Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain 

Facts of Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain (2017)

Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain case involves an appeal by the appellant-husband, Manish Jain, challenging a Delhi High Court order dated February 21, 2014, which directed him to pay Rs. 60,000 per month as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife, Akanksha Jain, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This maintenance was ordered in addition to Rs. 10,000 per month already being paid under proceedings initiated under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The couple married in February 2005 and shifted residences in 2007. By mid-2007, their relationship deteriorated, and the husband filed for divorce citing cruelty. Subsequently, the wife filed multiple complaints and petitions, including under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC, the Domestic Violence Act, and Section 125 CrPC, seeking maintenance and other reliefs. Initially, her plea for interim maintenance was denied due to her claimed employment. However, on appeal, she was granted Rs. 10,000 per month in 2009.

Later, the wife sought additional interim maintenance of Rs. 4,00,000 per month, stating that she had no independent income. The appellant contested this, arguing that she was educated and capable of earning. The Additional District Judge dismissed her plea in 2010. She then approached the Delhi High Court, which directed both parties to disclose their income. Considering the husband’s financial standing and properties, the court awarded the wife Rs. 60,000 monthly maintenance.

The appellant approached the Supreme Court, citing the excessive amount. Despite attempts for an amicable settlement, no resolution was reached. The Supreme Court restored the Special Leave Petition, which became the subject of this judgement. The case underscores the court’s discretion in assessing maintenance claims based on financial status and needs.

Issue

The primary issue in Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain was whether the respondent-wife was entitled to maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and if the interim maintenance amount of Rs. 60,000 per month awarded by the Delhi High Court was excessively high.

Key questions arising from this issue were:

1. Eligibility for Maintenance: Whether the respondent-wife, who had no permanent employment but was educated and qualified, had sufficient independent income to support herself, thereby disqualifying her from claiming maintenance under Section 24.
2. Quantum of Maintenance: Whether the High Court erred in setting the maintenance amount at Rs. 60,000 per month without adequately considering the financial status of both parties and the appellant-husband’s claim of financial incapacity due to business losses.
3. Judicial Discretion: Whether the High Court’s decision to set aside the trial court’s dismissal of the respondent’s maintenance application and award a significantly higher amount was by the principles governing maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Arguments

The appellant-husband’s counsel in Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain argued that the respondent-wife had repeatedly concealed her employment and independent income during the proceedings. It was contended that the trial court had rightly rejected her application for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act after thoroughly analysing evidence of her education, professional qualifications in the fashion industry, and sufficient income. The counsel criticised the High Court for overturning the trial court’s well-reasoned order and setting an exorbitant maintenance amount of Rs. 60,000 per month without adequately considering the financial status of the parties.

Additionally, the counsel highlighted that the appellant-husband was already paying Rs. 10,000 per month as interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act) and had made substantial payments, including Rs. 7,50,000 in D.V. Act proceedings, the return of a Toyota Corolla worth Rs. 13,00,000, a deposit of Rs. 12,00,000, and Rs. 2,75,000 for dowry articles. It was emphasised that the appellant’s businesses were either shut down or undergoing winding-up due to severe losses, leaving him financially incapable of paying Rs. 60,000 monthly maintenance.

On the other hand, the respondent-wife’s counsel in Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain argued that the primary principle of maintenance is to ensure that the wife’s living conditions are comparable to those of the husband. It was submitted that despite orders, the wife had not received adequate financial support to maintain her standard of living. The respondent’s counsel emphasised the husband’s financial responsibility to provide for the wife, irrespective of his other obligations.

Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain Judgement

The Supreme Court in Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain, after examining the matter, decided on the issue of maintenance pendente lite for the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The case involved ongoing matrimonial disputes and pending litigation, with both parties presenting conflicting claims regarding income and financial responsibilities.

The Court emphasised that discretion in awarding interim maintenance must be exercised judicially, based on the principles of matrimonial law and the objectives of the Hindu Marriage Act. 

It clarified that the quantum of maintenance must consider the income and financial status of both parties, and that the respondent-wife’s education or ability to work does not negate her right to claim maintenance if she lacks sufficient independent income. Similarly, the financial status of the wife’s parents is immaterial.

At the time of her application, the respondent-wife had no permanent source of employment and her income was insufficient to sustain herself. The High Court, taking into account the financial circumstances of both parties, had ordered Rs. 60,000 per month as maintenance. 

However, the Supreme Court deemed this amount excessive in light of the evidence presented and reduced it to Rs. 25,000 per month, in addition to Rs. 10,000 per month already being paid under proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act).

The Court directed the appellant-husband to pay the reduced maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000 per month starting February 1, 2012, along with arrears, within four weeks. The maintenance is to continue until the divorce petition is resolved, and any amount already paid under the High Court’s previous order would be adjusted against the arrears.

The Court warned that non-compliance with the order, including payment of arrears, would attract contempt of court proceedings. The judgement emphasised that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the underlying matrimonial disputes.

The appeal was allowed, partially modifying the High Court’s order.