Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. allowed the application of the petitioner to set aside the order granting maintenance to his wife when the divorce was granted on account of adultery on the wife’s part.

The petitioner filed an application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order dated passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur which directed the petitioner to pay Rs 8,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. The order was delivered ex parte and there was no valid service of notice on the petitioner during the proceeding and, thus, he was unaware of the same. The revision petition was filed within the limitation period.

The impugned order was passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which excludes a wife living in adultery from being entitled to receive any maintenance. It was submitted that in Divorce Case filed by the petitioner against the opposite party and one Sunny

Rajak, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur by judgment dated 11-10-2017, had dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party on the ground that she was living in adultery with Sunny Rajak. It was submitted that in the said case, Sunny Rajak had contested the suit whereas the opposite party had chosen not to contest. The learned counsel submitted that once a competent Court had held the opposite party to be living in adultery with Sunny Rajak, Section 125(4) of the Code disentitles her to any maintenance from the petitioner.

The opposite party submitted that they have challenged the decree of divorce which was still pending.

The Court held that the order passed in the Maintenance Case No. 84 of 2016, could not be sustained. Section 125(4) of the Code clearly debars a wife living in adultery from receiving any maintenance from her husband. In the present case, the marriage between the parties was dissolved on the grounds that the opposite party was found to be living in adultery with one Sunny Rajak.  Further, the Court also that mere pendency of an appeal against the order dissolving the marriage, inter alia on the ground of adultery, which till date was neither disposed of nor any interim stay of such order was granted, cannot be a ground to uphold the order impugned.

In view of the above-noted facts, the instant application was allowed and the order in the Maintenance Case was set aside.[Rajesh Rajak v. Rinku Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 1521, decided on 30-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Mohammad Rafiq and Narendra Singh Dhaddha, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by an aggrieved husband stating that,

“Even if the wife earns a certain amount, that does not absolve the husband of his liability to maintain her in the meaning of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”

The present appeal was filed by the appellant-husband aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, which had allowed the application of the respondent-wife filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 granting Rs 7000 as monthly maintenance pendente lite.

Learned Counsel, Raunak Dixit on behalf of appellant-husband, submitted that family court mechanically granted the amount of monthly maintenance and the order passed is against the settled principle of law.

Adding to the above, Counsel for the appellant-husband submitted that, the fact that respondent-wife is a graduate and also has attained a degree of B.Ed. She earns a monthly Rs 20,000 by her teaching work, whereas the appellant earns only Rs 6,000 per month.

Further, the Counsel for the appellant relied on the case of Nisha Jain v. Amit Jain, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4866, wherein it was held that,

“Provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been enacted to enable the husband or the wife, as the case may be, who has no independent source of income for his or her support and to incur necessary expenses to contest the litigation, can claim maintenance pendente lite so that proceedings may be continued without any hardship on his/her part.”

The High Court keeping in view the above-stated submissions and circumstances of the case, noted that, the respondent-wife alleged that the appellant-husband’s income is approximately Rs 80,000 per month along with that he runs a catering business and maintains a car, on the basis of which respondent-wife demanded Rs 40,000 as monthly maintenance.

But the appellant-husband maintained his stand of earning a very minimal amount in comparison to respondent-wife as stated above.

In Supreme Court’s case of Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, it was held that,

“Merely because the wife was earning something, would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance particularly when her earnings were not placed on record.”

Therefore, in view of the above, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it stating that, wife earning a certain amount will not absolve husband’s liability to maintain her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.[Ajay Mittal v. Sonu Goyal, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 2403, decided on 22-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: S.K. Awasthi, J., dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the maintenance order passed by the Additional Principal Judge.

The respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC to claim maintenance from the petitioner as she was forced to live in her parental house on account of cruelty by the husband. She had claimed that the petitioner was harassing her for the demand of dowry. She registered a criminal case against her husband and his family members for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323 and 506 IPC. She also pleaded that she was unable to maintain herself as she does not have any source of income. The Family Court had allowed the application of the respondent and had directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance taking into account the income of the petitioner’s father and brother.

