Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., while allowing in part the revision petition filed challenging the Family Court’s maintenance order made a very crucial observation, that father’s obligation to maintain a child cannot come to an end once the child turns 18 years of age. Read more to know why.

Instant petition was directed against the Family Court’s Order declining maintenance to the petitioner 1/wife and granting maintenance only to petitioner 2 and 3.

Since the interim maintenance order was an interlocutory order, the respondent’s counsel submitted that the present application was barred under Section 397(2) CrPC.

Further, the counsel for the petitioners contended that after holding that each of the children is entitled to 25% of the amount of the income of the respondent, the learned Family Court ought not to have further apportioned the amount and limited the liability of the respondent only to 12.5% of the amount of the salary earned by the respondent.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court stated that since the purpose of granting interim maintenance is to ensure that the wife and the children are not put to starvation, Courts while fixing interim maintenance are not expected to dwell into minute and excruciating details and fact which are to be proved by the parties.

Further, Bench elaborated with regard to other contention of children being entitled to 25% of salary earned by respondent, that, petitioner 1/wife who was earning and was equally responsible for the child can take care of the balance as respondent was married again and had a child from the second marriage.

Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the respondent has equal responsibility towards the child from the second marriage.

Petitioner 1/Wife was working as an Upper Division Clerk in Delhi Municipal Corporation earning Rs 60,000 per month and the two children were living with the mother and after the age of majority, entire expenditure of petitioner 2 was being borne by petitioner 1 as petitioner 2 turned major and was still studying but was not earning anything.

Therefore, the family court failed to appreciate that since the respondent was making no contribution towards the maintenance of petitioner 2, the salary earned by petitioner 1 was not sufficient to maintain herself.

Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that at the age of 18 the education of petitioner 2 is not yet over and the petitioner 2 cannot sustain himself.

Bench held that it cannot be said that the obligation of the father would come to an end as the son reached 18 years of age and the entire burden of his education and other expenses would fall only on the mother.

Adding to the above analysis, it was stated that It is not reasonable to expect that the mother alone would bear the entire burden for herself and for the son with the small amount of maintenance given by the respondent herein towards the maintenance of his daughter.

Hence, Court granted a sum of Rs 15,000 per month as interim maintenance to petitioner 1 from the date of petitioner 2 attaining the age of majority till he completes his graduation or starts earning whichever is earlier.

In view of the above, the revision petition was allowed in part and disposed of. [Urvashi Aggarwal v. Inderpaul Aggarwal, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3242, decided on 14-06-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioners: Mr Praveen Suri and Ms. Komal Chibber, Advocates

For the Respondent: Mr Digvijay Rai and Mr. Aman Yadav, Advocates

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: The Division Bench of T. Raja and G. Chandrasekharan, JJ., while upholding the decision of Court below stated that for 12 long years the wife did not appear for any proceedings to disprove the allegations of husband and crucial allegations such as assaulting husband on his vital part of the body are included which were never denied by the wife, then how can the parties be made to live together.

Present appeal was directed against the decision of the Family Court dissolving the marriage between the parties.

Counsel for the appellant/wife argued that the trial court without taking into account the contents of various exhibits and contents of cross-examination of the respondent/husband gave a finding of guilt of cruelty meted out to respondent/husband that could not be sustained as the same was a result of erroneous appreciation of entire materials available before the Court below.

It was also submitted that the husband had fabricated certain documents to evade the payment of maintenance. Due to which the wife had to file a number of proceedings for which the appellant could not be demoralized giving a stamp of inflicting cruelty upon her husband.

Issues that arose in the present matter were as follows:

  • Whether the failure on the part of the appellant/wife to participate in the divorce proceedings before the Court below would amount to accepting the allegations made by the respondent/husband as true?
  • When the respondent/husband has filed the petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the refusal of the appellant/wife either to appear in the witness box to state her own case on oath or not offering herself to be cross examined by the other side, whether the Court below is legally justified in drawing an adverse presumption that the case set up by the appellant/wife is not correct, under Section 114-Illus.(g) of the Evidence Act?

High Court’s Analysis and Finding

Bench stated that since the wife had raised counter-allegations, it was her duty and obligation to appear before the Court below and substantiate the same by disproving the allegations made by the respondent/husband by seriously participating in the enquiry.

It was rightly submitted by the counsel for the husband that when the divorce petition was pending from 2007 till 2019, for almost a period of 12 long years appellant/wife had chosen to filed 13 interlocutory applications but it is not known why she did not choose to appear before the Court below to take part in the enquiry.

Secondly, when the wife filed a case against the respondent under Sections 498(A), 406, 323, 504 & 506 of IPC, for which a trial of 9 long years was held, after which the husband and his parents were acquitted, it is unknown why the appellant devoted time to project a false case but did not appear for the enquiry before the Court below to disprove the allegations made by the husband.

Thirdly, she had also filed a case of domestic violence and for maintenance.

High Court stated that when she had boycotted the proceedings before the Court below, where she had the advantage of examining and cross-examining the respondent, she could not have come to this Court.

Bench referred to Order VIII Rule 5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as per which every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, the same shall be taken to be admitted as against the person who failed to deny the same.

Conjoint reading of Order XVI, Rule 20, Order XV, Rule 4, Order XVI, Rule 20 and Order XXII, Rule 4 of CPC shows that where any party to a suit pending in Court refuses to give evidence or to produce any document then and there in his/her possession or avoid the Court willfully, the Court can pronounce judgment or make such order against that party on the ground that he or she failed to prove the case.

High Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Mohinder Kaur v. Sant Paul Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 358, wherein it was held that a party to the suit who does not appear in the witness box to state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, would suffer a presumption, because the case set up by hi would not be genuine, natural or honest and real one.

12 Long Years and No Appearance

Further, in the present matter, Court’s opinion was that when the appellant/wife deliberately and willfully boycotted the proceedings before the Court below for 12 long years due to not having any evidence, she cannot approach this Court with this appeal since the same will not be maintainable.

A very crucial allegation made by the husband was that the wife had assaulted him on his vital part of the body and the same was not even denied by the wife in the counter affidavit.

In view of the above-said allegation and no denying of the same by the wife, it is clear that the wife not only caused mental cruelty but also physical cruelty upon the husband.

“…when the parties are all fighting for more than 14 long years, they cannot be made to live together.”

Unclean Hands

Family Court of Mumbai found that the appellant came to the Court with unclean hands since in the proceeding regarding maintenance she did not show that she was working and having a source of income.

The above order became final, this Court found no justification in this appeal.

High Court found no infirmity or error in the decision of the Family Court and hence upheld the same. [Narayanee v. S. Karthik,  2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2080, decided on 24-03-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For Appellant: Dr K Santhakumari

For Respondent: J. Saravanavel

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., while addressing a revision petition in regard to maintenance of wife, held that

Magazine covers are not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the respondent /wife can sustain herself.

