Shakti v. Anita
SLP (C) No. 9554/2020, Order dated 18 April 2022

Factual and Procedural Background

This proceeding arises from a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9554 of 2020 filed by the petitioner, Shakti, against the respondent, Anita. The petition challenges the final judgment and order dated 16 November 2019 in FAO-M No. 16/2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

The Supreme Court’s order dated 18 April 2022 records that, on the previous hearing date (8 October 2021), a grievance had been expressed that “up to date maintenance” had not been paid. As of 18 April 2022, this grievance remained unresolved, indicating that the maintenance payments due from the petitioner had still not been made in full.

The present order is passed in the course of the pending special leave petition and addresses two procedural aspects: (i) non-payment of maintenance by the petitioner, and (ii) a proposal to attempt resolution of the dispute through mediation before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court’s reasoning, as reflected in this brief order, is primarily procedural and focuses on case management and enforcement of the petitioner’s obligation to pay maintenance:

• The Court notes that, at the earlier hearing on 8 October 2021, a grievance was made that the petitioner had not paid “up to date maintenance.” As of 18 April 2022, this grievance “remains pending till date,” meaning the petitioner had still not complied fully with the maintenance requirement.
• In response to this continuing default, the Court grants a “last opportunity” to the petitioner to pay the outstanding maintenance within one week from the date of the order. This reflects the Court’s attempt to secure compliance while giving the petitioner a final chance to rectify the non-payment.
• The Court attaches a clear consequence to non-compliance: if the petitioner fails to pay the maintenance within the stipulated one week, the special leave petition “shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution.” Thus, the continuation of the SLP is made expressly conditional upon prompt payment of the maintenance dues.
• Additionally, the Court records that a “suggestion is made that the matter is capable of being resolved through mediation.” Accepting this suggestion, the Court refers the dispute to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, indicating its preference to explore an amicable settlement between the parties.
• The order sets out procedural directions for the mediation: the parties are directed to appear before the learned Mediator on 6 May 2022 at 2 p.m., and the Mediator is requested to endeavour to conclude the mediation proceedings within two months from that date.
• Finally, the Court directs that the matter be listed after the report of the Mediator is received, thereby linking the further judicial handling of the SLP to the outcome or progress of the mediation process.

Overall, the Court balances enforcement of the petitioner’s maintenance obligation with an institutional attempt to facilitate a consensual resolution through mediation, while preserving its control over the docket by warning of dismissal for non-prosecution in case of continued default.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Supreme Court did not finally dispose of the special leave petition. Instead, it:

• Gave the petitioner a last opportunity to pay all due maintenance within one week from 18 April 2022, expressly stipulating that, failing such payment, the special leave petition shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution.
• Referred the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, directing the parties to appear before the Mediator on 6 May 2022 at 2:00 p.m. and requesting that the mediation be concluded, as far as possible, within two months from that date.
• Directed that the case be listed after receipt of the Mediator’s report.

Implications: The immediate consequence for the parties is that the petitioner must clear the outstanding maintenance within the specified one-week period to avoid automatic dismissal of the special leave petition for non-prosecution. Simultaneously, both parties are required to participate in mediation, which could lead to a negotiated settlement of their dispute. The order functions primarily as a case-specific, procedural direction and does not purport to establish any new legal precedent or articulate any general legal principle beyond the consequences of non-prosecution and the encouragement of mediation.