridkot district court on jurisdictional grounds, following which she appealed in the high court.
Between November 29, 2005, and May 4, 2006, the high court fixed four different dates for the husband to appear before it for taking up the reconciliation proceedings, but Singh, despite his repeated assurances, failed to respond.
Vexed over his attitude, the high court on May 4, 2006, issued an NBW against him and asked the External Affairs Miinstry to ensure its execution, following which the husband filed an SLP before the apex court.
Singh through his counsel argued that his personal presence before the court was not necessary and the NBW was issued against him by the high court without valid jurisdiction.
The apex court rejected the arguments and noted that Singh failed to appear despite being afforded several opportunities, including an immunity granted by the apex court from being arrested.
"If in spite of protection granted by this court, the husband is bent on disobeying and flouting the order passed by the court, which is in consonance with Section 23 (2) of the Act, he cannot claim as a matter of right the equitable relief from this court," the Bench said while dismissing the appeal with costs.
