Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Jyoti Singh, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the Family Judge whereby the appellant-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs 15, 000 per month as maintenance to his wife.

The respondent-wife had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance from her husband. The Family Judge decided the quantum of maintenance as above to be paid by the husband to the wife. Aggrieved thereby, the husband filed the instant appeal. It was contended by the appellant that the Family Court did not properly appraise the facts and documents as submitted by him. It was averred that he was barely earning Rs 10,000 per month and therefore the Family Judge was not right in awarding the abovementioned amount as maintenance.

The High Court perused the record and was of the view that the pleas taken by the appellant about his income were not believable. Similarly, for his plea regarding the salary earned by the respondent was not supported by evidence. The Court referred to Jasbir Kaur v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7 wherein it was held that “considering the diverse claims made by the parties one inflating the income and the other suppressing, an element of conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the income of the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision.” It was observed that in family matters, there is a tendency of spouses no to disclose their correct and true income; the present case was no different. In such view of the matter, it was held that the quantum of maintenance as calculated by the Family Judge suffered from no infirmity. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. [Bhuvneneshwar Sachdeva v. Kavita Sachdeva, Mat. App. (FC) No. 43 of 2018, dated 29-10-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

“When the parties live together as husband and wife, there is presumption that they are legally married couple for claim of maintenance of wife under Section 125 CrPC.”

Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ., while setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Karnataka and allowing the present appeal stated that “proceedings under Section 125 CrPC do not require strict standard proof of marriage.”

In the present case, the appellant had filed the present appeal against the judgment of Karnataka High Court which has set aside the family court’s decision of paying maintenance. The facts and submissions of the appellant were that the Appellant 1 had two children from wedlock between Appellant 1 and respondent. Further, while the marriage of Appellant 1 and respondent was subsisting, the respondent got married to one of his colleagues and started harassing and neglecting the appellants. Due to the stated reasons, Appellant 1 filed a police complaint after which the respondent was asked to pay Rs 3000 as maintenance. Appellant on not being able to maintain herself and her two children filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance.

Respondent, in his submission, submitted of never being married to Appellant 1 and contended as there was no valid marriage, petition for maintenance was not maintainable. High Court had set aside the order of the family court and held that Appellant 1 was unable to prove she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

The Apex Court on a careful consideration of the submissions and impugned judgment along with the material placed on record and placing reliance on Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, (1999) 7 SCC 675, stated that:

“Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, such strict standard proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy.”

Therefore, the Supreme Court stated that family court on the basis of documentary and oral evidence held rightly in favour of the appellant and High Court being the revisional court had no power of reassessing the evidence and substitute its views on findings of facts. Hence, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and the present appeal was allowed with a liberty given to the appellants to approach the family court for further enhancement of maintenance if required. [Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar,2018 SCC OnLine SC 2121, decided on 24-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and G.S. Sistani, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by the husband against the award of maintenance pendente lite awarded to the wife by the family court.

The instant appeal was filed by the husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing  the order passed by the family court where the appellant was directed to pay Rs 4500 per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (maintenance pendente lite)  from the date of filing of the application. The husband submitted that as he was a permanent resident of U.P., the Minimum Wages Act of Delhi would not be applicable to him.

The High Court perused Section 24 and noted that it empowers the Court to award maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to a party who has no independent source of income sufficient for his/her support during the pendency of proceedings. Reference was made to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, (1997) 7 SCC 7. The Court observed that in the present case, the husband failed to produce any documentary proof with regard to his employment status and also his actual income; and by not disclosing his source of income the husband was trying to defeat the legitimate right of the wife to claim maintenance. Furthermore, the appellant could not be allowed to take benefit of non-disclosure of his income despite being bound in law to disclose it. Thus, the plea of the husband that Minimum Wages Act of U.P. is applicable to him doesn’t come to his rescue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. [Vijay Kushwaha v. Chanchal,2018 SCC OnLine Del 10828, dated 24-07-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Mangesh S. Patil, J. dismissed a husband’s challenge to the award of compensation to his divorced wife granted by the Additional Sessions Judge.

The appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married in 2003. Subsequently, they developed discord and the wife left the husband alleging harassment. The husband filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights which was allowed. However, even after that, the parties couldn’t live together. Thereafter, the husband filed a divorce petition on grounds of desertion by the wife. The said petition was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved, which decree had become final. Subsequent to that, the wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate; however, on appeal, the Additional Session Judge allowed the same. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, the husband had filed the present petition.

