28/11/2017
This intriguing aspect had been recently taken up by the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Jain v. Akansha Jain1. In the case the Apex Court extensively dealt with the factors imperative while determining the grant of maintenance and also laid down the guidelines essential in settling the quantum of interim maintenance payable by one spouse to another.
Background: The inception of the case lies in marital discord between the Appellant (husband) and Respondent (wife), pursuant to which the Appellant sought for divorce. Thereafter, the Respondent also filed case for domestic violence against the Appellant and later on filed application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming interim maintenance of Rs. 4,00,000/- per month and also a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to meet litigation expenses during the pendency of divorce petition.
The Lower Court refused maintenance to the Respondent as the Appellant claimed that Respondent was an educated lady and capable of supporting herself. Aggrieved by decision of Lower Court, the Respondent filed a criminal complaint with the Delhi High Court wherein the Court after referring to the income of Appellant and properties which the Appellant and his family owned ordered the Appellant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 60,000/- per month.
In view of aforesaid impugned order of Delhi High Court, the Appellant by way of Special Leave Application approached the Supreme Court wherein he argued that the Respondent had concealed her income on several occasions throughout the matrimonial proceedings. The core cause of action in the instant case pertained to Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Relevant extract of the statutory provision is reproduced herein below:
Section 24 of HMA- Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings- It provides that during Court proceedings either party may file application to the Court for expenses of proceedings and the Court while deciding such an application shall consider the Petitioner’s own income and income of the respondent.
In view of the facts and circumstances, the key issues taken up by the Apex Court were:
Whether the Respondent wife is entitled to maintenance pendente lite?
Whether the amount of Rs. 60,000/ awarded by the High Court is on the higher side?
Some of the key observations by the Apex Court in the case are listed below:
Court’s discretion to be judicial and not arbitrary while deciding cases involving grant of maintenance pendete lite (interim maintenance).
For claim of maintenance it is immaterial whether wife is educated and could support herself. Likewise, financial position of wife’s parents is also immaterial.
Court’s consideration should be status and independent income of parties and capacity of spouse to pay maintenance.
The Court also emphasized that maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation
In this case while arriving at the appropriate quantum of maintenance, the Court laid emphasis on the facts pertaining to the case, like independent income of Appellant and Respondent.
In view of the evidence adduced before the Court, the Court was of the view that the Respondent had no permanent source of employment or income whereas the Appellant and his family owned several valuable properties and had successful business.
The Court noted that from material placed on record it appeared that the Appellant had not made full disclosure of his income and assets and had been hiding his actual income.
The Court while pronouncing its verdict in the case expressed disconcert over non- disclosure of income and assets in such cases by non- applicant so as to avoid payment of interim maintenance.
The Court observed that an order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of the proceedings is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding and it is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself.
In view of the aforesaid observations, the Supreme Court upheld High Court’s order of maintenance. However, it opined that the High Court’s order of paying maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 60,000/- per month was on the higher side and reduced the same to Rs. 25,000/- per month.
NOTABLE CASES FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 24 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT:
Shailja v. Khobbanna[i]– In this recent case, the Supreme Court had observed that merely because the wife is capable of earning it is not a reason to reduce the maintenance awarded to her and said that whether a wife is capable of earning and is actually earning are two different factors.
Rajat Gupta v. Rajat Gupta- In this recent case, the Delhi High Court refused interim maintenance to the wife as she was a qualified and independent women.
Padma Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharm- In this case, the Supreme Court settled the law by postulating that Section 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 mandates a Hindu to maintain his or her children aged or infirm parents. The Court in the case further opined that irrespective of how affluent mother may be it is the obligation of the father to maintain the minor.
Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy v. M. Devaki- In this case, the Madras High Court ruled that award for maintenance under Section 24 was for a spouse who had no independent income to support him or her and fight the legal battle.
Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal- In this case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that Section 24 of the Act was enacted for the purpose of providing monetary assistance to a spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself inspite of sincere efforts made by him or her and a spouse who is well qualified to get service immediately with less efforts is not expected to squeeze out the other spouse in the nature of pendete lite alimony.
Maintenance Pendente Lite awarded under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act categorically enumerates circumstances under which interim maintenance or expenses of proceedings to the applicant is payable. The precedents as delineated above serve as a guideline to the already settled principle of law which provides that interim maintenance to a spouse is payable when the applicant does not have sufficient income to support himself or herself or does not have an independent source of income.
