Supreme Court Clarifies Maintenance Laws and Procedures in Matrimonial Disputes (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 4 November 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 730

Judges: Indu Malhotra, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

What happens when maintenance orders from different courts clash? The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, has laid down crucial guidelines to streamline maintenance laws in matrimonial disputes. This ruling addresses the complexities of overlapping jurisdictions, interim maintenance, and enforcement of orders, aiming to provide clarity and consistency in family law matters. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case originated from an application for interim maintenance filed by a wife and her minor son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The wife left her matrimonial home in January 2013, shortly after her son’s birth. On September 2, 2013, she filed for interim maintenance. The Family Court awarded ₹15,000 per month to the wife and ₹5,000 per month for the son, later increased to ₹10,000, from September 1, 2013. The husband challenged this order in the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on August 14, 2018. The husband then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Family Court initially awarded interim maintenance, which was challenged by the husband in the Bombay High Court. The High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision. The Supreme Court issued notices to the wife and directed the husband to submit his income tax returns and passport details. The Court also directed the husband to pay arrears of maintenance, with multiple orders issued to ensure compliance. Despite these orders, the husband failed to fully comply, leading the Supreme Court to consider framing guidelines on maintenance in matrimonial matters. The matter was also referred for mediation, which ultimately failed.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined several key legal provisions related to maintenance:

• Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA): Section 36 allows a wife to claim maintenance during proceedings, and Section 37 provides for permanent alimony. “S.36. Alimony pendente lite…order the husband to pay her the expenses of the proceeding, and weekly or monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the husband’s income, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.”
• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA): Section 24 provides for maintenance during proceedings, and Section 25 for permanent alimony. “24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings…order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.”
• Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA): Section 18 entitles a Hindu wife to maintenance from her husband during her lifetime. “18. Maintenance of wife. —(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife…shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime.”
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 125 provides for maintenance of wives, children, and parents. “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents…a Magistrate of the first class may…order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother…”
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act): Provides relief to women subjected to domestic violence, including monetary relief under Section 20. “20. Monetary reliefs…the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person…and such relief may include…the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children…”

These laws, while providing independent remedies, often lead to overlapping jurisdictions and conflicting orders, necessitating the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Husband’s Submissions:

• The husband claimed he was unemployed and unable to pay maintenance to his wife.
• He stated he had no immovable property and only one operational bank account.
• He argued that the Family Court incorrectly relied on his 2006 income tax returns to determine maintenance in 2013.
• He mentioned exploring new business projects to improve his financial situation.

Wife’s Submissions:

• The wife argued that the ₹10,000 maintenance for their son was inadequate given his age and schooling needs.
• She stated that the admission fee for the current academic year had not been paid, risking her son’s access to online classes.
• She alleged that the husband had concealed investments in real estate and businesses, diverting income to his parents.
• She also claimed the husband had illegally retained her Streedhan and was not complying with court orders.
• She expressed a lack of trust and no prospect for reconciliation.

Innovativeness of the argument: The wife’s argument was innovative in highlighting the concealment of assets and the inadequacy of the existing maintenance, emphasizing the immediate needs of the child.

Sub-Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but the issues can be inferred from the judgment.