The High Court perused the record and found that the facts stated above were the admitted position of the parties. Marriage between the parties was indeed dissolved by a decree of dissolution which had become final. The question before the  Court was whether, under Section 125 CrPC, the Court could grant maintenance to a wife who was divorced on grounds of desertion. For adjudication, the Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Rohatash Singh v. Ramendri, 2000 (3) SCC 180  wherein it was held that even such a wife can claim maintenance under the section; however, it would be available to her only from the date on which decree for dissolution of marriage had been passed. Accordingly, the husband’s challenge to award of maintenance granted to the wife was dismissed. However, it was held that the wife would be entitled to maintenance only from the date of divorce decree, and not from the date of filing of an application under Section 125 as held by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petition was disposed of in the terms above. [Dnyaneshwar Eknath Kachre v. Sunita,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2243, dated 24-08-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. speaking for himself and his brother Judge Uday U. Lalit, gave judgment in a civil appeal arising out of matrimonial dispute whereby the appellant challenged the decree of divorce passed by family court and affirmed by High Court of Jharkhand.

The appellant-wife was married to the respondent-husband, and they had a daughter born out of the wedlock who was of marriageable age. The parties married in 1997, but their relations were not cordial from soon after the marriage. This led to the filing of a divorce petition by the husband against the wife on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Judge dissolved the marriage and the decree was confirmed by the High Court.  Aggrieved thus, present appeal was filed by the wife.

The Supreme Court heard the parties and perused the record. It was noted that the parties were living separately for more than a decade. All attempts to conciliation through mediation had failed. There was absolutely no chance of them living together to continue their marital life.  While referring to Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 and Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh, (2007) 2 SCC 220, the Court held that in order to ensure that parties may live peacefully in future and their daughter would be settled properly, a quietus must be given to all litigation between the parties. Consistent with the broad consensus arrived at between the parties, the Court directed the husband to pay Rs 10 lakhs towards permanent alimony and maintenance to the appellant and the daughter. [Manju Kumari Singh v. Avinash Kumar Singh,2018 SCC OnLine SC 739, dated 25-07-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Division Bench comprising of M.M.S. Bedi and Anupinder Singh Grewal, JJ. allowed an application filed by the respondent-wife for maintenance pendente lite.

The appellant-husband had preferred an appeal against the dismissal of his divorce petition. The respondent-wife had filed the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act claiming maintenance pendent lite at the rate of Rs 20,000 per month. The appellant submitted that he was dismissed from the Army and was unemployed. Further, he had no source of income except what he got from the selling of milk.

The Court noted that there was no material to ascertain the income of the appellant and in such circumstances a bit of estimation was permissible. The appellant was an ex-army man and an able-bodied person. Even if he worked as an unskilled laborer, he was presumed to earn not less than Rs 15,000-20,000 per month. There was also one daughter born out of the wedlock. The Court held that the appellant cannot run away from his duty to maintain wife and daughter. In such circumstances, an amount of Rs 8,000 per month was found reasonable while awarding the maintenance pendente lite under Section 24. The application was thus allowed. [Jagdish Singh v. Sarabjit Kaur, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 881, dated 03-07-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court (Goa Bench): A Single Judge Bench of the Goa Bench comprising of C.V. Bhadang, J. allowed a criminal writ petition filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to his adult son.

Earlier, Respondent 1 (wife of the petitioner) had filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (DV Act), seeking, inter alia, monetary reliefs. Learned Magistrate by his order granted interim maintenance of Rs. 8000 per month for Respondent 2, son of the petitioner. It was not disputed that Respondent 2 was a major, aged 25 years. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge against the order of the Magistrate contending that under the provision, only a ‘child’ is entitled to maintenance. However, the Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal holding that the petitioner was liable to pay maintenance to Respondent 2 since he was an engineering student with no source of income. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.

In order to settle the issue, the High Court referred to Section 2(b) of the DV Act. On perusal of the section, the Court observed that ‘child’ within the meaning of the section means any person below the age of 18 years. In light of the undisputed fact that Respondent 2, son, was 25 years of age, the High Court held that he could not be included within the definition of ‘child’ as envisaged under Section 2(b). Hence, the petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. [Antonio De Matos Sequira Almeida v.  Felicidade Wilma Almeida, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1123, dated 04-06-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: While allowing an appeal, the Division Bench of S.K. Seth J., and Nandita Dubey J., decided a writ in which the appellant- wife sought information in regard to the salary of respondent 1- husband in reference to obtaining maintenance amount.

