Supreme Court Restores Family Court’s Maintenance Order for Minor Daughter: Aditi vs. Jitesh (2023) INSC 981

Date of the Judgment: 6 November 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 981

Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a High Court reduce the maintenance amount for a minor child without proper justification? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing the importance of considering the child’s welfare and the need for detailed financial disclosures in maintenance cases. This case highlights the responsibility of parents to support their children, even after divorce, and underscores the necessity of following established guidelines for determining maintenance amounts. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a minor daughter, Aditi, whose parents, Shikha Sharma and Jitesh Sharma, were married in 2008. The couple had two children, a son and Aditi. The son’s custody was with the father, Jitesh, while Aditi lived with her mother, Shikha. In January 2018, Jitesh filed for divorce. Subsequently, in May 2018, Aditi and her mother filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking maintenance. The Family Court granted the divorce on 10 September 2022 and on 30 November 2022, awarded ₹20,000 per month as maintenance for Aditi, while denying maintenance to the mother. The High Court later reduced this amount to ₹7,500 per month, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Family Court initially granted a maintenance of ₹20,000 per month to the minor daughter, Aditi. The High Court, in revision, reduced this amount to ₹7,500 per month, citing the father’s financial distress. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s order was cryptic and lacked detailed reasons. The father did not appear before the Supreme Court to justify the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which provides for maintenance of wives, children, and parents. The Court also cited Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, concerning maintenance during matrimonial proceedings. The Court emphasized the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, which prescribed a uniform format for the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings. The Court also referred to the judgment in Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi, (2022) 3 SCC 86, which highlighted that a father’s responsibility to maintain his child continues until the child reaches majority, irrespective of the parents’ divorce.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children, and parents.
• Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section provides for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.

The Court’s interpretation of these provisions underscores the constitutional obligation to ensure the welfare of children, especially in cases of parental separation. The guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, were issued under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the Court’s power to ensure complete justice.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court’s reduction of maintenance was unjust and arbitrary.
• The counsel highlighted that the Family Court had thoroughly considered the material before it while fixing the maintenance at ₹20,000 per month.
• It was submitted that the respondent was shirking his responsibility to care for his minor daughter, who was 6-7 years old.
• The appellant prayed for the restoration of the Family Court’s order.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent did not appear before the Supreme Court.
• Before the High Court, the respondent had argued that he was in financial distress and unable to pay the higher maintenance amount.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s order was based on the respondent’s claim of financial distress without any supporting evidence, and without considering the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in emphasizing the need for the High Court to provide a reasoned order based on evidence, rather than a cryptic order based on unsubstantiated claims of financial distress.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court to the minor daughter.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section was considered for the maintenance of children.
• Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section was considered for maintenance during matrimonial proceedings.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324: The Supreme Court heavily relied on this authority, emphasizing the need for a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in maintenance proceedings. It highlighted that the guidelines laid down in this case were not being followed by the lower courts. The court reiterated the importance of these guidelines for ensuring a fair and just determination of maintenance.
• Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi, (2022) 3 SCC 86: The Supreme Court used this case to reinforce the principle that a father’s responsibility to maintain his child continues until the child attains majority, irrespective of the parents’ divorce. This authority supported the Court’s view that the child’s welfare is paramount.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring the welfare of the minor child and the proper implementation of its guidelines on maintenance. The Court emphasized the need for lower courts to follow the procedures laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, which mandates the filing of Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities by both parties. The Court was also critical of the High Court’s cryptic order, which reduced the maintenance amount without providing adequate reasons or considering the child’s needs. The Court’s decision was driven by the need to protect the rights of the minor child and ensure that maintenance orders are based on a thorough assessment of the financial circumstances of both parents.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal principles and precedents, with a significant emphasis on the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the lack of a reasoned order by the High Court and the need to ensure the welfare of the minor child.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on:

• The High Court’s order was cryptic and lacked detailed reasons.
• The High Court did not consider the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, regarding the filing of Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities.
• The welfare of the minor child is paramount.
• The father’s responsibility to maintain the child continues until the child reaches majority.

The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the father’s financial distress was sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance amount, stating that such a conclusion should be based on proper financial disclosures and a reasoned order.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The High Court’s order was cryptic and lacked detailed reasons.
• The High Court did not consider the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
• The welfare of the minor child is paramount.
• The father has a responsibility to maintain the child until the child reaches majority.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The manner in which maintenance payable under Section 24 of the Hindu Mariage Act, 1955 or Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be assessed, was considered by this Court in its celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324.”
• “However, at the same time, the respondent husband cannot be absolved from his liability and responsibility to maintain his son Pranav till he attains the age of majority. Whatever be the dispute between the husband and the wife, a child should not be made to suffer.”
• “As in the case in hand, the impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic and is bereft of reasons. In our opinion, the same deserves to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the High Court for consideration afresh.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Lower courts must follow the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, regarding the filing of Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in maintenance proceedings.
• High Courts must provide reasoned orders when modifying maintenance amounts.
• The welfare of the child is paramount in maintenance cases.
• A father’s responsibility to maintain his child continues until the child reaches majority, regardless of the parents’ divorce.
• Cryptic orders without proper reasoning are liable to be set aside.

This judgment reinforces the importance of financial transparency and the need for a thorough assessment of financial circumstances in maintenance cases. It also highlights the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights and welfare of children in family disputes.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Secretary General of the Court to re-circulate the judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, to all Judicial Officers through the High Courts and to the National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies, to be taken note of during training programs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts cannot arbitrarily reduce maintenance amounts awarded by the Family Court without proper justification and without considering the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, and Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi, (2022) 3 SCC 86, and does not introduce any new legal principles. It emphasizes the need for lower courts to adhere to the established guidelines for determining maintenance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Aditi Alias Mithi vs. Jitesh Sharma reaffirms the importance of following due process and established guidelines in maintenance cases. The Court’s emphasis on the welfare of the child and the need for detailed financial disclosures underscores its commitment to ensuring justice and fairness in family law matters. The judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts to provide reasoned orders and to adhere to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in previous judgments.

Category

Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Category: Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Parent Category: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Child Category: Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Parent Category: Family Law

Child Category: Child Maintenance

Child Category: Divorce Proceedings

Child Category: Maintenance Law

Child Category: Indian Supreme Court Judgments

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Aditi vs. Jitesh case?

A: The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the maintenance amount for a minor daughter, which was initially fixed by the Family Court.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Family Court’s original order, which had awarded a higher maintenance amount.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?

A: The key takeaways are that lower courts must follow the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, regarding financial disclosures, High Courts must provide reasoned orders when modifying maintenance amounts, and the welfare of the child is paramount in maintenance cases.

Q: What is the significance of the Rajnesh v. Neha case in this context?

A: The Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, case laid down guidelines for assessing maintenance, including the requirement for filing Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities. The Supreme Court emphasized that these guidelines must be followed by lower courts.

Q: What does this judgment mean for parents going through divorce?

A: This judgment emphasizes that a father’s responsibility to maintain his child continues until the child reaches majority, regardless of the parents’ divorce. It also highlights the need for transparency and a thorough assessment of financial circumstances in maintenance cases.