Supreme Court’s Directions on the Law of Maintenance

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha [Cr. A No. 730 of 2020] delivered a judgment which laid down in detail various aspects of the law on maintenance in India. The said judgment is a significant step towards bringing uniformity on the law of maintenance across various courts in the country. Here, we go over the key takeaways from this comprehensive, 66-page judgment.

Claiming Maintenance

Maintenance can be claimed under various laws in India such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(2), Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Since India is a multi-religious and secular country, marriage, divorce and maintenance are governed by personal laws. For instance, Muslim women can claim maintenance under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986; Christians under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869; and Parsis under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.

The Apex Court held that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under any of the aforesaid statutes, but it would be unfair to order the husband to pay maintenance under each of these statutes separately. If maintenance has already been granted to a wife under any one of the statutes in a previous court case, she must disclose it in a subsequent court proceeding for maintenance under a different statute. Where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or setoff, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding(s), while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding.

The Court also observed that if the order passed in the previous proceeding(s) requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.

Quantum of Maintenance

The Apex Court observed that if a wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. It noted that there is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. The Court placed reliance on judgments where certain factors to be considered while determining the quantum of maintenance are laid down. Following are some of the important judgments that were cited:

• • Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge, Dehradun &Ors. [(1997) 7 SCC 7]
  • Vinny Paramvir Parmar vs. Paramvir Parmar [(2011) 13 SCC 112]
  • Manish Jain vs. Akanksha Jain [(2017) 15 SCC 801]
  • Reema Salkan vs. Sumer Singh Salkan [(2019) 12 SCC 303]
  • Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316]
  • Bharat Hedge vs. Smt. Saroj Hegde [140 (2007) DLT 16]

The Bench also laid down additional factors to be considered for determining the quantum of maintenance. Some of these include: [i] Age and employment of both spouses, [ii] whether the wife is earning an income, [iii] living and education expenses of minor children, and [iv] serious disability or ill health of the spouse or child. The Hon’ble Bench cautioned that these factors are not exhaustive, and the concerned court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor(s) which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.

The Apex Court also held that disclosure of assets and liabilities should be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court, District Court or Magistrates Court, as the case may be throughout the country. The Supreme Court has provided model affidavits which are annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of the judgment. Moreover, the court in question may ask for other documents to be filed as and when required to arrive at a figure.

Interestingly, to arrive at the conclusion that the husband in this case was leading a luxurious lifestyle, the bench had taken note of a Facebook post showing him flaunting photographs of wildlife taken in various parts of the world, using expensive camera and lens equipment.

Date from which Maintenance is to be given

In the absence of a uniform regime, there is variance in the practice adopted by the Family Courts in the country, with respect to the date from which maintenance must be awarded. The Supreme Court has brought this conundrum to an end. It was clarified that maintenance is to be given from the date when the maintenance application was filed. This direction was given to avoid undue prejudice to applicants as they are unable to control how long the maintenance proceedings continue.

Execution of Maintenance Orders

The Supreme Court held that a maintenance order can be enforced as a money decree of a civil court. In case of wilful disobedience of an order, contempt proceedings may be initiated and measures such as civil detention, attachment of property, etc. may be taken.

Disclaimer: This memorandum is meant solely for informational purposes and not for the purpose of advertising or soliciting clients. Any use of the information provided herein is not intended to, and shall not, create a lawyer-client relationship.