• Whether the existing legal framework for maintenance is adequate to prevent overlapping jurisdictions and conflicting orders.
• Whether there is a need to streamline the process for granting interim maintenance.
• What criteria should be considered for determining the quantum of maintenance.
• From what date should maintenance be awarded.
• What measures should be taken to ensure effective enforcement of maintenance orders.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s order for interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month to the wife and ₹10,000 per month to the son. The Court directed the husband to pay all arrears within 12 weeks and continue payments during the pendency of proceedings. The Court also directed the Family Court to decide the substantive application under Section 125 CrPC within six months.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v Mrs. Veena Kaushal & Ors. [1978] 4 SCC 70* to highlight the social justice aspect of maintenance laws.
• Nanak Chand v Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors. [1969] 3 SCC 802* was used to establish that CrPC and HAMA can stand together.
• Chand Dhawan v Jawaharlal Dhawan [1993] 3 SCC 406* was cited to explain the scope of maintenance claims under HMA and HAMA.
• Abhilasha v Parkash & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.615/2020)* was used to discuss the obligation of the father to maintain an unmarried daughter.
• Bhagwan Dutt v Kamla Devi [1975] 2 SCC 386* was cited to emphasize that only a wife unable to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance.
• Chaturbhuj v Sitabai [2008] 2 SCC 316* was used to highlight the object of preventing vagrancy and destitution.
• Bhuwan Mohan Singh v Meena & Ors. [2015] 6 SCC 353* was cited to emphasize the husband’s duty to provide financial support.
• Chanmuniya v Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr. [2011] 1 SCC 141* was used to support the inclusion of women in long-term live-in relationships for maintenance claims.
• Hiral P. Harsora & Ors. v Kusum Narottamdas Harsora & Ors. [2016] 10 SCC 165* was used to clarify that a ‘respondent’ under DV Act can also be female.
• D. Velusamy v D. Patchaiammal [2010] 10 SCC 469* was cited to define the term “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
• Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma [2013] 15 SCC 755* was used to lay down guidelines for determining live-in relationships under the DV Act.
• Satish Chander Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja (Civil Appeal No. 2483/2020)* overruled the judgment in S.R.Batra v Taruna Batra [2007] 3 SCC 169* and clarified the definition of “shared household” under the DV Act.
• Rakesh Malhotra v Krishna Malhotra 2020 SCC OnLine SC 239* was used to state that an application under Section 125 CrPC should be treated as an application under Section 25(2) of HMA when permanent alimony is granted.
• Nagendrappa Natikar v Neelamma [2014] 14 SCC 452* was used to support that an order under Section 125 CrPC does not foreclose remedy under Section 18 of HAMA.
• Sudeep Chaudhary v Radha Chaudhary [1997] 11 SCC 286* was used to direct adjustment of maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC against the amount awarded under HMA.
• Vishal v Aparna & Anr. 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1207* was followed to state that maintenance under the DV Act can be adjusted against maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
• RD v BD 2019 VII AD (Delhi) 466* was followed to state that maintenance under the DV Act is in addition to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC or HMA.
• Shailja & Anr. v Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199* was cited to emphasize that a wife’s earning capacity is not a sufficient ground to reduce maintenance.
• Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715* was used to state that a wife’s income is not a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
• Shamima Farooqui v Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705* was cited to emphasize the husband’s obligation to provide maintenance.
• Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash AIR 1968 Delhi 174* was used to state that an able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning to maintain his family.
• Shail Kumari Devi and Ors. v Krishnan Bhagwan Pathak 2008 9 SCC 632* was used to state that maintenance should not depend on the uncertain date of disposal of the case.
• Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188* was used to emphasize the need for a purposive interpretation of Section 125 CrPC to achieve social justice.
• Kaushalya v Mukesh Jain (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1129 -1130 / 2019)* was used to support the power of Family Courts to strike off the defense of the respondent in case of non-payment of maintenance.

Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines to streamline maintenance laws in matrimonial disputes:

1. Overlapping Jurisdictions:
   • When a party has filed multiple maintenance claims under different Acts, they must disclose all previous orders in subsequent proceedings.
   • Courts must consider previous orders and adjust maintenance amounts accordingly to avoid conflicting orders.
2. Affidavits of Disclosure:
   • Parties must file Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in all maintenance proceedings.
   • The format of these affidavits is provided as Annexure I to the judgment.
   • These affidavits should include all sources of income, assets, and liabilities of both parties.
3. Criteria for Determining Quantum of Maintenance:

   The following criteria must be considered while determining maintenance:

   • Status of the parties.
   • Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children.
   • The educational expenses of the children.
   • The financial capacity of the husband.
   • The income and assets of the wife.
   • Whether the wife is earning or not, her earning potential, and whether she has sufficient means to maintain herself.
4. Date from which Maintenance is to be Awarded:
   • Maintenance should be awarded from the date of application.
   • This is to prevent destitution of the dependent spouse due to delays in proceedings.
5. Enforcement of Maintenance Orders:
   • Maintenance orders can be enforced as a money decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
   • Courts can also order the attachment of the respondent’s salary or property for non-compliance with maintenance orders.
   • In extreme cases of non-compliance, the court can strike off the defense of the respondent.

Flowchart of the Process

Annexure I: Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities

The Supreme Court provided a detailed format for the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities as Annexure I to the judgment. This affidavit is crucial for ensuring transparency and fairness in maintenance proceedings. The key components of the affidavit include:

• Personal Information: Name, age, address, contact details, educational qualifications, and occupation.
• Income Details: Detailed information about all sources of income, including salary, business income, rental income, and other sources.
• Bank Accounts: Details of all bank accounts, including account numbers, bank names, and balances.
• Investments: Information about all investments, including stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other financial instruments.
• Immovable Properties: Details of all immovable properties owned, including residential and commercial properties, along with their current market value.
• Movable Assets: Information about movable assets, including vehicles, jewelry, and other valuable items.
• Liabilities: Details of all liabilities, including loans, mortgages, and other debts.
• Expenditure Details: Information about monthly expenses, including household expenses, medical expenses, and other regular expenses.
• Dependents: Details of all dependents, including children and parents.
• Other Relevant Information: Any other information that may be relevant to the case.

The affidavit must be signed and verified by the deponent, and it must be supported by relevant documents and evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. is a significant step towards streamlining maintenance laws in matrimonial disputes. By issuing comprehensive guidelines, the Court has addressed the issues of overlapping jurisdictions, inconsistent orders, and delays in maintenance proceedings. The guidelines mandate the disclosure of assets and liabilities, provide a clear framework for determining the quantum of maintenance, and ensure that maintenance is awarded from the date of application. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of effective enforcement of maintenance orders, thereby ensuring that the object of the law is not defeated. This landmark ruling is expected to bring clarity and consistency to family law matters, providing much-needed relief to women and dependent children in matrimonial disputes.