The petitioner contended the respondent was living separately on her own will, as she did not want to live with his in-laws. He stated that this was the only reason why she left his house and lodged a complaint against him and his family members regarding the demand of dowry and harassment. He further claimed that he was still a student studying in B.Ed. and is dependent on the income of his parents, whereas the respondent was well educated and had obtained a Post Graduate Degree of M.Com., and had an independent source of income through tuition and was capable of maintaining herself. The respondent argued that the petitioner was living in a joint family and his father had agricultural land and was engaged in the business of seed and fertilizer. The petitioner was also involved in the said business and therefore had sufficient source of income to pay for the maintenance.

The Court held that a husband is duty-bound to make arrangement for maintenance of the wife. The respondent was legally wedded wife of the petitioner and she was residing separately from him and his family members as they used to harass her for the demand of dowry. The petitioner did not deny the criminal cases pending against him. Therefore, prima facie the respondent was living separately with a reasonable cause.

Therefore the respondent was duty-bound to make arrangement for the maintenance of his wife. He has not denied the fact that he lived in a joint family with his father and brother and was also involved in the family business of seed and fertilizer, which indicated that he had sufficient source of income.[Dhruv v. Sapna, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 2079, decided on 20-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: Deepak Roshan, J. disposed of an application made by the petitioner for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The petitioners filed an application to challenge the order passed by a Family Court, where her petition under Section 125 was dismissed. The petitioner, Patun Bibi, was legally married to respondent 2, Hanif Mian, as per Muslim Law and a female child was born out of their wedlock. She divorced him and claimed that her marriage with respondent 2 took place at the instigation of his first wife, Zaitun Bibi who was suffering from Psytica pain. It was claimed that after one year of conjugal life and birth of her daughter, respondent 2 started torturing her at the instigation of the Zaitun Bibi and that both the mother and daughter were subjected to cruelty. Respondent 2 challenged the very maintainability of the proceeding mainly on the ground that the petitioner is already a married person and he is living with his wife-Zaitun Bibi. He asserted that he has never married the petitioner. He further stated that he had a very healthy conjugal life with his own wife-Zaitun Bibi and she is not suffering from ‘psytica pain’ as alleged.

The trial court considered the issues presented before them and based upon the evidences produced concluded that the petitioner failed to establish her status as the legally wedded wife of Hanif Mian and if the daughter is actually their legitimate child. Respondent 2 denied being ever married to the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner admitted that she married Yusuf (her ex-husband) about 11 years ago and divorced him about 1 ½ years ago. She was admittedly married to Yusuf and after she divorced him, she married another man, Harmuz. The Court stated that the petitioner also failed to reproduce the ‘Nikahnama’ on the grounds that it was not prepared. This was considered suspicious by the Court because, under Muslim Law, every ‘Nikah’ is reproduced in “Nikahnama” and therefore, the marriage itself cannot be proved.

The petitioner vehemently argued that even in the case of live-in relationship, maintenance can be awarded under Section 125 as decided by the Supreme Court in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188. This present Court held that a long conjugal life/live in relation has never been proved by either of the prosecutions. On the other hand, there is evidence to prove that she was first married to Harmuz and then later to Yusuf.

The Court finally held that the petitioner has failed to point out any error in the order passed by the trial court and thus they cannot interfere. It was held that the petitioner is at liberty to take remedy of approaching the appropriate forum for Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In case the petitioner takes any step under the provision of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the concerned forum must decide the matter in accordance with the law and without being prejudiced by the observation made by this Court.[Patun Bibi v. State of Jharkhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 997, decided on 02-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of G.S. Sistani and Jyoti Singh, JJ. allowed an appeal filed by the appellant-wife against the order of the Family Court whereby two applications filed by her against the respondent-husband were dismissed.

The appellant had filed two applications — one under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance for herself, and the other under Section 26 seeking custody of the two minor children. Both the applications were dismissed by the Family Court. The application under Section 24 was rejected on the sole ground that maintenance of Rs 2000 per month already stood fixed in proceedings arising under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Susmita Mahal, Advocate representing the appellant challenged the order of the Family Court. Per contra, Trilok Chand, Advocate appearing for the respondent supported the same.