The brief facts of the case state that Respondent 1-husband held a very high officer position in the Telecommunication Department and was also earning an amount of Rs. 2,25,000 per month, whereas the appellant, an advocate though not in practice, was attaining an amount of Rs. 7000 as maintenance from her husband.

For the stated amount of maintenance, the appellant had filed an application under Section 91 of CrPC to obtain a direction in which the respondent was asked to submit his payslip so that correct maintenance amount could be calculated accordingly, but the trial court had rejected her application. Further an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was submitted in quest of the same details as mentioned above, which eventually was taken to Central Information Commission. CIC had then asked the CPIO, BSNL to provide the said details.

Challenging the order of CIC, the only claim that was raised upon from the side of the respondent was that he was not given an “opportunity of hearing” which is the violation of principles of natural justice, for which the learned Single Judge had given an opportunity to hear and directions were issued to CIC for fresh appeal. In the second round of writ petition, the order of CIC to provide the information asked was challenged both by Respondent 1 and BSNL.

However, in accordance to Section 8(1) (j) of the said Act, “the information which has no relation to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy”, is exempted from being disclosed, the Court allowed the appeal by stating the fact that appellant is the wife of Respondent 1 which gave her the right and entitlement to know the remuneration of her husband. [Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 373, dated 15-05-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Bharati H. Dangre, J., has held that the Muslim Personal Law can in no way curtail the protection granted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, from being available to a Muslim woman.

Brief facts of the case were that the respondent-wife had filed a petition for divorce against the husband under Section 2(viii)(a) and (d) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, on grounds of cruelty. She also filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act for maintenance. The petitioner-husband filed objection to the application contending that he had already given talaq to the respondent after she filed the petition for divorce. He contended that the talaq was given by him in pursuance of the desire of the petitioner to get a divorce, as was evident by the petition filed by her; the said talaq should be considered as ‘khula’ (divorce by consent) and therefore according to the Muslim Personal Law that govern the parties, the respondent was not entitled to any maintenance as asked for by her.

The High Court observed that in the present case, the pronouncement of talaq was disputed by the wife and the husband will have to prove the said factum of talaq. As till the time the talaq was not proved, the respondent continued to be legally wedded wife of the petitioner and in that contingency, the question was whether the wife who was in a domestic relationship with the petitioner was entitled to seek relief under the DV Act.

After extensively considering various provisions of the DV Act as well as Acts concerning the rights of women under Muslim Personal Law, Hon’ble Court held that

“perusal of the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would reveal that it is an enactment to provide for more effective protection for rights of women, guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, who are the victims of the violence … The definition and connotation of “Domestic Violence” under Section 3 of the enactment do not indicate any intention either express or implied to exclude Muslim women. Section 36 of the said enactment provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

The Court held that the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law can in no way curtail the protection provided under Domestic Violence Act. As a result, the impugned order of the Family Court whereby the petitioner was ordered to pay maintenance under the provisions of the DV Act was upheld and the petition dismissed. [Ali Abbas Daruwala v. Shehnaz Daruwala,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1195, dated 04-05-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of K.N. Phaneendra, J., dismissed a petition preferred against the Order passed by the Family Judge whereby the petitioner (the husband) was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 p.m. to Respondent 1 (the daughter) and Rs. 5000 p.m. to Respondent 2 (the wife), towards maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The wife and the daughter of the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 for claiming maintenance from him on the grounds that the petitioner had neglected and refused to maintain them; in spite of repeated requests, he did not make any arrangements for their welfare. Learned trial Court allowed the application and ordered the petitioner herein, to pay maintenance as mentioned hereinabove. The petitioner challenged the said Order of the trial Court in the instant petition.

The High Court perused the record and found that the husband and the wife had abandoned their conjugal company and they were not living together, and the wife and the daughter were living separately. It was also noted that the petitioner did not make any arrangements before the wife going to the Court for maintenance. The Court observed that under Section 125 CrPC, it is only to be seen that whether the husband has neglected the wife and refused to maintain her and the child; which was abundantly clear in the case at hand. Looking at the income of the petitioner and the admitted position regarding the expenditure required for proper living of the child and the wife, the Court held that the amount of maintenance as provided by the learned trial court did not call for any interference. Consequently, the Order impugned was upheld and the petition was dismissed. [Rahul v. Kaveri,2017 SCC OnLine Kar 452, order dated 12-04-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Bharati H. Dangre, J., decided a writ petition filed by the petitioner-mother, wherein maintenance was allowed to the unmarried adult daughter holding that such a child was entitled to maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC.

