Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: A Division Bench of M. Sathyanarayanan and P. Rajamanickam, JJ., addressed an appeal with regard to seeking interim maintenance when permanent maintenance was already granted.

Petitioners have filed the present appeal challenging the Family Court’s Order.

Husband sought divorce against the first appellant(wife) on the ground of cruelty.

During the pendency of the above petition, appellants filed an application under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act read with Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Sections 20 and 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to direct the husband to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 to appellant 1 and Rs 5,000 to appellant 2 towards monthly maintenance.

Another application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1055 read with Sections 20 and 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs 7,500 to appellant 1 and Rs 5, 000, was also filed.

Counsel for the appellants, M.P. Senthil and Counsel S. Jeyavel, for the respondent.

Issues to be considered:

  • Whether the petitioners are precluded from seeking interim maintenance by invoking the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act r/w Sections 20 and 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on the ground that they already got an order for payment of maintenance in D.V proceedings?

Analysis & Decision

Bench referred to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is in regard to the permanent Alimony and Maintenance.

Section 25(1) of HMA empowers the Court, while passing any decree to consider the status of the parties and whether any arrangement needs to be made in favour of the wife or the husband and by way of permanent alimony, an order granting maintenance can also be passed by the Court.

“…at any time, subsequent to the passing of decree also, the Court can order for granting maintenance on application made to it by either wife or the husband.”

Bench noted that the appellants cannot ask for interim relief, when permanent relief has already been granted to them.

In view of the above, court relied on the decision of Rakesh Malhotra v. Krishna Malhotra, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 239 wherein the following was dealt with:

After grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the 1955 Act, prayer made by wife before Magistrate under Section 125 of Code for maintenance over and above what has been granted by Court under Section 25 of Act. Impugned order allowing prayer was set aside with direction that application preferred under Section 125 of Code shall be treated and considered as one preferred under Section 25(2) of Act.

What the appellants should have done in the present matter?

Since, the appellants had already received maintenance in the DV proceedings under Section 20 of the DV Act which is permanent in nature, yet if due to a change in the circumstances the said order required modification or alteration, they can approach the same Court seeking the relief by invoking Section 25(2) of the DV Act or the Family Court can also be approached to exercise the power under Section 25(1) of the HMA.

But the resort of filing another application before another forum that too in the nature of interim relief should not be adopted.

Section 26 of the DV Act shows that the aggrieved person may seek any relief under Sections 18 to 22 of DV Act in any legal proceedings before a Civil Court/Family Court or Criminal Court as additional reliefs.

In the present case, the petitioner had already received an order in the petition properly filed under Section 12 of the DV Act before the Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli and that being so, they were not entitled to file a petition before the Family Court by invoking the provision under Section 26(1) of the DV Act, seeking interim relief.

Therefore, in the High Court’s opinion, the  Family Court Judge had rightly dismissed the application. [Gomathi v. Sacraties,  2020 SCC OnLine Mad 2754, decided on 15-09-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Division Bench of Rakesh Kumar Jain and Harnaresh Singh Gill, JJ. allowed an appeal asking for entitlement to permanent alimony in terms of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 11-6-2012 as per Hindu Sikh rites and rituals. The respondent-husband was a widower whereas the appellant wife who had claimed herself to be a spinster was already married. A petition was filed by the respondent-husband under Section 11 of the Act for annulment of marriage alleging that the factum of earlier marriage was not disclosed to him at the time of their marriage was on 11-6-2012. The learned trial court concluded that at the time of marriage by the appellant with the respondent, she was already having a spouse and, therefore, a decree under Section 11 of the Act was passed against her declaring her marriage null and void.

Anil Chawla, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant is entitled to permanent alimony in terms of Section 25 of the Act. He basically relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga, (2005) 2 SCC 33 in which it was held that the jurisdiction of the Court to grant alimony was not restricted to judicial separation or divorce and encompassed all kind of decrees such as restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9, judicial separation under Section 10, declaring marriage as null and void under Section 11, annulment of marriage as voidable under Section 12 and Divorce under Section 13.

Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent, Veneet Sharma, submitted that once the marriage of the appellant with the respondent had been held to be null and void after the decree had been passed under Section 11 of the Act, the question of award of permanent alimony did not arise at all. To further his arguments, the learned counsel cited Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, 1988 (1) HLR 375. Relying on Savitaben Somabhai Bhaitya v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 190, he contended that in the said case though, the dispute was in regard to the award of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but it was held by the Supreme Court that marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse was a complete nullity in the eyes of law and she was therefore not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of the Code or the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court observed that the judgment in the case of Ramesh Chandra, (2005) 2 SCC 33was deciding a specific issue as to whether Section 25 of the Act would be applicable in the decree passed under Section 11 of the Act which was not the issue before the Supreme Court in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya (supra) in which Section 125 CrPC was in issue before the Supreme Court

Citing Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407, in which it was held that the binding nature of a decision would extend to only observation on the point raised and decided by the Court, the Court held that the present case was governed by the Ramesh Chandra case.

In view of the above, the Court allowed the present appeal only to the extent that the question of law which was framed by the Court holding that the appellant would be entitled to permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act irrespective of the fact that the decree has been passed under Section 11 of the Act. The Court accordingly remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the application under Section 25 of the Act, to be filed by the appellant before it for the purpose of seeking permanent alimony. [Sukhbir Kaur v. Sukhdev Singh, FAO-M No. 35 of 2016 (O&M), decided on 06-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ. entertained an appeal by the appellant-wife under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 against the impugned judgment granting divorce passed by Principal Judge of Family Court.

Facts giving rise to this appeal were, the respondent had filed a suit earlier under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was decreed already. When the marriage was solemnized between the parties, the respondent was working as a Sepoy in the Indian Army and it was a smooth sail for both of them. Subsequently, respondent-husband filed for divorce and for dissolution of marriage on the grounds that appellant was suffering from epilepsy prior to marriage and such essential fact was not disclosed to him, the appellant also suffered from different ailments which served as a hindrance, physically and mentally in their prosperous marriage. But the actual ground on which suit was filed for divorce was cruelty and desertion.

The Court observed that parties are living separately for a long time, the issues framed by the Family Court were sufficient to grant a divorce in this particular case. It was also observed that the Family Court found that appellant suffered from epilepsy and was treated for the same in addition to it she also suffered from tuberculosis, and such physical suffering of the appellant served as mental cruelty upon the husband. The expert opinion stated that due to such ailments the appellant was not in a fit state to conceive a child. The Court appreciated that such ailments were not relevant grounds to prove cruelty and to dissolve the marriage prime facie but non-disclosure of such important facts before marriage led to cruelty which is a proper ground for divorce.

The Court stated that there was enough evidence before the court below to establish that there was cruelty on the part of the appellant/wife, such as threatening the husband to falsely implicate in criminal cases and making a complaint to the superior officers of the husband. The wife had also made unnecessary allegations against the respondent before the Commanding Officer, which lowered his esteem in the eyes of his superior officer.

Hence, the Court awarded permanent alimony and disposed the application of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, it also found that there was no need to interfere with the Order of Family Court and setting aside the divorce decree.[Himani v. Rohit Bisht, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 448, decided on 13-05-2019]