The High Court, on a conjoint reading of Sections 20, 26 and 36 of the Domestic Violence Act, was of the opinion: “the provisions of DV Act dealing with maintenance are supplementary in the provisions of other laws and therefore maintenance can be granted to the aggrieved person(s) under the DV Act which would also be in addition to any order of maintenance arising out of Section 125 of CrPC.” Furthermore, “On the converse, if any order is passed by the Family Court under Section 24 HMA, the same would not debar the Court in the proceedings arising out of DV Act or proceedings under Section 125 CrPC instituted by the wife/aggrieved person claiming maintenance.”

The Court also clarified: “However, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once an order of maintenance has been passed by any Court then the same cannot be re-adjudicated upon by any other Court. The legislative mandate envisages grant of maintenance to the wife under various statutes such as HMA, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 125 CrPC as well as Section 20 of DV Act. As such various statutes have been enacted to provide for the maintenance to the wife and it is nowhere the intention of the legislature that once any order is passed in either of the proceedings the intention of the legislature that once any order is passed in either of the proceedings, the said order would debar re-adjudication of the issue of maintenance in any other Court.”

In such view of the matter, the impugned order rejecting maintenance to the appellant under Section 24 HMA was set aside. The second part where custody of children was rejected, was also quashed. The Family Court was directed to reconsider the applicants in terms with the law. The appeal was disposed of in terms above.[RD v. BD, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9526, decided on 31-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Vivek Rusia, J. dismissed the revision petition and directed the applicant to pay Rs 3000 as maintenance to the respondents.

In the pertinent case, the applicant filed the present revision being aggrieved by the order passed by Family Court, Dhar whereby maintenance of Rs 3000 per month has been assessed with a direction to the applicant to pay it to the respondents.

The facts, in brief, are that the applicant and respondent are husband and wife. 7-8 years back the dispute arose between them due to the consumption of liquor and petty issues. Thereafter the respondent/wife has started living with her son, who is also married and working as labourer. The respondent/wife is also doing the work of maid in the houses of others and earning for herself. The applicant and respondent have a joint account in the State Bank with an amount of Rs 6 lakhs. Wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from the applicant. The applicant submitted that he is not having any source of income and he is residing in the old aged home. The Family Judge after examining the record came to the conclusion that the applicant is earning and can maintain his wife.

High Court dismissed the revision petition and held that the respondent is surviving by doing the work of maid in the houses of other and she cannot be permanently dependent on her son who is also married and not having a permanent job. Further, the applicant has received the lump sum amount by selling the house and is lying in the bank and the wife is also a joint account holder but she is deprived of to use the said amount. Being her husband the applicant is liable to maintain his wife. Also, the amount of Rs 3000 per month cannot be said to be on the higher side.[Ashok v. Meenabai, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1893, decided on 05-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: Alexander Thomas, J. while hearing a revision petition, remitted a matrimonial case to the Family Court, Kalpetta for consideration and disposal afresh, after hearing both the parties.

Revision petitioner herein sought maintenance in Family Court, Kalpetta, from the respondent-husband. She was aggrieved by the judgment that dismissed her plea to seek maintenance on the ground that she had engaged in adultery, and also because she was employed and getting enough income to maintain herself. Hence, she filed the instant revision petition.

The petitioner contended that there was no visual or documentary evidence produced by the respondent to prove an act of adultery. The decision was passed on the basis of the respondent submitting one instance of lapse of virtue on the part of the petitioner. 

It was submitted before the Court that it is a common fact as held by the same court in Sandha v. Narayanan, 1999 SCC OnLine Ker 64 that to constitute an act of adultery, there should be a continuous course of conduct or living in the state of quasi-permanent union with the adulterer, and in the case of unchastity or a few lapses of virtue, it will not prevent a wife from claiming maintenance from her husband. As there was no evidence to prove the continuation of adultery, the revision petitioner had stated the judgment of the Family Court to be legally unsustainable.

It was further contended that the Family Court Judge failed to consider the status of her employment in light of Chaturbhuj v. Sitabhai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 that the term “unable to maintain herself” means the inability of the wife to maintain herself in the same manner in which she used to live with her husband, and will not take into consideration the efforts of the wife to maintain herself after desertion. The petitioner provided a certificate as evidence that she was not employed as staff but was kept as a data entry operator apprentice and was only given money to manage the expenses for bus charges, etc.