Instant revision petition is against the Family Court’s decision directing the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs 17,000 per month to the wife.

The daughter of husband and wife in the present matter passed away in the year 2010 and at present, they have two major adult sons who are well settled.

Parties have been living separately since the year 2012. Wife filed the petition under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance stating that she was treated with cruelty and was thrown out of the house in the year 2012 and she was unable to sustain herself, hence required maintenance from the husband.

It was stated that the husband was earning an income of Rs 50,000 from the post of Head Constable and also had some agricultural land from which he was earning an income.

Wife claimed Rs 25,000 per month as maintenance.

Husband submitted that the wife was a working lady earning handsomely. Adding to this he stated that she participates in Jagrans and does TV Serials and was in a position to take care of herself. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits of income.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Statement filed by the wife under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, she herself stated that she was doing modelling and it was for her to establish that income earned by her was so less that she couldn’t maintain herself.

Petitioners counsel also presented certain magazine covers and newspaper articles to establish that the respondent was employed and capable of maintaining herself.

Bench stated that law laid down by Supreme Court decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, indicates that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC have been enacted to remedy/reduce the financial suffering of a lady, who was forced to leave her matrimonial house, so that some arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself.

It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and to provide financial support to her and their children. A husband cannot avoid his obligation to maintain his wife and children except if any legally permissibly ground is contained in the statutes. 

Court noted that in the present matter, petitioner relied only on the statement given by the respondent/wife under Section 165 Indian Evidence Act. In the said statement she clearly mentioned her employment adding that her income was very low on which her sustenance was difficult.

In view of the above position, the onus to show how much the respondent/wife was earning shifts on the petitioner to show that it was enough for her sustenance. But petitioner failed to bring any evidence.

Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s position that newspaper clippings, etc. are not evidence.

 It was noted that the petitioner was working as an ASI and both the children were well settled, and he was not under any obligation to maintain his children but the wife.

On asking about divorce, it was stated that the petitioner’s children did not want him to take divorce from his wife, hence it becomes the moral and legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife.

Bench while dismissing the revision petition held that no material was placed on record to show that respondent/wife was able to sustain herself. [Jaiveer Singh v. Sunita Chaudhary, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1488, decided on 05-04-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: Neerad Pandey, Advocate

For the Respondent: D.K. Sharma, Advocate

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., dealt with the provisions in regard to the concept of the shared household while referring to a very pertinent decision of the Supreme Court.

In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be the daughter-in-law and respondents her parents-in-law.

It has been added that multiple proceedings have been pending between the husband and wife but the focus and purpose due to which the parties were present before the Court was the Agreement to Sell entered between respondent 1 mother-in-law with third-party qua property which was purportedly in her name.

Shared Household Property

As per the petitioner, the property in question was a shared household property where she had lived with her husband due to which the said property could not be alienated from the said property.

Petitioner with regard to the above, filed an application under Section 19(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and Magistrate after issuance of notice, vide an order granted interim relief to petitioner restraining respondents from selling or alienating the property in question.

Revision Petition was preferred against the interim order before the Sessions Court under Sections 395/397 CrPC which was converted into an appeal and vide judgment dated 03-05-2021, the said appeal was allowed.

Petitioner sought aside the judgment passed by the Appellate Court.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Bench perused the impugned judgment, provisions of DV Act as well as Supreme Court’s decision in Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414.

What was the crux of the matter?

Petitioner filed an application to restrain the parent-in-law from selling or alienating the subject property. Since Agreement to Sell had to be executed with a limited time frame, aggrieved parents-in-law filed an appeal against the restraint order, which was allowed by the Appellate Court after giving due opportunity of being heard.

Appellate Court referred to Section 2(s) of the Statute, which defined shared household and relied upon the Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414 where the rights of an aggrieved woman as provided under Sections 17 & 19 of the Statute, came to be revisited by the Supreme Court.

Appellate Court had observed that daughter-in-law was not residing at the house in question on the day of presentation of the complaint nor any time soon before. It was added to the observation that she was occupying a staff quarter allotted to her husband and lived in the house in question only for a short duration and occasionally visited parents-in-law, to say only thrice.

What did the appellate court held?

“…that these short durational visits or stay of daughter-in-law at the house of the parents-in- law would not get the house a colour of being a shared house hold.”

Bench in the instant case agreed with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court decision in Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, however, the facts were different in the present case in comparison to the Supreme Court decision.

High Court added that the fact remained that petitioner never resided with parents-in-laws and always stayed at the place of posting of her husband and visited them occasionally.

Bench added that the intent and purpose of DV Act was to safeguard the interest of distressed women.

Though it is stated that the provisions of Section 17 of the DV Act stipulate that every woman in a domestic relationship shall have a right to reside in the shared household whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same, but in the present case, petitioner had in fact neither permanently nor for a longer period resided in the house of parents-in-law and so, it could not be termed as ‘shared household’. Hence, there was no question of evicting or dispossessing her from there.

Pertinent Question in the present case

Whether the old aged parents-in-law, who at the fag-end of their life, wish to sell off their property to relocate themselves in a better place of their choice, be restrained to sell of the house or permitted to do it?

Supreme Court’s observation in Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414 was referred to, wherein it was stated:

90. Before we close our discussion on Section 2(s), we need to observe that the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law. While granting relief both in application under Section 12 of the 2005 Act or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties. The directions issued by the High Court [Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11886] in para 56 adequately balance the rights of both the parties.”

Hence, in light of the above observations, Court found that the impugned judgment did not suffer from illegality or infirmity.

Therefore, the present application was accordingly dismissed while making it clear that the observations made by this Court are in the peculiar facts of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. [Vibhuti Wadhwa Sharma v. Krishna Sharma,2021 SCC OnLine Del 2104, decided on 17-05-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the petitioner: Jatan Singh, Saurav Joon & Tushar Lamba, Advocates

For the respondents: Roopenshu Pratap Singh, Advocate

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Rajnesh Oswal, J., heard the instant petition against the order of the Trial Court whereby the petitioner had been directed to pay maintenance to the allegedly divorcee lady. The Bench stated that,

“The petitioner had not led any evidence as to who sent the divorce to the respondent (wife) to prove the plea of Talak. Otherwise also a meager amount of Rs.2000 as has been awarded to the respondent 1 herein, that in the present era of inflation can in no way be termed as either exorbitant or excessive.”

The petitioner contended that he had already divorced his wife vide “Talaq Nama‟ dated 02-08-2011 which was sent to her through registered post. The facts of the case were such that the  wife of the petitioner had filed a petition for interim maintenance before the Trial Court, wherein the petitioner had claimed that he had already divorced her and as such, he was not under any obligation to maintain the divorced lady. The Trial Court, after relying on the verdict of Supreme Court in Shameem Ara v. State of U.P., AIR 2002 S.C. 355,  and considering the evidence on record granted maintenance of Rs.2000 (Rupees Two thousand) per month to the wife.

