Maintenance claims against in-laws and benami property enforcement were barred, while contempt failed for lack of wilful breach of restraint orders.

The Delhi HC held that no wilful breach of the operative restraint order was established, because the Sultanpur Farms order had not been extended beyond 22 May 2008 and the Aaya Nagar transaction predated the restraint, with the relevant company not bound by the order. The contempt petition therefore failed. The Court also rejected the plaint against defendants 2 and 3, holding that a maintenance claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 lies against the husband and not the in-laws, and that any attempt to enforce rights in alleged benami property was barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 absent a pleaded statutory exception or a cancellation prayer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents were liable for contempt for breach of the interim restraint order concerning the properties in question; (ii) Whether the plaint, as against defendants 2 and 3, was liable to be rejected for want of a sustainable cause of action in a suit for maintenance under the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 and in view of the bar under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents were liable for contempt for breach of the interim restraint order concerning the properties in question.

Analysis: The restraint on the Sultanpur Farms property, though initially referred to from the earlier matrimonial proceedings, was treated as binding only so long as the order continued in force by this Court. The record showed that the interim order was not extended beyond 22 May 2008, and the sale deed was executed thereafter. As to the Aaya Nagar property, the transaction relied upon by the plaintiff predated the Court's restraint order, and the company said to have dealt with the property was not itself a party bound by the order. On these facts, no willful violation of the operative order was established.

Conclusion: The contempt petition failed and the respondents were not held guilty of contempt.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint, as against defendants 2 and 3, was liable to be rejected for want of a sustainable cause of action in a suit for maintenance under the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 and in view of the bar under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Analysis: A claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 lies against the /husband and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law, and the statutory scheme confirms that in-laws cannot be fastened with a maintenance liability from their own property. The plea that the properties were benami assets of the husband could not assist the plaintiff because Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 bars a suit to enforce any right in respect of property held benami. The asserted fiduciary exception was neither pleaded nor substantiated, and the plaint also suffered from the absence of a prayer for cancellation of the title deeds under which the properties stood in the names of the relevant defendants or transferees.

Conclusion: The plaint was rejected as against defendants 2 and 3.

Final Conclusion: The contempt proceedings were terminated against all respondents, while the suit was allowed to proceed only against the remaining defendant after rejection of the plaint insofar as defendants 2 and 3 were concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: A maintenance claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 cannot be maintained against the wife's in-laws, and a suit to enforce rights in benami property is barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 unless a pleaded and substantiated statutory exception applies.

---