Owing to the aforementioned contentions, this Court directed the Family Court to reconsider the case in detail by hearing both the sides, and pass an order disposing of the case, without any delay within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. [Faseela v. Shafeek, RP (FC) No. 115 of 2019, decided on 23-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: Biswajit Basu, J. dismissed a revision application of the filed by a lady seeking alimony pendente lite.

The husband/respondent and the wife herein had filed a matrimonial suit seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce, inter alia, on the grounds of cruelty. In the said suit, the wife had filed an application before the learned trial judge under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 praying alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs 50,000 per month. The wife alleged that the husband is working in a reputed organization in the USA and was earning around Rs 75,00,000 per annum. Thus, she was entitled to maintenance proportionate to the income of the husband. However, after assessing her salary certificates for December 2018, January 2019 and March 2019, the learned judge opined that the present income of the wife is not less than Rs 74000 being sufficient for her support particularly when she herself assessed her requirement at Rs 50,000 in the application for alimony pendente lite.  And as Section 36 provides for temporary financial support pending any action under Chapter V or VI of the said Act “to the wife who has no independent income sufficient to maintain herself”, refused the prayer of the wife for alimony pendente lite.

The High Court dismissed the case, holding the decision of the learned trial Judge as absolutely justified.[Somdatta Chatterjee nee Raychaudhari v. Anindya Chatterjee, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 1627, decided on 11-06-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: S.K. Awasthi, J. contemplated a revision application under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 and 401 CrPC. In the instant application, the applicant was directed to pay Rs 3000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Facts leading to the filing of this revision application were that respondent-wife moved an application under Section 125 CrPC against the applicant for grant of a maintenance amount, she alleged that after some time of the marriage, the applicant persistently made a demand of dowry from the respondent; and he used to harass her. Since then, she was residing in the house of her mother. She does not had any source of income thus, she found it difficult to maintain herself, whereas the applicant had 10 bighas of agricultural land and he was also engaged in the business of selling cattle, thereby earning Rs 1,00,000 per annum. Therefore, a prayer was made by the respondent/wife for grant of maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month before the Family Court. The said application was partly allowed vide the impugned order and the Family Court had directed the applicant to pay Rs 3,000 per month towards the maintenance of the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the fixation of a maintenance amount, the applicant had preferred this revision application.

The applicant-husband contended that the marriage was solemnized in 2015 as per Muslim Rituals and Customs. It was further submitted that the respondent had earlier registered a case under Section 498-A of Penal Code, 1860 under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but the matter was amicably settled between them but subsequently, the respondent again deserted him.

The counsel for the applicant, M.K. Sharma, submitted that the respondent was not entitled to receive any maintenance as she had deserted the applicant without any reason. It was highlighted that the respondent did not want to live in a joint family and if the applicant arranged for a separate residence she was willing to return.

Court on such contention by the applicant observed that, the Family Court had committed an error of law in allowing the application for grant of maintenance, as the case was not in favor of the respondent. The Court stated that, the respondent had accepted in her statement that earlier she lodged FIR against the applicant and his parents for the commission of the said offence. However, later on, she compromised the matter and returned back to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, she again left her matrimonial house, in her cross-examination in which she categorically stated that she was ready to live with the applicant if the applicant makes arrangement for their separate residence. The actions of the respondents were found contradictory. Hence the revision was allowed and the order was cancelled.[Aarif v. Shajida, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1379, decided on 04-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. allowed a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the order of the appellate court whereby it had dismissed her appeal for enhancement of the amount of maintenance for her and her daughter.

The petitioner filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband alleging that she was turned out of the matrimonial home on account of the failure of bringing enough dowry. The trial court, prima facie assessed the husband’s income at Rs 30,000 per month and awarded interim maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month to the petitioner and her daughter. The petitioner sought enhancement of the amount but the appellate court dismissed her appeal.

The petitioner, who was represented by Lal Singh Thakur and Sudhir Tewatia, Advocates, contended that the court below erred in not appreciating that the husband had several businesses and he misled the court by not disclosing his correct income. In support thereof, the petitioner placed on record several website listings showing the businesses that the husband was engaged in. Per contra, the husband, who was represented by Kunal Rawat, Advocate, submitted that his income was only between Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000.