The petitioner and husband were married to each other but were living separately. The petitioner-mother filed the present petition on behalf of their unmarried major daughter (19 years of age), claiming maintenance for her. The question before the Court, inter alia, was whether an unmarried major daughter was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC?

The High Court perused the section as well as decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Court observed that under Section 125 of the CrPC it is only the minor child who is entitled to claim maintenance if such child is not able to maintain itself. A child who has attained majority is held entitled for claiming maintenance, if on account of physical or mental abnormality or injury he is unable to maintain himself. There is not any specific provision contained in Section 125 for grant of maintenance to a daughter who is major. However, considering decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Court held that the father cannot be extricated from his liability to maintain his unmarried daughter who is staying with his wife and he would be bound not only to maintain his unmarried daughter until her marriage. It was held that an unmarried daughter, though attained majority, is entitled to claim maintenance from the father under Section 125 of CrPC.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the application preferred by the petitioner was remanded to the family court for proper adjudication. [Agnes Lily Irudaya v.Irudaya Kani Arsan, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 617, order dated 6.4.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vineet Kothari, J., decided a writ petition filed by the petitioner-wife under Article 227 of the Constitution, wherein the order of the trial court allowing her Rs. 17,000/- per month as maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was upheld.

The parties were before the Family Court in a divorce petition. The abovesaid order allowing pendent lite maintenance was passed under Section 24 of HMA. The petitioner-wife submitted that she was not a working lady, whereas the respondent-husband was a software engineer and was earning Rs. 1,00,000 per month. She contended that the amount of maintenance granted by the court below was very low and needs to be increased.

On perusal of the record, the High Court found that even the petitioner was a highly qualified lady being a software engineer. And this fact was properly considered by the court below while appreciating the evidence and passing the impugned order. After considering this fact the trial court passed the order of maintenance for the wife as well as their son. The High Court was of the view that a highly qualified wife is capable of maintaining herself as well as the child. Therefore, the High Court did not find any error with the order passed by the trial court and accordingly, the petition was dismissed. [Sandhya K. v. A. Manohar, WP No. 8216 of 2018 (GM-FC), decided on 8.3.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Siddharth Mridul and Deepa Sharma, JJ., dismissed a Letters Patents Appeal before it. The matter before the Court was related to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Hereinafter ‘act’) and the issue before the Court for adjudication was whether the Maintenance Tribunal has the jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction?

It was urged before the Court that a Maintenance Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction and that the same is beyond the scope of proceedings for maintenance, instituted on behalf of a senior citizen. The facts leading up to the case were, that Respondent 3, a 68 year old man and father of the appellants, ran a printing press in a building occupied by him along with his ailing wife and his sons with their respective families in separate accommodations. Respondent 3 instituted a petition under the Act that despite having spent considerable amount on renovating the subject property, and providing separate residential accommodation to his sons, the latter backed out from their responsibility to pay a monthly sum of Rs. 20,000 collectively for his maintenance and for the requirements of his ailing wife. The Maintenance Tribunal had originally passed an order in Respondent 3’s favour, according to which, Appellant 2 and 3 were to vacate their respective residential portions and were also to refrain from indulging in arguing, making comments or other similar behaviour with the rest of the parties, including a son of Respondent 3 not implicated in the complaint. Instead of complying, the appellants instituted the present writ petition before the Court.

The Court referred to Section 32 of the Act r/w clause (i) of Section 2 along with the Rules promulgated under to adjudge that a senior citizen is entitled to institute an application seeking eviction of his son, daughter or other legal heir from his self-acquired property on grounds of ill-treatment and non-maintenance. Applications disposed of. [Shadab Khairi v. State,  2018 SCC OnLine Del 7626, decided on 22.02.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Single Judge Bench comprising of I.S. Mehta J., decided upon a case related to the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The present appeal is from the petitioner husband, aggrieved by the decision of the Metropoliton Magistrate, who ordered him to pay the maintenance to the respondent wife, for maintaining her as well as their child. The same appeal, earlier has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge of the Sessions Court.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that after deducting all the necessary expenditure, a very meagre amount is left, which is much less than the maintenance amount. The counsel also stated that the respondent earlier had a job, which she had intentionally left. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand said that she was unable to maintain herself and her minor child.

