Case Brief: Rajnesh v. Neha [Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020]

Case Name: Rajnesh v. Neha

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020

Delivered on: 04/11/2020

Bench: Justice Indu Malhotra & Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Relevant Article/Section: Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Introduction

Maintenance is defined as the amount which is paid to the dependent wife, child, or parents to maintain themselves. The amount can be paid either by doing one lump sum payment or by way of monthly installments. There are various laws containing provisions for maintenance. These are

• S.125 Criminal Procedure Code,1973- Maintenance to wife, children and parents
• S.24 and 25 Hindu marriage act, 1955– Maintenance pendente lite/ temporary maintenance and permanent maintenance
• S.18,19,23 Hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956
• S. 20 Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act,2005
• S.3 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,1986
• S.36 and 37 Special Marriage Act,1954

In this case, we will discuss the guidelines given by the apex Court for deciding on maintenance allowance.

Facts of the case

Respondent No.1-wife left the matrimonial home in January 2013 shortly after the birth of the son. After about eight months, the wife filed an application for interim maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of herself and her minor son.

The Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month to the wife from the date of application till the date of application and Rs.5,000 per month to the son from the date of application till the date of application and Rs.10,000 per month from the date of Family Court’s order till further orders were passed in the main petition.

The husband challenged the Family Court’s order and filed a petition before the Bombay High Court but the High Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the judgment given by the Family Court on 14.08.2018.

Now, the aggrieved husband moved to the Supreme Court.

Issues of the case

• Issue of overlapping jurisdiction

• Payment of interim maintenance

• Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance

• Date from which maintenance to be awarded

• Enforcement of orders of maintenance

Arguments of husband/ appellant

The husband made an oral statement that he did not have the financial means to comply with the orders of maintenance.

He also stated that he had to borrow loans from his father.

He also submitted that presently he was employed and also did not own any immovable property and had only one operational bank account.

He further submitted that the Family Court had erroneously relied upon the Income Tax Returns of 2006, while determining the maintenance payable in 2013.

Arguments of wife/ Respondent

The wife stated that maintenance of Rs.10,000 was awarded to the son when he was 2 ½ years old in 2015. The said amount was now highly inadequate to meet the expenses of a growing child, who is 7 ½ years old, and is a school-going boy and the fees of the son also had not been paid.

She submitted that she was being overburdened by the growing expenses, with no support from her husband.

She also revealed the husband’s investments in real estate projects and other businesses which he was concealing from the Court.

She also alleged that the husband was in illegal possession of her Streedhan and even after the orders of this Court and in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, he is not complying with the orders.

Supreme court’s directions

SC directed the appellant to clear the arrears of interim maintenance within 12 weeks from the date of judgement and upon his failure, the respondent will be open to enforcing the order under Section 128 CRPC and can take recourse to other legal remedies.

For the enhancement of maintenance for the son, the SC stated that the respondent should move to the Family Court as the present matter was brought by the appellant.

Guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Court

Issue of overlapping jurisdiction

 Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.

This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39.1[i]

In India, there are various laws regulating maintenance. Both personal and secular laws are there to deal with cases of maintenance. Personal laws like Hindu law( Hindu adoption and maintenance act,1956 and Hindu marriage act,1955) and Muslim law in which a wife can claim maintenance according to the law which is applicable to them on the basis of their religion.

Secular laws like S.125 Cr.P.C, Special Marriage Act, 1954 and Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provide a statutory remedy for women to claim maintenance irrespective of their religion. The Court also said that maintenance may be claimed under one or more of the aforementioned statutes since each of these enactments provides an independent and distinct remedy framed with a specific object and purpose.

The Court further said that a party is not precluded from approaching the Court under one or more enactments, since the nature and purpose of the relief under each Act are distinct and independent, it is equally true that the simultaneous operation of these Acts, would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting orders.

This would have the inevitable effect of overlapping jurisdiction. This process requires to be streamlined so that the respondent/husband is not obligated to comply with successive orders of maintenance passed under different enactments.

The court held that it would be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in the previous proceeding. So the Court held that maintenance orders of previously instituted proceedings must be taken into account for assessing maintenance in the present proceedings.

Payment of interim maintenance

Both parties are required to file an affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities and then the court would assess the amount of maintenance at the interim stage.

Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance

There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child-rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.

The financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance.[ii]

The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde37 laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance

1. Status of the parties.

2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.

3. The independent income and property of the claimant.

4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain.

5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.

7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.

8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.

9. Some guesswork is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.

10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.

11. The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/ 24 of the Act. 17.”

Certain additional factors are also given which would be relevant in determining the quantum of maintenance.

Date from which maintenance to be awarded

There is no provision in the HMA, 1955 and DV Act that provides the date from which maintenance is to be awarded. Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is the only statutory provision that provides that the Magistrate may award maintenance either from the date of the order or from the date of application. In the absence of a uniform regime, there is a vast variance in the practice adopted by the Family Courts in the country, with respect to the date from which maintenance must be awarded.

The divergent views taken by the Family Courts are

• From the date on which the application for maintenance was filed
• The date of the order granting maintenance
• The date on which the summons was served upon the respondent

In various cases like Kanhu Charan Jena v. Smt. Nirmala Jena[iii] and Arun Kumar Nayak  v Urmila Jena, it was reiterated that dependents were entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application.

The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislation, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband.

Financial constraints of a dependent spouse hamper their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. In order to prevent a dependent from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the concerned Court.

So, the Court through its guidelines in this case made it clear that the maintenance shall be awarded from the date of application and hence it made uniformity in the decisions of Family Courts.

Enforcement of orders of maintenance

If maintenance is not paid in a timely manner, it defeats the very object of the social welfare legislation.

For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI.

Present status of the judgement

It is a recent judgement of the Supreme Court and it has not been overruled till now so it is still applicable until it doesn’t get overruled by any other judgement.

Conclusion

Through this case, Supreme Court solved various questions of maintenance and provided important guidelines for determining maintenance allowance so it is a very important case. The apex Court has also provided Enclosures at the end of the judgement which are the affidavits to be filled by both parties for assessing interim maintenance.

End Notes

[i] Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v Mrs. Veena Kaushal & Ors.AIR 1978 SC 1807

[ii] Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain

[iii] I (2001) DMC 272

This article has been contributed by Ritika Gupta, a student at Saraswati Institute of Law, Palwal.