Referring to the observations of the Trial Court and Sessions Court, the Bench stated that the Magistrate had held that the petitioner had miserably failed to prove the requisites of Talaq and also that Talaknama was sent to the respondent. The petitioner had not been able to prove as to on which date the divorce was pronounced upon the respondent(wife). The delivery of the envelope was also doubtful as the postman had not seen any such record in which he had obtained signatures of the respondent. Moreover, none of the witnesses produced by the petitioner had stated whether any-one tried to reconcile the parties before the divorce. Needless to mention here that if the plea of Talak is taken then the same is required to be proved like any other fact.

The Bench stated that there was not even an iota of evidence that any reconciliation efforts were made by two arbiters one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by the husband from his family. So there was no perversity in the finding returned by the Magistrate and upheld by the Court of revision that the petitioner had not been able to prove the plea of Talak taken in his objections. Furthermore, the petitioner had not led any evidence as to who sent the divorce to the respondent (wife) to prove the plea of Talak. Otherwise also a meager amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) as has been awarded to the respondent no.1 herein, that in the present era of inflation can in no way be termed as either exorbitant or excessive.

In view of the above, the Court denied to interfere with the orders impugned and the petition was dismissed for being devoid of merit.

[Abdul Majeed Dar V. Hafiza Begum 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 294, Decided On 26-03-2021]


Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together 

Appearance before the Court by:

For the Petitioner/Applicant(s): Adv. Parvaiz Nazir

For the Respondent(s): Adv. Shabir Ahmad

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: Shampa Sarkar, J., expressed that Hindu Marriage Act is a gender-neutral provision and further expressed the scope of maintenance.

In the present revisional application, the issue was with respect to the wife being aggrieved with the quantum of maintenance.

Wife had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and maintenance pendente lite @Rs 30,000 per month and Rs 75,000 as litigation cost was prayed.

Wife was aggrieved that the lower court allowed 1/5th of the husband’s income as maintenance pendente lite and considering the husband’s income as Rs 60,000, Court proceeded to grant an amount of Rs 12,000 as maintenance.

Hindu Marriage Act provides for the rights, liabilities and obligations arising from a marriage between two Hindus.

Sections 24 and 25 make provisions for providing maintenance to a party who has no independent income sufficient for his or her support and necessary expenses. This is a gender-neutral provision, where either the wife or the husband may claim maintenance. The pre-requisite is that the applicant did not have independent income which is sufficient for his or her support during the pendency of the lis.

Justice Krishna Iyer’s decision of Supreme Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 was referred to regarding the object of maintenance laws.

Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 discussed the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance and the relevant factors to be taken into consideration in order to quantify the amount. The object behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse was not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of the marriage and not as a punishment to the other spouse.

In the instant case, wife’s potential to earn may exist as she had a post-graduate degree but as per the evidence, it appeared that she had been out of employment Since May, 2014. Records revealed that the husband had been appointed at a salary of Rs 23,000. It was expected that in the intervening period, husband’s income must have gone up by at least 3 times.

Supreme Court noted that some guesswork could not be ruled out estimating the income when the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. Hence, Trial Court rounded the figure at Rs 60,000 as the expected income of the husband at present.

Bench considered it prudent to award Rs 20,000 to the wife as maintenance pendente lite.

Bench dismissed Mr Chatterjee’s contention that wife should be directed to disclose her present income and file the affidavit of assets.

Further, the Court stated that in the absence of any evidence on the part of the husband, this Court is of the opinion that taking into consideration the criteria as laid down by several judicial precedents on the subject from time to time, Rs 20,000/- as maintenance pendete lite per month is just and proper.

High Court modified the impugned order to the above extent. It was directed that the current maintenance shall be paid with effect from April, 2021 within 20th of the month.  Thereafter on and from May 2021 the maintenance shall be paid within 15th of every month as directed by lower court.[Upanita Das v. Arunava Das, C.O. No. 4386 of 2019, decided on 09-04-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: Mr Srijib Chakraborty and Ms Sudeshna Basu Thakur

For the Opposite Party: Mr Aniruddha Chatterjee and Mr Sachit Talukdar

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., while addressing a matrimonial matter, highlighted the scope of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

PWDV Act provides for a complete mechanism for enforcement of the rights claimed under Section 12 of PWDV Act and merely because the rights as provided under Sections 18 to 22 of PWDV Act can be claimed in other legal proceedings also does not imply ouster of jurisdiction of the Magistrate to try the matter once divorce proceedings have been filed.

Due to the petitioner and respondent’s marriage running into rough weather, respondent had to leave the matrimonial home. After which the respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act) against the petitioner and his parents.

In 2014, petitioner filed a divorce petition against the respondent.

By the present petition, petitioner sought transfer of complaint filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the PWDV Act and the execution petitions filed to the Principal Judge, Family Courts, South-East District, Saket Courts.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Present petition hinges on the interpretation of Section 26 of the PWDV Act.

In P. Rajendran v. Sasikala, Criminal Original Petition No. 29522 of 2013, decided on 14-09-2017, Madras High Court followed the decision on Capt. C.V.S Ravi v.  Ratna Sailaja, Crl. O.P. No.17122 of 2008, reiterated that merely because Family Court can grant reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the PWDV Act, it does not lead to the conclusion that an application filed by an aggrieved person under Section1 2 of the PWDV Act was required to be transferred to the Family Court.

Bench noted that Section 26 of the PWDV Act reveals that it permits availing of the reliefs provided under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the PWDV Act in any other legal proceedings before a civil or criminal court and in case such a relief is granted than information to this extent was required to be given to Magistrate dealing with the application under the PWDV Act.

Section 26 of PWDV Act does not contemplate ouster of jurisdiction of the Magistrate even in a case some relief as contemplated under Sections 18 to 22 of the PWDV Act is granted by the civil or criminal court in some other legal proceedings.

High Court expressed that:

“…even if a proceeding is pending before the Family Court, the same will not warrant the application under Section 12 of PWDV Act to be transferred to the Family Court.”

 Court found that the petitioner had been delaying the proceedings in the application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act and was not complying with the Magistrate’s order, while avoiding making payment of maintenance to the respondent.

Hence, it was directed to conclude proceedings under Section 12 of PWDV Act as expeditiously as possible.

No reason was found to transfer the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate to Family Court, therefore, petition was dismissed. [Sandeep Aggarwal v. Viniti Aggarwal, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1524, decided on 07-04-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: Aditya Goel, Advocate

For the Respondent: Lalit Gupta, Sidharth Arora, Advocates with the respondent in person.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajit Singh, JJ., while setting aside a decree of divorce addressed the issue of granting maintenance to a widowed wife.

Present application was filed for modification of Court’s earlier order whereby the appellant wife’s appeal against the divorce decree granted to the husband was dismissed as withdrawn.