The Court observed that the petitioner cannot shy away from his duty to maintain his wife as well as the child, except in the case of denial of existence of marriage and denial of paternity of his minor child. Also the Court said that it is the responsibility of the parents to look towards the education of the child and his status of living within their means. The fact that the spouse, with whom the child is living, has sufficient source of income does not absolve the other spouse from his responsibility to maintain the child. The question whether the respondent, on the day of filing of the application under Section 12 of DV Act, was in domestic relationship is irrelevant and has no affect on granting of monetary reliefs. The Court also said that the decree of divorce does not free the husband from his duty to maintain the wife and the child.

Thus, the Court  held that the instant revision petition by the petitioner is dismissed and the order passed by the Special Judge was upheld. Also, it directed the trial court to dispose off the application under Section 12 of DV Act as soon as possible, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of this judgement. [Sukhjinder Singh v. Harvinder Kaur,  2017 SCC OnLine Del 11621, decided on 10.11.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of I.S Mehta, J, dismissed a revision petition before it against the interim maintenance awarded under Section 397 read with Section 482 to set aside/reduce the interim maintenance awarded to Respondents 2 and 3 under Section 125 CrPC.

The petitioner and Respondent 1 were married and had 2 issues during the wedlock, Respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner and his family members chased away Respondent 1 along with Respondents 2 and 3 from her matrimonial home. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against the petitioner. However, the parties settled their disputes through mediation and Respondent 1 returned to her matrimonial home with Respondents 2 and 3. Months later, the petitioner beat the respondents and expelled them from the house. The respondents then started living in Respondent 1’s parental house.

Consequently, after hearing the counsel for the parties and after perusal of the documents placed on record the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, North-East District, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi vide impugned order dated 09.03.2015 in MT No. 24/14 directed the petitioner to pay an interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month each to his children, i.e. Respondents 2 and 3 from the date of filing of application, i.e. 15.10.2013, and every month thereafter regularly till the disposal of main petition. The revision petition was filed against this interim measure.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the documents on record filed by the petitioner and the trial court has itself presumed the salary of the petitioner as Rs. 15,000 per month, whereas the petitioner had mentioned his salary as Rs. 8,200 per month on record and the petitioner is not capable to provide the said awarded amount to the respondents.

The Court held that the object of Section 125 CrPC is to provide speedy remedy to women and children who are unable to support themselves and are in distress. It is intended to achieve a social purpose and maintenance cannot be denied to the children on the premise that their mother is employed or has enough means to maintain them or that they are in the custody of their mother and also that it is a settled principle of law that both the parents have a legal, moral and social duty to provide to their child the best education and standard of living within their means. The mere fact that the spouse with whom the child is living is having a source of income, even if sufficient, would in no way absolve the other spouse of his obligation to make his contribution towards the maintenance and welfare of the child, even if, the means/income/salary of that spouse may be less than the means/income/salary of the other spouse.

In view of the circumstances, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order. Revision petition dismissed.[Jetender Kumar v. Kamlesh,  2017 SCC OnLine Del 11622, decided on 10.11.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a recent case before the Court, a wife (appellant) filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and maintenance to her two minor children. The husband and wife both are independently working and earning.

The wife was taking care of the upbringing of both the minor children alone and no help was being rendered by the respondent-husband. Considering these facts and circumstances, the Court observed that up bringing of two minor children is joint responsibility of both the parents irrespective of the fact whether they are earning or not.

As the minor children have already been granted compensation of Rs. 2500  under Section 125 CrPC by the lower court, the High Court did not express any opinion on the matter. However, M.M.S. Bedi, J. took note of the fact that it was only the appellant who was forced to look after the children and on account of this, she would be entitled to nominal maintenance pendente lite on account of additional responsibilities shouldered by her. Consequently, the Court ordered a sum of Rs. 10,000 per month for the said additional responsibilities with effect from the date of application and besides this, ordered Rs. 50,000 to be paid as litigation expenses.

The Court further emphasized on the amicable settlement between the parties if possible and referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. [Parveen Lata v. Shiv Kumar, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 2901, decided on 05.09.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. heard a case involving counter-petitions filed by both the parties to the matrimonial proceedings. The issue before the Court was “whether the order of maintenance passed in the proceedings filed under Section 125 of CrPC is to be followed, or, whether the order passed in the proceedings filed under Domestic Violence Act, is to be followed?”

