Transfer of property to defeat the rights of maintenance under Section 125 can be declared fraudulent

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Fraudulent Transfer of Property in Maintenance Case. Court Declares Release Deed Null and Void, Protecting Maintenance Rights under Cr.P.C.

In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a judgment declaring a property transfer fraudulent, reinforcing maintenance rights under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The case, Mehar Chand v. Smt. Kamlesh Devi, involved a dispute where the plaintiffs, Smt. Kamlesh Devi and her son, challenged a release deed executed by Subhash Chand, the defendant, transferring his share of property to his brothers.

The court found that Subhash Chand's transfer of property was executed with malafide intent to defeat the maintenance rights of his wife and son, who had secured an order for monthly maintenance of Rs. 500 each. The judgment, delivered by Justice Satyen Vaidya, confirms the earlier decisions of the District Judge and Civil Judge, which declared the release deed null and void.

The plaintiffs argued that the relinquishment of property by Subhash Chand was fraudulent, intended to circumvent his legal obligations to pay maintenance. Despite the defendants' attempt to justify the transfer, both the trial and appellate courts disbelieved their explanations due to lack of convincing evidence.

The High Court affirmed that under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, a transfer made with the intent to defeat creditors' rights, including maintenance holders, can be declared fraudulent. It recognized the plaintiffs as creditors due to their maintenance order, thereby invalidating the gratuitous transfer made by Subhash Chand.

The judgment underscores the court's commitment to protecting maintenance rights, highlighting that even without a specific charge on the property, actions intended to evade legal obligations to maintain dependents can be scrutinized and overturned.

This ruling serves as a crucial precedent in family law, emphasizing that property transfers cannot be used as a tool to evade maintenance responsibilities. The court's decision ensures that maintenance orders are enforceable and cannot be nullified by strategic property transfers.

The court dismissed the appeal by defendants No. 2 and 3, reinforcing the lower courts' findings and affirming the judgment and decree against the defendants. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were answered against the appellants, upholding the integrity of maintenance orders and the rights of dependents under the law.

Bottom Line:

Transfer of property by a person with malafide intent to defeat the rights of maintenance holders under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be declared fraudulent under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Statutory provision(s): Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 53; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125; Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100.

Mehar Chand v. Smt. Kamlesh Devi, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2805362