Date of the Judgment: April 9, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 282
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Can a maintenance order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, supersede an earlier maintenance order passed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a husband and wife embroiled in a matrimonial dispute. The Court clarified the legal position on overlapping maintenance orders and provided directions for the resolution of the dispute. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with Justice Sapre authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a matrimonial dispute between Sanjay Kumar Sinha (the appellant/husband) and Asha Kumari (the respondent/wife). The husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter. The Family Court granted the wife Rs. 8,000 per month and the daughter Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance, along with Rs. 2,500 as litigation expenses.

Prior to this, the wife had also filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur, seeking maintenance. The Family Court at Samastipur had granted the wife Rs. 4,000 per month and the daughter Rs. 2,000 per month as maintenance, along with Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses. The husband challenged the order of the Family Court, Begusarai, before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which was dismissed, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Date Event
– Husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai (Divorce Case No. 42/2010).
– Wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur.
03.01.2011 Family Court, Samastipur, granted the wife Rs. 4,000 per month and the daughter Rs. 2,000 per month as maintenance, along with Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.
– Wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the divorce petition before the Family Court, Begusarai.
15.07.2016 Family Court, Begusarai, awarded Rs. 8,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 4,000 per month to her daughter as maintenance, along with Rs. 2,500 as litigation expenses.
27.10.2016 High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the husband’s application challenging the order of the Family Court, Begusarai.
09.04.2018 Supreme Court of India disposed of the appeal with directions.

Course of Proceedings

The husband, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2016, passed by the Family Court, Begusarai, filed a civil miscellaneous application in the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The High Court dismissed the application and upheld the order of the Family Court. Subsequently, the husband filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which was converted into a civil appeal.

See also  Supreme Court Upholds State's Decision on B.Ed. College Recognition: State of Uttarakhand vs. Nalanda College of Education (2022)

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of two key provisions:

  • Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section deals with the grounds for divorce. The husband had filed a divorce petition under this section.
  • Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section provides for maintenance pendente lite (during the pendency of the case) and litigation expenses to the wife or husband in a matrimonial dispute.
  • Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.

Arguments

The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments made by each side. However, the core issue revolves around the conflict between two maintenance orders: one under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and another under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The husband’s contention was that the order under Section 24 should not have been passed because an order under Section 125 was already in place. The wife, on the other hand, sought to uphold the order under Section 24, which granted a higher amount of maintenance.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

✓ Whether a maintenance order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, supersedes an earlier maintenance order passed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in the same matter.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision
Whether a maintenance order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, supersedes an earlier maintenance order passed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in the same matter. The Supreme Court held that the maintenance order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, supersedes the order passed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any cases or books. However, it does refer to the following legal provisions:

  • Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section deals with the grounds for divorce.
  • Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section provides for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses.
  • Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents.
Authority How it was used by the Court
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Referred to as the basis for the divorce petition filed by the husband.
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Referred to as the basis for the maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Begusarai.
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Referred to as the basis for the earlier maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Samastipur.

Judgment

Submission by the Parties How it was treated by the Court
Husband’s submission that the maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, should not have been passed because an order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, was already in place. The Court held that the maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, supersedes the earlier order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
See also  Supreme Court Addresses Legislative Competence and Privilege in Summons to Facebook: Ajit Mohan & Ors. vs. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. (2021)

The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Family Court, Begusarai, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, superseded the earlier order passed by the Family Court, Samastipur, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 8,000 per month (Rs. 6,000 to the wife and Rs. 2,000 to the daughter) as maintenance during the pendency of the divorce case. For the balance amount of Rs. 4,000 per month, the husband was directed to furnish security. The Court also directed the Family Court to decide the main divorce case within six months.

The Court also directed that the arrears towards monthly maintenance be paid by the husband to the wife within one month from the date of the order. The payment of monthly maintenance amount, as fixed by the Court, was directed to be paid on the 1st of every month.

The Court stated, “consequent upon passing of the maintenance order dated 15.07.2016 under Section 24 of the Act by the Family Court, the order passed by the Family Court, Samastipur under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. stands superseded and now no longer holds the field.”

The Court further stated, “the appellant (husband) shall, during pendency of main divorce case, continue to pay in cash a sum of Rs.8000/- p.m. (Rs.6000/- to the wife and Rs.2000/- to the daughter) and for the balanced sum, i.e., Rs.4000/- p.m., the appellant would furnish security.”

The Court also gave liberty to the parties to adduce evidence on the issue of grant of permanent maintenance in the main case. It also granted liberty to the parties to mediate and settle the issue amicably by appearing before the Family Court.

Authority How it was viewed by the Court
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 The Court upheld the application of this provision and held that the order passed under it supersedes the order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 The Court held that the order passed under this provision was superseded by the subsequent order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to avoid conflicting maintenance orders and to ensure that the wife and daughter receive adequate maintenance during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. The Court emphasized that the order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was passed in the context of the divorce proceedings, should take precedence over the earlier order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Court also considered the need to expedite the divorce proceedings and directed the Family Court to decide the case within six months.

Sentiment Percentage
Need to avoid conflicting maintenance orders 30%
Ensuring adequate maintenance for wife and daughter 40%
Precedence of order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 20%
Expediting the divorce proceedings 10%
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: Sughar Singh vs. Hari Singh (2021)
Ratio Percentage
Fact 30%
Law 70%

Wife files for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC

↓

Family Court grants maintenance under Section 125 CrPC

↓

Husband files for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act

↓

Wife files for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act

↓

Family Court grants maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act

↓

Supreme Court holds that order under Section 24 supersedes order under Section 125 CrPC

Key Takeaways

  • A maintenance order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, supersedes an earlier maintenance order passed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in the same matter.
  • The Court emphasized the need to avoid conflicting maintenance orders.
  • The Court directed the husband to pay a specific amount of maintenance to the wife and daughter during the pendency of the divorce proceedings.
  • The Court directed the Family Court to expedite the divorce proceedings and decide the case within six months.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

  • The Family Court shall decide the main Divorce Case No. 42/2010 preferably within 6 months on merits.
  • The maintenance order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, supersedes the order passed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
  • The husband shall pay Rs. 8,000 per month (Rs. 6,000 to the wife and Rs. 2,000 to the daughter) as maintenance during the pendency of the divorce case.
  • The husband shall furnish security for the balance amount of Rs. 4,000 per month.
  • The arrears towards monthly maintenance shall be paid by the husband to the wife within one month from the date of the order.
  • The payment of monthly maintenance amount shall be paid on the 1st of every month.
  • Parties are at liberty to adduce evidence on the issue of grant of permanent maintenance in the main case.
  • Parties are also granted liberty to mediate and settle the issue amicably by appearing before the Family Court.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified that a maintenance order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, supersedes an earlier maintenance order passed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in the same matter. This clarifies the position of law regarding overlapping maintenance orders in matrimonial disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sanjay Kumar Sinha vs. Asha Kumari clarifies the legal position on overlapping maintenance orders under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Court held that the order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, supersedes the earlier order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Court also gave directions to expedite the divorce proceedings and ensure that the wife and daughter receive adequate maintenance during the pendency of the case.

Source: Sanjay Kumar Sinha vs. Asha Kumari