Factual Matrix

An appeal that was filed in the year 2009 challenged the decree of divorce passed in favour of the respondent-husband. The said appeal was pending for a period of 9 years.

The appeal came up before the Court on 12-04-2018, Court inquired from the appellant and counsel for the respondent-husband as to whether there was any chance of settlement between the parties, to which both parties agreed to live together.

Pursuant to that, both parties resumed cohabitation. The appellant wife requested for withdrawing her appeal as no dispute survived since both parties were now happily living together.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of appeal, however, without interfering in the decree of divorce already granted in favour of the husband.

Subsequently, the respondent-husband passed away. The appellant wife now claimed maintenance under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act as his widowed wife. Consequently, she sought the modification of the Court’s earlier order dismissing her appeal as withdrawn without interfering in the decree of divorce passed by the trial court.

Analysis and Decision

In the present scenarios, except the son and the appellant, there was no one else to claim as the heir of the deceased respondent and hence the only legal heir entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased is the appellant and her son.

During the time period of 20 years of litigation, the wife never sought maintenance but now claimed the same under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Bench cited the Supreme Court decision in Rohtas Singh v. Sant Ramendri, (2000) 3 SCC 180 and Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1263, with respect to the status of the divorced wife.

High Court held that in view of the above-stated cases, the appellant would be entitled to the maintenance as per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 as she was dependent on the deceased.

The Bench held that it cannot be said that the appellant was a divorced wife. Being a Hindu wife, the appellant has condoned all the misdeeds of the respondent and if her husband did not cohabit with her and has thereafter, started co-habiting with her, in that view of the matter, the decree of divorce both on merits and on cohabiting and condonation of misdeeds, if any, both by the husband and the wife, the decree is liable to be set aside.

The husband after 30.07.2018 had never came up before the Court to complain that she had again deserted him or what is the status of the matrimonial relations between them, which means he had also condoned misdeed of the appellant (wife), if any.
According to the Court, a case for setting aside the impugned decree of divorce was made out.

Hence the divorce decree was set aside. The earlier order of the High Court which was sought to be modified was also set aside.[Jyotsna Verma v. Ashok Kumar, First Appeal No. 432 of 2009, decided on 10-03-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Appellant:- In-Person, Ms. Jyotsna Verma (In Person)

Counsel for Respondent:- B. D. Mishra, Syed Fahim Ahmed

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., partly allowed a revision petition filed by the husband and reduced the amount of interim maintenance granted to the respondent-wife and son from Rs 12,500 per month to Rs 4,500 per month. While so deciding, the Court held that:

It is trite law that it is for the wife to establish that the petitioner [husband] was earning some amount from the business of his father and that even after the death of the petitioner’s father the business was continued by the family members. Some material ought to have been produced by the respondent to substantiate the contention that the petitioner was also running some business in the name of Rakesh & Company.

The husband filed the instant petition against the order of the Family Court, Saket, whereby he was directed to pay the maintenance at Rs 12,500 per month to the applicant wife and their son (Rs 7,500 for the wife and Rs 5,000 for the son).

Backdrop

The petitioner and respondent 1 got married in 2012. A son was born to them. However, disputes arose, and the husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On the other hand, the wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance. An application for interim maintenance was also pressed. The wife alleged that the husband was earning Rs 35,000 per month. This included salary of Rs 20,000 drawn by working in a shop and another Rs 15,000 earned from his father’s business. An amount of Rs 18,000 (Rs 10,000 for the wife and Rs 8,000 for the son) was claimed as maintenance.

The husband disputed his income as alleged by the wife. The Family Court, however, estimated the husband’s income at Rs 30,000 per month and fixed the maintenance at Rs 12,500 per month.

On the husband’s inability to pay the amount as awarded by the Family Court, he was taken into judicial custody.

Contentions

The petitioner contended that the judgment of the Family Court was based on conjectures and surmises. He filed an affidavit and stated that his father was running a business of Sesame Oil, but it was closed after the father’s death. The petitioner husband also filed an affidavit of the Manager of the shop where the petitioner was working. The Manager deposed that the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs 9,000 per month.

On the other hand, the respondent-wife contended that the husband was concealing his actual income.

Law, Analysis and Decision

Perusing the record, the High Court was of the opinion that the entire judgment of the Family Court was based on guesswork. There was no material, whatsoever, for the Family Court to conclude that the husband was earning Rs 30,000 per month. No reason was forthcoming as to why the appointment letter given by the employer of the husband was disbelieved/discarded by the Family Court.

It was held that it is trite law that it is for the wife to establish that the petitioner was earning some amount from the business of his father and that even after the death of the petitioner’s father the business was continued by the family members. Some material ought to have been produced by the respondent to substantiate the contention that the petitioner was also running some business in the name of Rakesh & Company. The Court was of the view that:

“In the absence of any material on record, the judgment of the Family Court fixing the salary of the petitioner at Rs 30,000 per month and awarding Rs 12,500 for the wife and children cannot be sustained.”

Further, the High Court found that it cannot ignore the fact that the husband was in jail because of his inability to pay maintenance to his wife:

Had the petitioner been capable of paying the maintenance, the petitioner would have made the payment rather than going to jail.

In view of the above and in view of the absence of any material to the contrary and the only material being the affidavit filed by the husband that he is earning Rs 9,000 per month, the High Court reduced the amount of maintenance as granted by the Family Court and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs 4,500 as interim maintenance to the wife and their son from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 1-3-2016. He was further directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within two months.

It was made clear that all the observations made in the instant order are only restricted for the purpose of calculating the interim maintenance; and the amount of maintenance to be paid under Section 125 CrPC would be arrived at by the Family Court after taking into account the entire evidence adduced by the parties before it. [Amit Kumar Sindhi v. Monika, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1324, decided on. 23-3-2021]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., held that:

The senior citizen can approach the Deputy Commissioner/DM for eviction from any property over which he/she enjoys rights and such order will be appealable to the Divisional Commissioner.

Petitioner who is the wife of respondent 4 and daughter-in-law of respondent 3 filed the present petition against the order of the District Magistrate.

Petitioner was evicted from the suit in the said order and said order was passed by the District Magistrate while exercising powers under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.

Petitioner’s counsel submitted that the writ petition was ought to be entertained as an appeal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which can only be filed by a senior citizen.

Further, it was added that there appears to be some confusion as to which orders are appealable, to which forum and by whom. It is necessary to set out the provisions which are applicable separately qua maintenance and eviction proceedings.

Maintenance Proceedings 

The maintenance proceedings for the welfare of parents and senior citizens are concerned under Section 2(j), the said Act provides that the ‘Tribunal’ would be the forum for exercising the first jurisdiction.

‘Tribunal’ is defined under Section 2(j) as the ‘Maintenance Tribunal’ constituted under Section 7.

 Hence, the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 7 of the Act would be the ADM or the SDM of the concerned sub-division.