The High Court, after perusing the record, held that the appellate court erred in placing the burden of proof on the petitioner and erred in holding that she has not placed the details of the contract with regard to the business of the husband. The listings placed on various websites, prima facie showed a turn over of Rs 50 lakhs to Rs 1 crore per annum. It was reiterated that at the stage of assessment of interim maintenance, the court has to only form a prima facie opinion.

Furthermore, placing reliance on Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, it was held: “The rationale for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC as expounded by the Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh applies on all fours to the grant of maintenance under the DV Act.”

 In view of the matter, the Court enhanced the amount of interim maintenance from Rs 10,000 to Rs 30,000 per month.[Manju Sharma v. Vipin, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8960, decided on 01-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: Madhumati Mitra, J. dismissed an application filed by the petitioner to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby he refused to stay the petition filed by his former wife for the execution of the maintenance order granted in her favour by the Magistrate.

By the order passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Magistrate had directed the petitioner to pay Rs 3000 + Rs 800 per month to his former wife. Subsequent to that order, the petitioner obtained an ex-parte divorce decree against his former wife. After the said decree, the petitioner filed an application under Section 25, praying for alteration/modification or revocation of the maintenance order on the ground that he is not liable to pay to his former wife as no domestic relationship between them subsist.

Before the High Court, the petitioner was represented by Siva Prosad Ghose, Chandra Bhanu Sinha and Rohit Kumar Shaw, Advocates. Per contra, the former wife was represented by Anand Kesari and Sekhar Mukherjee, Advocates.

After referring to the relevant provisions of the DV Act along with Section 125 CrPC, and a conspectus of cases on the subject, the High Court observed: “Decree of divorce does not deprive the wife of the relief granted in her favour under the provisions of the Act of 2005. After decree of divorce, the Opposite Party 2 has become a divorced wife.”

The Court was of the opinion that our law recognises the right of a divorced wife to get maintenance till her remarriage, under Section 125 CrPC. The DV Act provides additional rights and remedies to the aggrieved person.

Finally, it was noted: “Existence of domestic relationship is not needed to execute the order granted under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 and the divorced wife who got an order of maintenance and other relief under the Act of 2005 prior to the decree of divorce is entitled to execute the same if she is unable to maintain herself and she has not remarried and for other reasons.”

In such view of the matter, the Court decided the application against the petitioner, and accordingly dismissed the same.[Krishnendu Das Thakur v. State of W.B., 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 969, decided on 28-06-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Karol, CJ and Arindam Lodh, J. dismissed an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order of the family Judge whereby the husband was directed to pay pendente lite maintenance of Rs 8000 per month to her wife.

Arijit Bhowmik, Advocate representing the appellant-husband submitted that though the appellant was an employee of ONGC having a salary of Rs 39, 649, however, he received only Rs 19,338 after various deductions. It was prayed that the maintenance allowance may be reduced. per contra, H.K. Bhowmik, Advocate appearing for the respondent-wife submitted that Rs 8,000 per month were minimum to lead a dignified life, which is one of the essential features of Article 21 of the Constitution.

On perusing the record, the High Court found that the wife was forced to stay at her parents’ house. it was noted that there were many bald allegations levelled against her such as she was not interested in having sex with the appellant-husband and that she threatened him to commit suicide. In the Court’s opinion, the allegations were not substantiated by cogent evidence. It was said: “these are the normal wear and tear of marital life and for this, the wife should not be forced to be separated from the appellant-husband. The wife is entitled to lead a life at part the standard of the husband.”

Having considered all the aspects, the court was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the family Judge. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed. [Debasish Chakraborty v. Soma Bhattacharjee, 2019 SCC OnLine Tri 159, decided on 29-05-2019]

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]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL): A Division Bench of Manjula Chellur, J. (Member) and S.D. Dubey, (Technical Member) passed an order for implementation of the Tribunal’s order for the payment of the sum of money due with interest.

An application for the implementation of the order was made by the appellant when after a reasonable time the respondent didn’t pay any heed towards the order against them.

