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

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]