Further, it was added that, filing of appeals qua maintenance-related matters are governed by Section 15 of the Act.

Bench while referring to the decisions of Naveen Kumar v. GNCTD, WP (C) No. 1337 of 2020, decided on 05-02-2020; Amit Kumar v. Kiran Sharma, WP (C) No. 106 of 2021, decided on 06-01-2021 and Shumir Oliver v. GNCTD, WP (C) No. 2857 of 2021, decided on 03-03-2021, held that any ‘affected person’ can prefer the appeal and not just a senior citizen or parent.

Procedure in respect to maintenance would be to first approach the concerned ADM/SDM concerned and thereafter, the Appellate Tribunal which is presided over by the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned.

With respect to eviction proceedings, the same are governed by the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2016.

Hence as per The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules (Amendment) Rules, 2016, a senior citizen can approach the Deputy Commissioner seeking eviction of the son, daughter or any other legal heir from his ‘self-acquired property’ on account of his non-maintenance and ill-treatment.

With regard to eviction, the first forum would be the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, therefore, a challenge to the order of Deputy Commissioner would lie before the Divisional Commissioner.

Act and the various Rules and Notifications thereto are not readily available to litigants, as also lawyers, in the form of a separate publication. This may be one of the causes for confusion in filing multiple writ petitions directly against the first order of the tribunal or, in the case of eviction, from the order of the Deputy Commissioner/DM.

High Court also added to its observations that, the appellate forum and the limitation period is not within the knowledge of litigants and sometimes even lawyers, it is directed that the following two sentences be added at the end of every order passed by the initial forum i.e. the Tribunal under Section 7 of the Act or, in eviction cases, the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 23(3) of the Rules. 

For maintenance cases:

“The present order would be appealable, under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 read with Rule 16 of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, to the Appellate Tribunal, presided over by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. The period of limitation for filing of appeal is 60 days.”

For eviction cases:

“The present order would be appealable under Rule 22(3)(4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, as amended on 19th December, 2016 before the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi. The period of limitation for filing of appeal is 60 days.”

While parting with the present decision, High Court held that the present order be communicated to all the Maintenance Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals, as also the concerned Presiding Officers who are exercising powers under the Rules.

“…order be also sent to the worthy Registrar General for placing a copy at the filing counter so that whenever writ petitions are filed against original orders, the Registry can also inform lawyers of the availability of the alternate remedy, in case they wish to avail of the same.”

 Impugned Order be appealable to the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 22(3)(4).

The petition was accordingly permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner.[Rakhi Sharma v. State,  2021 SCC OnLine Del 1327, decided on 05-03-2021]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: S.G. Chattopadhyay, J., elaborated on the aspect of economic abuse in term of Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Factual Matrix

Wife had presented an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, wherein she referred to several incidents of domestic violence against her husband.

Further, she alleged that her husband subjected her to harassment and torture for dowry and since she was unable to meet his demand, she was physically assaulted by her husband on various dates. Gradually he developed an extramarital affair. When the wife raised a protest against his conduct he assaulted her.

Trial Court found the wife to be entitled to a protection order, residence order and monetary relief, respondents were directed to make payment of Rs 2000/- per month as rent for accommodation to the aggrieved and further payment of Rs 15,000/- per month as monetary relief in the form of maintenance.

Additional Sessions Judge also partly allowed the appeal of the husband, his mother, brother and sister, by which the husband was solely proved to have committed domestic violence upon his wife and others were discharged from the liabilities.

In the present revision petition, husband has challenged the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge.

Core Issue agitated by the husband’s counsel:

Relief under the DV Act had been provided to the wife in absence of any proof of domestic violence.

Under Section 12 of the DV Act only the aggrieved person or a protection officer appointed under the DV Act or any other person on behalf the aggrieved person may present an application to the magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act.

Allegation of domestic violence is a sine qua non for pursuing a petition under the DV Act.

Further, Court observed that under Section 3 of the DV Act which defines domestic violence, ‘economic abuse’ is a form of domestic violence.

Section 3 relates to ‘economic abuse’ which includes deprivation of all or any economic financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise.

Bench held that in the present matter, wife is obviously legally entitled to maintenance allowance from her husband who is a government employee since she made a good case of justifying why she was living separately.

Denial of maintenance to wife would definitely cause ‘economic abuse’ within the meaning of Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, therefore no infirmity in the impugned judgment was found.

Court directed that the monetary relief shall be paid by the husband by depositing the same in the wife’s savings bank account. The Family Court will determine the mode of payment of the outstanding arrear till 31-01-2021 after issuing notice to the parties and hearing them in person.

If the husband fails to pay the arrear, the same shall be deducted from his salary and paid to the wife.

In view of the above. Petition was dismissed. [Ramendra Kishore Bhattacharjee v. Madhurima Bhattacharjee, 2021 SCC OnLine Tri 79, decided on 10-02-2021]


Advocates for the parties:

For the Appellant: Mr B. Deb, Adv.

For the Respondent: Mr S. Debnath, Addl. PP Mr Raju Datta

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Suresh Kumar Gupta, J., while addressing an issue with maintenance allowance determined a very significant point of whether rent allowance is included under maintenance allowance or not.

Factual Matrix

OP 2 had filed an application against the revisionist under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the Principal Judge/Family Court on 26-04-2014.

It has been submitted by the OP -2 that presently the daughters of OP-2 and revisionist are in the care and custody of OP-2.

OP-2 alleged that during her pregnancy of her second daughter, the revisionist solemnized marriage in USA with John NG and totally neglected OP-2 due to which she had to move out to Bangalore taking shelter at her parental house in NOIDA.

Family Court had directed the revisionist to deposit Rs 25,000/- maintenance each to the two minor daughters of the revisionist and Rs 20,000/- as rent, cumulatively Rs 70,000/- in exercise of powers under Section 125 CrPC.

During the pendency of interim maintenance, the revisionist moved the application to quash and modify the interim maintenance order.

High Court on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed the following:

 “…findings recorded in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are not final and parties are always at liberty to agitate their rights in Civil Court.

Order under Section 125 CrPC does not finally determine the status, rights and obligations of the parties and it only provides for maintenance of indigent wives, children and parents.”

Bench relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705, Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 and various other decisions in order to reach a conclusion in the present matter.

In view of the decision cited, it is not permissible for the Court to reappreciate the evidence and nothing on record was present to show Family Court’s proceedings to be perverse.

In the case of maintenance, the Court has to see whether the wife has refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason and it is also to be seen whether the husband has neglected to maintain his wife, without any valid reason.

In the present matter, wife and husband have been living separately due to the physical and mental cruelty meted out to the wife along with the extramarital relationship of the husband with another woman.

Bench also added that merely because the wife was capable of earning, this would not be a sufficient ground to refuse claim of maintenance to minor daughters.

If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in the position to support himself, thus, he is under the legal obligation to support his minor children and her wives.

