Supreme Court Enhances Maintenance for Wife: Yagwati vs. Ghanshyam (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 76

Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

Can a wife receive increased maintenance if her husband’s income significantly rises after the initial maintenance order? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a wife sought an increase in the maintenance originally granted by the Family Court. The court considered the husband’s current financial capacity and the wife’s needs to determine if an enhancement was warranted. This judgment clarifies the principles for modifying maintenance orders based on changes in circumstances. The bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, with the judgment authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Case Background

The marriage between Yagwati (the Appellant) and Ghanshyam (the Respondent) took place on April 27, 1982. Three children were born from this marriage: Abhishek, Aashish, and Nikki. In 1998, the couple began living separately. The Respondent chose to live with his two major sons, Abhishek and Aashish, leaving the Appellant and their minor daughter, Nikki, to fend for themselves. Subsequently, the Respondent filed for divorce, which was initially granted ex-parte on May 31, 2005. The Respondent then remarried on July 20, 2007.

In the meantime, the Appellant applied for maintenance under Section 18 and Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. On April 15, 2009, the Family Court at Jaipur granted the Appellant Rs. 3,000 per month and Rs. 5,000 per month for Nikki until she reached the age of majority, along with litigation costs of Rs. 2,000. The ex-parte divorce decree was later set aside on September 9, 2011, and the divorce case was restored. Both parties appealed the Family Court’s order to the High Court of Rajasthan. The High Court enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 6,000 per month from May 16, 2009, to December 31, 2005, and Rs. 10,000 per month from January 1, 2006, onwards. The Appellant then approached the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement, arguing that the maintenance awarded was inadequate given the Respondent’s financial capacity.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Family Court at Jaipur initially granted maintenance to the Appellant and her daughter. Both parties appealed this order. The High Court of Rajasthan modified the maintenance amount, increasing it from the date of the application before the High Court. The Appellant, dissatisfied with the enhancement, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s order did not adequately reflect the Respondent’s financial capacity. The Respondent contended that he had retired and was only receiving pension, which should not be the basis for further enhancement.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which deals with the maintenance of a wife. Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 states:

“18. Maintenance of wife.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life-time.
(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance,—
(a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or of wilfully neglecting her;
(b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her;
(c) if he is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy;
(d) if he has any other wife living;
(e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere;
(f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion;
(g) if there is any other cause justifying her living separately.
(3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion.”

The Court also considered Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which provides for the maintenance of children and aged parents. The court also considered the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which pertains to setting aside an ex-parte decree.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The Appellant argued that the maintenance awarded by the High Court was inadequate.
• The Appellant submitted that the Respondent’s salary had significantly increased while he was employed at Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).
• The Appellant relied on an RTI application that revealed the Respondent’s last drawn salary was Rs. 1,05,871 per month.
• The Appellant contended that the Respondent had not paid the arrears of maintenance, despite the High Court’s direction to do so.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Respondent argued that he had retired and was no longer receiving his salary from BSNL.
• The Respondent submitted that he was only drawing a pension from BSNL.
• The Respondent argued that the maintenance granted by the High Court should not be interfered with.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court’s enhancement of maintenance was adequate, considering the Respondent’s financial capacity and the Appellant’s needs.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly mention any specific cases or books that were relied upon by the court. However, it does refer to the following legal provisions:

• Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: This section deals with the maintenance of a wife.
• Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: This section provides for the maintenance of children and aged parents.
• Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This provision deals with setting aside an ex-parte decree.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court applied Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 to determine the wife’s entitlement to maintenance.
• The Court referred to Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for the maintenance of children.
• The Court noted that Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was used to set aside the ex-parte divorce decree.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that the Appellant received adequate maintenance, taking into account the Respondent’s past earnings and current pension. The Court recognized that the Respondent’s financial capacity was significantly higher when he was employed at BSNL, and this should be a factor in determining the maintenance amount. The Court also emphasized the need for the Respondent to clear the arrears of maintenance. The court balanced the need to provide adequate maintenance to the wife with the husband’s current financial situation post-retirement. The Court also took into account the fact that the husband had not paid the arrears of maintenance.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered that the Respondent’s salary at BSNL was a significant factor in determining the maintenance. The court also considered the current pension drawn by the Respondent. The Court also considered the need for adequate maintenance of the Appellant. The court also took into account the fact that the Respondent had not paid the arrears of maintenance. The court enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 20,000 per month.

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations. The court concluded that the maintenance awarded by the High Court was not adequate and needed to be enhanced.

The Supreme Court stated: “Considering the position of the parties and the totality of circumstances surrounding the present appeal (s), we are of the considered view that the Appellant should be granted a sum of Rs.20,000 /- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) per month as maintenance with effect from the date of this Order.”

The Court further stated: “We accordingly allow the appeal (s) preferred by the Appellant and enhance the monthly maintenance payable under Section 18 of the Act from Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month to Rs.20,000 /- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) per month with effect from the date of the pronouncement of this Order.”

The Court also stated: “Furthermore, the arrears payable in respect of the maintenance due to the Appellant shall be payable in equal instalments by the Respondent in addition to the regular maintenance as quantified by us above.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench.

Key Takeaways

• Maintenance awarded to a wife can be enhanced if the husband’s income significantly increases.
• The court will consider the husband’s past earnings, even if he is now retired and receiving a pension.
• Arrears of maintenance must be paid, and the court can direct the Family Court to quantify these arrears.
• The total amount payable towards maintenance and arrears should not exceed 50% of the husband’s pension.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Family Court, Jaipur to:

• Quantify the total arrears due to the Appellant.
• Fix the duration and quantum of monthly payments for arrears, ensuring that the total amount (regular maintenance + arrears) does not exceed 50% of the Respondent’s pension.
• Issue directions to BSNL to ensure that the maintenance and arrears are credited to the Appellant’s bank account every month.

The Court also directed that a copy of the order be sent to BSNL for compliance.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the maintenance awarded to a wife can be enhanced if the husband’s income significantly increases, even if he has retired and is receiving a pension. The Court emphasized that the husband’s past earnings are a relevant factor in determining the maintenance amount. This judgment reinforces the principle that maintenance should be adequate and reflective of the husband’s financial capacity, both past and present. This case also clarifies that the courts can direct the payment of arrears and ensure that the total amount does not exceed 50% of the husband’s pension.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the monthly maintenance payable to the Appellant to Rs. 20,000, effective from the date of the order. The Court directed the Family Court to quantify the arrears and ensure that the total amount payable does not exceed 50% of the Respondent’s pension. This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring adequate maintenance for wives, taking into account the husband’s financial capacity.