The wife had filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2010, under which the husband had been directed to pay Rs 6000 to wife and Rs. 4000 to the minor daughter from the date of the order dated 2016. The wife had also subsequently filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, under which the husband had been directed to pay an interim maintenance of Rs. 8000 to the wife and Rs. 5000 to the daughter. Taking into account this interim maintenance, the Family Court, Mumbai had awarded maintenance of Rs. 6000 to the wife and Rs. 4000 to the daughter in 2016 without making it clear whether the amount of Rs 10,000 had to be paid in addition to the interim maintenance amount or instead of the interim amount.

Relying upon Section 20(1)(d) of the Domestic Violence Act, the Court came to the conclusion that “the power to award maintenance under DV Act is in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC or any other law for the time being in force”. Also, Section 36 of the aforementioned Act clarifies that the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act are to be in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other existing law. Therefore, it was held that since both the orders had been passed by two different forums in two different proceedings, both the orders were binding on the husband and on the wife. [Prakash Babulal Dangi v. State of Maharashtra,  2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8897, order dated 10.10.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court ruled that proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406 read with 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 can be quashed by the High Court upon request of the parties after reaching a settlement agreement  to obtain divorce by mutual consent.

Appellant 1 and Respondent  2 were married but had no issue out of the wedlock. Disputes arose between them, resulting in the FIR bearing No. 0615/2014 alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 406 read with 34  IPC. A petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was also filed. The parties later reached an amicable solution. The petitioner agreed to pay 1 lakh to Respondent 2 for the settlement of all her claims including maintenance. The said petition was withdrawn by Respondent  2.

Respondent 2 stated that she willingly settled the matter and not under any pressure or coercion. The Court was of the view that now that the parties have settled the matter, no further purpose is served in pursuing the matter further. Hence, the petition was disposed of. [Vijay v. State NCT of Delhi, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9902, decided on 10.08.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a criminal revision petition, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Rathnakala, J. held that the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife continues throughout the matrimonial life and the husband cannot get away with an excuse that for many years no request was made by the wife for the maintenance amount.

In the present case, the wife filed a petition under S. 12 of the Act for various relief. The learned Magistrate ordered maintenance and compensation in favor of the wife which was modified by the lower appellate court. The husband-revision petitioner, challenged the maintainability of the petition filed by the wife under S. 12 of the Act for maintenance and compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no cause to file the petition since there was no harassment/ill treatment or domestic violence as defined under S. 3 of the Act.

The Court, rejecting the contention of the petitioner held that domestic violence under S. 3 of the Act, includes economic abuse also. The omission of the husband in neglecting to maintain the aggrieved wife falls within the description of S. 3 of the Act. The husband was living with another woman, which was another form of domestic violence, emotional. It was held that the petitioner was guilty of offence of domestic violence under the Act and could not escape liability. [Kasturi v. Subhas, Criminal Revision Petition No. 539/2017, dated August 3, 2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Aravind Kumar, J. held that the contention of the respondent that the present application for maintenance was not maintainable on account of the petitioner having already filed an application under S. 125 CrPC could not be accepted.

The marriage was solemnized between the petitioner wife and the respondent husband in 2001. The petitioner filed a petition under S. 13(1 (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. During the pendency of proceedings, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application under S. 24 of the Act claiming interim maintenance. The respondent contended that he was already paying Rs. 10,000 p.m. to the petitioner as maintenance under S. 125 CrPC.

The Court held that there cannot be any bar for claiming maintenance under S. 24 HMA, even in the event of application under S. 125 CrPC having been filed. The Court further held that a reading of S. 24 HMA, would disclose that while awarding maintenance, court has to take into consideration the income of parties before deciding the quantum of maintenance. During the pendency of divorce proceedings, at any point of time, if wife establishes that she has no sufficient independent income for her support, it would always be open for her to claim maintenance pendent lite. In case respondent-husband attempts to stove off the claim for maintenance sought for by the wife, it is trite law that husband will have to satisfy the court that either due to physical or mental disability, he is handicapped to earn and thereby, he is unable to pay maintenance to his wife and offspring.

The Court allowed the petition in part and affirmed the order of the lower court awarding maintenance at Rs. 20,000 p.m. to the petitioner. [Smt Sunita Motwani v. Amitabh Sinha, W.P. No. 15406/2017 C/with W.P. No. 20884/2017 (GM-FC), order dated July 27, 2017]