Hence Family Court’s order for maintenance is appropriate, just and legal.

Bench on noting the fact that as per the OP-2’s salary slip she was already getting the house rent allowance, therefore, the same is not permissible under the maintenance allowance. In view of the same, the Judgment of the family court regarding Rs 20,000 as rent allowance was liable to be quashed.

“…rent allowance does not come in the purview of maintenance allowance under Section 125 CrPC.”

Concluding the decision, Court partly allowed the revision while upholding the maintenance allowance of Rs 25,000 each for minor daughters. [Ankur Gupta v. State of U.P.,  2021 SCC OnLine All 189, decided on 03-03-2021]


Advocates for the parties:

Counsel for Revisionist:- Rajiv Lochan Shukla, J.B. Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party:- G.A., Nipun Singh

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: Mary Joseph, J., while addressing an issue of maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, expressed that the said provision does not say that wife, children or parents who are at the mercy of the parents, grandparents or relatives are not entitled to get monthly maintenance or else in the case of a wife, children or parents who are neglected and surviving at the mercy of other near relatives are not entitled to get maintenance.

Respondents in the present matter had sought for enhancement of the sum ordered originally by the Family Court as monthly maintenance which was ordered at the rate of Rs 1,000 but the petitioner defaulted in payment after some time.

Revision petitioner contended that he was physically handicapped and that the eldest of the children being employed and financially affluent were maintaining the respondents. Hence, due to being devoid of any means of livelihood he submitted that he was not liable to maintain the respondents.

Petitioner had proved before the Family Court that the respondent was remarried and respondents contention that he had no means and therefore was not liable to pay maintenance to the petitioners could not be accepted for the sole reason that he got married secondly and begotten children.

Muslim Personal Law is self-contained of the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife by providing her with food, clothing and lodging. In the Code, a legal recognition is given to the right of a deserted wife, son/daughter, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.

Section 125 CrPC specifically provides that wife, children or parents unable to maintain themselves are entitled to receive monthly maintenance from a male who holds status respectively with reference to them as husband, father or son.

Bench held that the Husband cannot be exonerated from his legal obligation to maintain on the ground that deserted or neglected ones are surviving somehow or else being maintained by someone.

Hence, the Family Court rightly appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned orders modifying the monthly maintenance payable to the petitioner justly and reasonably. [Mohammedkunhi v. Safura, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 407, decided on 04-01-2021]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and N.B. Suryawanshi, JJ., reiterated that father-in-law has a moral responsibility to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law.

The appeal has been filed under Sections 19 and 22 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the Family Court by which the petition filed by appellants against respondent for maintenance was dismissed.

Appellant 1—daughter in law and appellant 2 and 4 – grandchildren of the respondent. Appellants claimed maintenance from the respondent contending that the marriage of the first appellant with respondent’s son was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Since the marriage was against the wishes of both the first appellant and her husband’s family members wishes, cases and counter cases were filed by the first appellant and respondent. Parag expired on 19-01-2000 and after his death, nobody took care of the appellants.

After the husband’s death, first appellant tried to reconcile with respondent but he refused to accept her as a daughter-in-law and appellant’s 2 to 4 as his grandchildren.

Respondent refused to maintain the appellant, hence the appellants were compelled to go to the widowed mother of the first appellant. She maintained the appellant till she expired in 2007 and after which the appellant had no source of income and they were unable to maintain themselves.

It was stated that due to paucity of funds, the second appellant could not pursue her studies after 12th standard. Even the other two minor children could not appear for exams.

Appellants were on the verge of being thrown out of their house due to non-availability of money for rent, whereas respondent was living a lavish lifestyle.

It has also been added that the late husband of the first appellant had his share in a property as the same was coparcenary property, hence appellants had their share in the said property.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Bench observed the facts and circumstances of the case and noted that the appellant’s counsel strenuously submitted that it was the moral duty of the father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law and grandchildren and he cannot run away from his duty.

Points for consideration:

(i) Whether the appellants are entitled to maintenance from the respondent?

(ii) Whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing the claim of maintenance of the appellants? (iii) What order?

Court observed that there was no evidence on record that the first appellant was able to work and her deceased parents had left some property for her. Hence it was proved that the appellants were unable to maintain themselves.

In view of the evidence and material on record, it was found that there was a property which was the ancestral property in possession of the respondent that Parag during his lifetime or first appellant at any point of time were given share.

Since the first appellant was not remarried and the respondent had been getting pension, in Court’s opinion appellants were entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent.

In T. A. Laxhmi Narasamba v. Sundaramma, AIR 1981 Andhra Pradesh 88 the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held thus ;

“The moral obligation of a father-in-law possessed of separate or self-acquired property to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law ripens into a legal obligation in the hands of persons to whom he has either bequeathed or made a gift of his property.”

Division Bench of this Court in Madhukar v. Shalu, 2013 (6) MhL.J. Page 391, held that to maintain the widowed daughter in law is the legal responsibility of father-in-law.

Sections 19 and 22 of the Act create first obligation to maintain a widowed daughter-in- law on the father-in-law. The obligation only shifts on the father of the widow, if the father-in-law prove his inability to maintain her.

Hence, in view of the above decisions and facts and circumstances of the case, Bench held that the family court misread and misconstrued the provisions of Sections 19 and 22 of the Family Courts Act and since it was proved that the respondent held estate/coparcenary property of the deceased, the respondent was under obligation to provide maintenance to the appellants.

[Laxmi v. Santosh,  2021 SCC OnLine Bom 359, decided on 23-02-2021]


Advocates who appeared for the matter:

S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for appellants

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: K. Murali Shankar, J., addressed the issue with regard to payment of maintenance, whether from the date of application or date of order.

Factual Matrix

In the present matter, the second respondent is the mother and respondents 3 and 4, brothers of the first respondent who had married the petitioner. After a while misunderstandings arose between the petitioner and first respondent due to which they started living separately.

Petitioner had filed a maintenance case earlier and the Magistrate passed an order directing the first respondent to pay monthly maintenance at Rs 5,000 per month to the petitioner and her minor children.

Petitioner’s case

Petitioner stated that in order to avoid the payment of maintenance, respondents conspired and took the petitioner and her children to Chennai so as to resume their cohabitation. In the period of two months that the petitioner lived with first respondent, she was harassed and tortured physically and mentally and the petitioner was forcefully sent out of the matrimonial home by forcibly retaining the minor children.

In view of the above petitioner invoked the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005.

Trial Court passed impugned order, wherein first respondent was directed to pay the maintenance of Rs 5,000. On not being satisfied with the maintenance amount also the order of the trial court directing the first respondent to pay maintenance from the date of the order, petitioner/wife came forward with the present revision.