Aman Anand, Aman Dixit, counsels for the appellant submitted that the order was received for the payment after increasing the recovery of interim transfer of lignite to 85 percent in place of 70 percent. It was submitted by the appellant that no appeal was pending against the said order. Hence, this application.

R.K. Mehta, Himanshi Andley, P.N. Bhandari, counsels for the respondents, submitted that the matter related to the increase in the tariff was pending in the Commission and that the appellant had rushed to the tribunal prematurely in order to prejudice the pending decision of the Commission.

The Tribunal after submission by the parties held that although the matter is pending in the Commission the payment due is for the previous year and thus the same is to be made by the respondent as per the order of the Tribunal. It was further reiterated that, the said order was passed by this Tribunal at the premise of financial hardship to the generator which was being allowed considerably at less transfer price than they actually claimed. The Court concluded that, the maintenance of judicial discipline is a part of our judicial process. Thus, the order was made for the implementation of the order of the Tribunal in its true spirit.[Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2019 SCC OnLine APTEL 27, decided on 17-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. allowed a revision petition and set aside the order of the Appellate Court whereby it had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner (husband) on the ground that he failed to deposit the entire arrears of maintenance despite several opportunities.

The husband was directed by the trial court to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs 35,000 to his wife. He, however, failed to pay the amount and coercive steps were taken by the trial court. Challenging the said order, the husband filed an appeal before the Appellate Court which was dismissed by the impugned order.

Mani Mittal and Pratush Mittal, Advocates, appeared for the husband before the High Court. Per contra, the wife was represented by Bharti Sharma and S.K. Sharma, Advocates.

The High Court noted that the difference of opinions on the subject — as was evident from the decisions rendered by Single Judges in Rajeev Preenja v. Sarika, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 458 — attained finality by a decision of the Division Bench in Sabina Sahdev v. Vidur Sahdev, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9747. In Sabina Sahdev Case, it was held that “appeal or revision cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of failure to pre-deposit the maintenance amount and the same would have been decided on merits.” Accordingly, the Court held in the present case that the Appellate Court took a contrary view which was not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to its original number. [Sourav Sharma v. Neetu Sharma, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8480, decided on 14-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gauhati High Court: Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J. dismissed a revision petition filed against the order of the family court whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a monthly sum of Rs 2000 each to his wife and child towards their maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The wife had left petitioner’s home due to alleged torture inflicted upon her and thereafter she filed an application under Section 125 claiming maintenance which was allowed by the family court in the terms above. The petitioner was a Government Servant earning a monthly salary of about Rs 22,000.

The High Court noted that while the wife was staying at her parental house, she was not provided maintenance which amounted to negligence in the sense that the petitioner was bound to maintain the wife and the child, which is a settled legal position. It was also noted that the allegation that the wife was working in a school and earning money could not be established by the petitioner and no specific evidence to that effect was laid by him. It was observed: “In the absence of any specific evidence, it cannot be held that the wife/respondent was earning sufficient amount to maintain herself. That being so, in the absence of any specific evidence as to the income of the respondent/wife, the petitioner/husband is bound to maintain his wife and the child fathered by him.”

In that view of the matter, the Court did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the family court. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed. [Jotirmoy Kalita v. Jonamoni Kalita, 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 2245, Order dated 07-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. was hearing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which sought quashing of Family Court’s order whereby applicant-husband was directed to pay maintenance to his wife (2nd respondent herein).

At the outset, this Court called for a report from the Family Court, in the present matter. The said report stated that the applicant, till date had not complied with Family Court’s order to pay maintenance. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant Mr Dineshwar Prasad Singh submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the application.

The Court opined that the applicant could not be allowed to simply withdraw the application, when his mala fide conduct stood exposed. It was observed that strict order was required to ensure payment of maintenance to the 2nd respondent, moreso, when there was a judicial order to that effect. The Court, under its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is also required to pass an order for securing the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the application was disposed of as withdrawn, directing the Family Court to take all coercive measures against the applicant for ensuring compliance of its order directing payment of maintenance.[Sanjay Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 601, Order dated 03-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. partly allowed a revision petition against the order of the trial court passed under Section 125 CrPC holding that the trial court erred in equalising the effort of both parents in the upbringing of their child.

