Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order on Alimony Withdrawal: Udita Nabha vs. Ranjeet Nabha (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 16, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 624
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
Can a wife be restricted from accessing a portion of her awarded alimony while appeals are pending? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a matrimonial dispute. The core issue revolved around the High Court’s decision to limit the wife’s access to the alimony amount deposited by the husband, pending the outcome of appeals. The Supreme Court bench, composed of Justices N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

Udita Nabha (wife) and Ranjeet Nabha (husband) married in 1995 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. They had a daughter in 2003. Due to marital issues, the wife filed for divorce in 2011 at the Family Court in Mumbai, seeking permanent and interim alimony.

The Family Court initially granted the wife Rs. 2,00,000 per month and the daughter Rs. 1,00,000 per month as interim maintenance. Later, in its final order dated 14.09.2015, the Family Court granted a divorce and ordered the husband to pay Rs. 6 crores as permanent alimony to the wife and Rs. 5 crores to their daughter, with Rs. 3.5 crores of the daughter’s amount to be kept in a fixed deposit for 5 years.

Both parties appealed this decision to the High Court. The husband sought a stay on the alimony payment. The High Court, on 12.08.2016, granted a conditional stay, ordering the husband to deposit 75% of the alimony amount with the court. The husband complied with this order after the Supreme Court extended the time for deposit.

Subsequently, the wife applied to the High Court to unconditionally withdraw the deposited amount of Rs. 8.25 crores. The High Court allowed partial withdrawal, directing that some funds be invested in fixed deposits. The wife filed a review petition, which was dismissed.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which deals with the grounds for divorce. The relevant provision states:

“27. Divorce.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made thereunder, a petition for divorce may be presented to the district court either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the respondent—… (d) has been guilty of such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.”

The judgment also touches upon the principles of interim and permanent alimony, which are intended to provide financial support to a spouse and children after separation or divorce. The High Court’s orders regarding the deposit and withdrawal of alimony are based on its powers to grant interim relief and ensure the financial security of the parties during the pendency of appeals.

Arguments

Appellant (Wife)’s Submissions:

• The appellant sought permission to unconditionally withdraw the deposited amount of Rs. 8.25 crores.
• The appellant argued that the High Court’s order restricted her access to the funds, which were meant for her and her daughter’s maintenance.
• The appellant contended that the interim maintenance amount had been substantially reduced, and she needed funds to maintain a comparable lifestyle and provide for her child’s comfort.
• The appellant limited her submission to only a part of the entire amount granted by the trial court, so as to maintain herself and her child.

Respondent (Husband)’s Submissions:

• The respondent contended that the wife had sufficient means to maintain herself and her daughter.
• The respondent argued that there was no requirement to grant any amount to the petitioner.
• The respondent promised to provide for the child’s education in the concerned institution.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was:

✓ Whether the High Court’s order restricting the withdrawal of the deposited alimony amount was reasonable, considering the needs of the wife and child during the pendency of appeals.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any cases or books. The judgment primarily relies on the facts of the case and the principles of equity and justice.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court considered Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954* to understand the grounds for divorce.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to balance the interests of both parties. The Court recognized that while the husband’s interests needed to be protected during the pendency of the appeal, the wife also needed access to funds to maintain herself and her child. The Court noted that the interim maintenance had been substantially reduced, and the wife needed funds to maintain a comparable lifestyle and provide for her child’s comfort.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the fact that the wife’s interim maintenance had been reduced and that she needed funds for her and her child’s upkeep. The Court also took into account the husband’s right to have his appeal heard without undue financial burden. The Court found a middle ground by allowing the wife to withdraw a portion of the deposited amount while ensuring that the remaining amount remained secure pending the outcome of the appeals.

The Court stated:

“…we have to delicately balance the interests of parties concerned, so that a party is not unjustly denied of his rights on the one hand, at the same time, interest of judgment-debtor during intra-appeal is also not unjustly denied.”

“Therefore, it is imperative on us to protect her interests in this case at hand.”

“In view of pendency of appeals before the High Court, any further indulgence at this stage is not required, except, we deem it appropriate to modify the order of the High Court to the extent that the appellant (wife) be allowed to withdraw Rs. 2 Crores during intra-appeal as an interim measure.”

The Supreme Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations or minority opinions in the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized the need to balance the interests of both parties in matrimonial disputes, particularly during the pendency of appeals.
• Courts should consider the immediate financial needs of the spouse and children when deciding on the withdrawal of alimony amounts.
• Interim measures should be designed to ensure that neither party is unduly disadvantaged during the appellate process.
• The judgment highlights the importance of ensuring that financial support for the spouse and children is not unduly restricted during the pendency of appeals.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the pending appeals. The Court also clarified that it had not expressed any views on the merits of the case and that the High Court should consider the case uninfluenced by any observations made in the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that during the pendency of appeals against a family court’s order on alimony, the High Court should strike a balance between protecting the interests of the judgment debtor and ensuring that the spouse and children are not unduly deprived of financial support. This case clarifies that the Court should allow partial withdrawal of the deposited amount during the pendency of appeals, if it is needed for the maintenance of the spouse and children. This approach ensures that the spouse and children are not left without financial support while appeals are ongoing, and that the judgment debtor’s rights are also protected.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order, allowing the wife to withdraw Rs. 2 crores from the deposited alimony amount as an interim measure. This decision balanced the need to protect the wife and child’s financial interests with the husband’s right to appeal the Family Court’s decision. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that neither party is unduly disadvantaged during the appellate process and directed the High Court to expedite the pending appeals.