Analysis

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not provide the date from which the maintenance to be awarded and there is no provisions in the Hindu Adoption and Marriage Act with respect to the date from which the maintenance order may be made effective. But, at the same time, Section 125(2) CrPC, contemplates that the Magistrate may award maintenance either from the date of order or from the date of application.

 In the Supreme Court decision of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandras Vyas, (2015) 2 SCC 385, it was held that Section 125 CrPC, impliedly requires the Court to consider making the order for maintenance effective from either of the two dates, having regard to the relevant facts.

It is neither appropriate nor desirable that a Court simply states that maintenance should be paid from either the date of order or the date of the application in matters of maintenance.

As per Section 354(6) of the CrPC, the Court should record reasons in support of the order passed by it, in both eventualities and that the purpose of the provision is to prevent vagrancy and destitution in society and the Court must apply its mind to the options having regard to the facts of the particular case.

Supreme Court in its decision of Rajnesh v. Neha,2020 SCC OnLine SC 903, after analyzing the provisions in various enactment of the Judgments of the appeal and considering the divergent views taken by the various Courts issued necessary direction to bring about the uniformity in the orders passed by all the Courts.

Right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing of the application, since the period during which maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant. Considering the above, the Supreme Court categorically directed that all the Courts award maintenance from the date of application.

 Conclusion

In the present matter, the petitioner had filed the case in the year 2014 and the impugned order was passed on 11-07-2017.

In view of the above discussion, Court held that it has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order granting maintenance from the date of order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner would be entitled to get maintenance from the date of application.

Hence, criminal revision case was partly allowed. [Mohamed Nisha Banu v. Mohamed Rafi, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 801, decided on 17-02-2021]


Advocates who appeared for the parties:

For petitioner : S.M. Jinnah

For Respondent: No appearance

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court:  In a revision petition filed against the enhanced amount of alimony H.S. Madaan, J., upheld Family Court’s decision that,

If salary of the husband increases the wife would be entitled to increased maintenance as well.

The Petitioner, one Varun Jagotta had filed the instant revision petition against his wife Diksha Kapur, feeling aggrieved by the order of the Family Court whereby the Court had granted interim maintenance at Rs 20,000  per month till September, 2019 and thereafter at Rs 28,000 per month. The petitioner was basically aggrieved by the portion of the impugned order granting maintenance at Rs 28,000 w.e.f. October, 2019 onwards.

Taking note of the fact that there had been increase in the salary of the respondent from Rs 95,000 per month to Rs 1,14,000 per month in September, 2019 and there had been increase in rent being paid by the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,500 per month, the Family Court opined that  if the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs 20,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance from the date of filing the application (on 03.10.2018) till September, 2019 and henceforth, at the rate of Rs 28,000/- per month, it would suffice the purpose and ends of justice would be met.

The petitioner contended that as per pay slip of the petitioner for the month of December, 2019, his net carry home salary after all the deductions came out to Rs 92,175, therefore, grant of maintenance at Rs 28,000 per month was not justified.

Noticing that salary of the petitioner had increased from Rs 95,000 per month to Rs 1,14,000 per month, the Bench held that,

 “Increase in maintenance by Rs.8,000 when there was increase in salary of revision petitioner by 19,000, was justified.”

Hence, it was held that the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and was not perverse or passed in an arbitrary manner. The instant petition was dismissed. [Varun Jagotta v. Diksha Kapur, CRR(F)-28 of 2021, decided on 05-02-2021]


Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this story together.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli, JJ., upheld the Family Court’s decision and directed the parties approach the local Court of Singapore with regard to sorting out their matrimonial dispute. 

Issue

Present appeal was filed seeking a direction against the Family Court’s decision, wherein the appellant/plaintiff sought an anti-suit injunction against the defendant/respondent to seek restraint against him for proceeding with a divorce petition filed by him to seek dissolution of marriage before the Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore.

Family Court had granted injunction till the next date of hearing, restraining the defendant/respondent from prosecuting, pursuing or going ahead with his divorce action or any other proceedings as emanating from the matrimony in the case pending in Singapore Court.

Analysis

Bench found that the Family Court took note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court decisions on the aspect of grant on anti-injunction suit. Following were decisions of Supreme Court that were relied upon by the Family Court:

Y.Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, (1991) 3 SCC 451

Modi Entertainment Network v. WSG Cricket PTE Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC 341

Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur., AIR 2018 SC 2094

Appellant’s submission before the Court is that she would be severely prejudiced in case the divorce proceedings were allowed to continue in Singapore Courts, since the divorce would be granted without the appellant being granted any maintenance, or alimony, as also the custody of the children.

Opinion

Court on perusal of the submissions, facts and circumstances of the case stated that:

Firstly, regarding the rights of the parties in a matrimonial dispute according to the law of Singapore can hardly be a reason for the Court to grant the injunction, for the simple reason that the parties were domiciled in Singapore and were continuously residing there since 2012.

Secondly, no reason can be seen why the Singapore Courts would treat the appellant unfairly. Pertinently she had moved an application before the Court at Singapore to seek maintenance. Therefore, the Court cannot accept her claim that she would be prejudiced in any manner on account of her being the wife in the matrimonial dispute before a Singapore Court.

Appellant had also moved an application challenging territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Singapore, which application was rejected.

Decision

Hence, the High Court held that the Family Court had rightly rejected the application preferred by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

Bench reiterated that parties being permanent resident of Singapore, residing there since 2012, should sort out their matrimonial dispute before the local Court in Singapore.

Adding to the above, Court expressed that Courts in India cannot be said to be forums that would be convenient to either of the parties. Enforcement of orders passed by the Courts in India- when the parties; their children, and; their assets/properties are situated in Singapore, would be a practical impossibility.

On finding no merit in the appeal, it was dismissed. [Rakhee Bahl v. Pankaj Bahl, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 766, decided on 03-02-2021]


Advocates for the parties:

For Appellant: Osama Suhail with Surabhi Diwan, Advs.

For Respondent: Shashank Agrawal, Adv.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., while addressing a criminal revision petition concerning a matrimonial dispute expressed that:

“..husband cannot wriggle out of his responsibilities to provide shelter to his wife and minor children.”

Issue: Modified Maintenance Amount to Wife

Petitioner/Husband sought to quash the Family Court’s Order through which maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs 22,000 from Rs 10,000 to respondent/wife.

Wife whereas sought modification of the Order passed by Family Court vide which interim maintenance amount of Rs 10,000 awarded by the trial court had been enhanced to Rs 22,000 while claiming it to be on the lower side.

Both the above-stated issues have been clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

Analysis

Wife claimed that her husband was living a luxurious life, whereas she herself was unemployed and helpless, and had two children, hence she claimed that her husband could easily maintain her and the children, but he has been deliberately neglecting his responsibilities.

In view of the above status of the husband, she claimed interim maintenance of Rs 40,000 per month.