The petitioner and the respondent got divorced in 2007. The petitioner filed an application under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance for herself and the minor child born from the wedlock. The trial court did not grant any maintenance to the petitioner holding that she was employed with an MNC and could maintain herself. It, however, directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 per month towards the maintenance of the child. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed for the revision of the trial court’s order.

The High Court agreed with the finding of the trial court as far as the petitioner was concerned. It held that the petitioner could maintain herself. However, in regard to the maintenance of the child, it was held that the trial court’s approach of holding both parents equally liable to pay towards the maintenance of the child was not right. It was observed: “It would be incorrect to hold that both the parents are equally responsible for the expenses of the child. A mother who has custody of a child not only spends money on the upbringing of the child but also spent substantial time and effort in bringing up the child… No doubt, mother, if she is earning, should also contribute towards the expenses of the child but the expenses cannot be divided equally between the two.”

It was further held that the trial court should have awarded the maintenance from the date of filing of the application rather than the date of the order. Resultantly, the amount of maintenance to be paid by the respondent for maintenance of the child was increased to Rs 20,000 per month, payable from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 CrPC.[Lopamudra Bhuyan v. Surajit Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8267, dated 30-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Bench of M.G. Giratkar, J., partly allowed a criminal revision application by modifying the maintenance amount being provided to the wife in respect of the husband’s pension.

In accordance, the present case, the learned counsel of applicant/husband, P.K. Mishra, submitted that before retirement, the husband was getting the salary of Rs 1, 53,000 per month and after retirement, his pension was Rs 72,000 per month. Further, it was stated that the husband was not in a position to pay Rs 30,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, the reason being an exorbitant amount. He added that “As per Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871, the pension cannot be attached.”

Hence, the High Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that maintenance amount at Rs 30,000 per month granted by learned Magistrate appears to be exorbitant. Pending disposal of domestic violence proceedings before learned Magistrate, at this stage amount of Rs 20,000 per month towards interim maintenance appears to be proper. “Maintenance allowance granted to wife cannot be considered as debt – She is not a creditor hence exemption under Section 11 cannot be granted to husband.” Also, pensions can be attached to recover the amount of maintenance.  Therefore,

  • The criminal revision application is partly allowed.
  • Order of interim maintenance is maintained. However, the amount at Rs 30,000 per month is modified.
  • Instead of Rs 30,000 per month, the applicant shall pay Rs 20,000 per month towards interim maintenance to his wife during the pendency of D.V. Act proceedings.
  • The order of attachment of pension is hereby quashed and set aside subject to the applicant/husband clears all arrears of maintenance within a period of one month.

In view of the above, the criminal revision application stands disposed of. [Bhagwant v. Radhika, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 607, Order dated 05-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., reiterated that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under Section 125 CrPC are independent of each other and have different scope.

The parties, though married, were living separately. The wife had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC wherein she was granted interim maintenance of Rs 1.20 lakhs per month. Subsequently, she filed an application under Section 23 of the DV Act seeking, inter alia, monetary relief under Section 20. However, her application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that she had already been granted maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and all her claims were considered by the family court while granting the same. The wife filed an appeal against the order of the trial court, which was allowed and the Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. Aggrieved thereby, the husband filed the present petition.

Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, appearing for the husband, submitted that the Appellate Court erred in passing the impugned order as maintenance was already granted to the wife. Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the wife that she suffered domestic violence and was thus entitled to monetary relief. The wife was represented by Madhav Khurana and Trisha Mitta, Advocates.

Noting that the scope of Section 20 of the DV was much wider than that of Section 125 CrPC, the High Court observed: “While Section 125 CrPC talks only of maintenance, Section 20 DV Act stipulates payment of monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered as a result of the domestic violence including but not limited to loss of earning, medical expenses, loss caused due to destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of aggrieved person.”

It was categorically stated: “an order under Section 20 DV Act is not restricted by an order under Section 125 CrPC.” As such, the trial court was held to have erred in not appreciating the distinction between the two provisions. In such view of the matter, the High Court did not find infirmity in the order of the Appellate Court. Resultantly, the petition was dismissed. [Shome Nikhil Danani v. Tanya Banon Danani, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8016, decided on 11-04-2019]