As far as monthly income of the husband was concerned, as per his affidavit of income, he had declared his income as Rs37,418/- p.m., whereas as per ITR for the assessment year his monthly income was Rs 43,305/- p.m. Further, as per credit in bank account, his salary was shown to be Rs 44,560/- p.m, which the trial court had taken into consideration.

According to his salary slip, his total gross pay was Rs 50,003 per month and deduction of Rs 10,249 was made towards the pension scheme, insurance, society membership and repayment of the loan.

Court’s Opinion: Calculating Quantum of Maintenance

High Court opined that the income has to be ascertained keeping in mind that the deductions only towards income tax and compulsory contributions like GPF, EPF, etc. are permitted and no deductions towards house rent, electric charges, repayment of loan, LIC payments etc. are permitted.

In view of the above aspect, Bench referred to the Supreme Court decision in Dr Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, which was followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Seema v. Gourav Juneja, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 3045.

Applying the similar ratio as was in above cases, Court found that while calculating the income of the husband, deduction of Rs 1,000 towards NZRE BH NDLS contribution (which is a kind of saving) and Rs 4,451 NZRE BH Loan, from his gross income of Rs 50,003/-, cannot be permitted. Hence, the husband’s net income in hand comes to Rs 44,552/- p.m. and rounding it off to Rs 44,560.

Argument with regard to accommodation by the husband, that he has to pay rent for the same could not be considered as husband is duty-bound to arrange accommodation for his wife and children who are dependent upon him.

Court also cited the Supreme Court decision in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. Distt. Judge, Dehradun (1997) 7 SCC 7.

Trial Court’s Error

Whether the court below was right in dividing husband’s income into six shares while calculating and granting interim maintenance?

Husband’s mother used to receive a pension of Rs 17,199 and medical benefits, etc. and she used to live in three-storeyed building wherein one floor was occupied by her, one by her husband a and another by husband’s brother.

Since the husband pays Rs 8,000 as monthly rent and the same would be the position of the other son of the husband’s mother, her rental income would amount to Rs 16,000.

Even if it’s assumed that the rent agreement placed on record might have been manipulated to save income tax, then also it cannot be lose sight of that mother is receiving a good amount of pension and is thus, financially independent.

Another plea that the husband placed was that he had gotten employment on compassionate grounds when his father passed away, hence he is liable to maintain his mother.

On noting the above, Supreme Court decision on Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 was referred, wherein it was held that:

“2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she  is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied.” 

In view of the above discussion, Court found an error in the trial court’s decision in keeping the mother’s share in the income of the husband.

Hence, in this view of the matter, taking the income of husband @ Rs 44,560/- p.m. and diving it into two shares for him and remaining for his dependants i.e. wife and two children, that is to say by making five shares, each one is entitled to the share @Rs 8912/- (round of Rs 8910/-p.m.). Resultantly, the wife shall be entitled to interim maintenance @Rs 26,736/- p.m. and in round figure Rs 26,000/- instead of Rs 22,000/- p.m.

Bench modified the impugned order in the above terms. [Nitin Sharma v. Sunita Sharma, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 694, decided on 18-02-2021]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J., addressed the following substantial questions of law:

  • Whether it is necessary for the wife to file an application in writing to grant permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
  • Whether wife can claim maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as she is divorcee, after passing the decree of divorce?

Counsels representing both the parties had a consensus that Section 25 of the Act does permit the divorcee spouse to claim maintenance from the other spouse even subsequent to the passing of the decree of divorce, subject to certain conditions.

Court below failed to consider the wife’s prayer for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act.

Bench stated that various other High Courts including this High Court have held that the word ‘application’ as referred to in Section 25 of the Act i.e. ‘on an application made to it’ does not specify as to whether it is oral application or application in writing. Adding to this observation, Court stated that a broader view of Section 25 of the Act is to be taken considering the object and purpose for the inclusion of this provision in the Act.

In Madras High Court’s decision of Umarani v. D. Vivekannandan, 2000 SCC OnLine Mad 50, it was held that there is no need of written application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and permanent alimony and maintenance can be granted on the basis of oral application.

Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Surajmal Ramchandra Khati v. Rukminibai, 1999 SCC OnLine MP 87, held that merely because the wife had not presented a separate application praying for grant of permanent alimony, it cannot be said that she is not entitled to the same.

In view of the above discussion, Bench expressed that in terms of Section 25 of the Act, for granting the relief of permanent alimony, the Court has to consider the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just.

In the case of a decree by mutual consent, if relief for permanent alimony is sought, there is no occasion for the Court to observe the conduct of the parties, to examine their financial stability and other circumstances of the case to pass any order of permanent alimony at the time of passing of the decree of divorce by mutual consent. Essential element is that the Court should be able to comprehend the financial position and conduct of parties to pass permanent alimony order.

Appellant had narrated the financial status of the respondent-husband in her affidavit before the Court and she prayed to keep open the issue of permanent alimony for its consideration later on.

Since the appellate court dismissed the appeal on a misplaced ground of marital tie not subsisting, the said order is to be set aside.

On observing and noting the above discussion, Court opined that ‘application’ as referred to in Section 25 of the Act implies any application either in writing or oral for seeking permanent alimony and maintenance. Mode and form of the application under Section 25 of the Act are immaterial. The order in this regard cannot be passed in a vacuum.

Therefore, the matter is remanded to the trial court in order to decide the issue of permanent alimony. [Vijayshree v. Dr Nishant Arvind Kale, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 29, decided on 08-01-2021]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., dismissed an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act on finding no interest in the same by the wife.

Petitioner filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce from his wife. To which Family Court granted a decree of divorce to dissolve the marriage. However, on the same date, a notice was issued in the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Family Court called for the detailed affidavits to be filed as to the expenditure, assets and liabilities of both the Petitioner and Respondent.

The above-said application has been challenged.

Bench noted from the Family Court’s decision that the respondent did not contest the divorce petition at all. Respondent’s defence was struck off and cross-examination of the petitioner was also of a limited nature.

Further, the Court added that since the respondent did not set out any substantial defence and the decree of divorce was granted without contest, respondent didn’t seem to be interested in pressing the application under Section 24 of the Act, which is meant for interim maintenance pendente lite.

 While concluding with the decision, Court expressed that the legal position is that a Section 24 application under the Act can survive beyond the dismissal of the main proceeding for grant of divorce, in respect of the period till the dismissal of the said petition.

Adding to the above, bench stated that the decision in Rita Mago v. V.P. Mago, 20(1981) DLT 103 may no longer be good law.

Hence, Bench concluded that in view of the above facts and circumstances the respondent doesn’t seem to be interested in pursuing the application under Section 24 for interim maintenance, therefore the said application was dismissed. [Apurva Anand v. Chanchal Niranjan, CM (M) 426 of 2020 and CM Appl. 20237 of 2020, decided on 29-01-2021]


Advocates for the parties:

Petitioner: Dr Aman Hingorani and Himanshu Yadav, Advocates

 Respondent: None