Case Brief- Rajnesh vs Neha

Petitoner Rajnesh(husband)
Respondent Neha(wife)
Court Supreme Court of India
Case no. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2020
Case Decided on November 4th 2020
Judges Indu Malhotra
R. Subhash Reddy
Case Brief Prepared by Neha Sehgal

Introduction:
In India, myriad laws regulate maintenance. In addition to the Special Marriage Act, 1954, Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, various
personal laws have maintenance-related provisions. For instance, a Hindu wife can claim
maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005. Each claim under these laws would be treated as separate and distinct
leading to “multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting orders”.

Some High Courts including Madhya Pradesh and Calcutta believe that maintenance proceedings
under these laws would be independent and the respondent would have to comply with multiple
maintenance payment orders, because maintenance payment cannot be adjusted or offset. Other
High Courts including Bombay and Delhi have ruled to the contrary, and have offset or adjusted
payment orders in case of multiple claims.
In addressing the conflict arising out of overlapping jurisdiction, the Court noted that while there
is no restriction on invoking multiple laws to avail maintenance, “it would be inequitable to
direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief
granted in a previous proceeding”. Hence, the spouse seeking maintenance must disclose to the
court if they have been awarded maintenance from a separate or previously-instituted suit.
Moreover, the court in assessing the quantum of maintenance must take into account any
previously-instituted maintenance order in order to adjust or offset such amount.

Facts of the case:

Respondent No.1-wife left the matrimonial home in January 2013 shortly after the birth of the
son. After about eight months, the wife filed an application for interim maintenance u/S. 125
Cr.P.C. on behalf of herself and her minor son.

The husband challenged the Family Court’s order and filed a petition before the Bombay High
Court but the High Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the judgment given by the Family
Court on 14.08.2018.
Now, the aggrieved husband moved to the Supreme Court.

Issues:
1. Issue of overlapping jurisdiction
2. Payment of interim maintenance
3. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance
4. Date from which maintenance to be awarded
5. Enforcement of orders of maintenance

Laws involved: Maintenance

 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance ct, 1956
 Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on Marriage) ct, 1986
 Muslim Women( Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 2019
 Special Marriage Act, 1954
 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005(PWDV)
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC)

Part A- The Order

the wife filed an application for interim maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of herself and
the minor son
challenged by husband in SC(appellant)
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we order and direct that :
(a) The Judgment and order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Family
Court,
Nagpur, affirmed by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench vide Order
dated 14.08.2018 for payment of interim maintenance @ Rs.15,000
p.m. to
the Respondent No.1-wife, and Rs.10,000 p.m. to the Respondent
No.2-son,
is hereby affirmed by this Court;
The husband is directed to pay the entire arrears of maintenance @
Rs.15,000 p.m., within a period of 12 weeks’ from the date of this
Judgment,and continue to comply with this Order during the pendency
of the
proceedings u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court;
6
(c) If the Appellant-husband fails to comply with the aforesaid
directions of
this Court, it would be open to the respondents to have the Order
enforced
u/S.128 Cr.P.C., and take recourse to all other remedies which are
available
in accordance with law;
(d) The proceedings for payment of interim maintenance u/S. 125
Cr.P.C.
have been pending between the parties for a period of over 7 years
now. We
deem it appropriate that the Family Court decides the substantive
application
u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. in Petition No. E-443/ 2013 finally, in light of the
directions
/ guidelines issued in the present judgment, within a period of 6
months’ from
the date of this judgment.
The Registry is directed to forward a complete copy of the pleadings,
alongwith the written submissions filed by the parties, and the record
of the
proceedings in the present Criminal Appeal, to the Family Court,
Nagpur.
The present Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Part B- General Guidelines and Directions

Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to
dependant wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into
destitution and vagrancy

1. Issue of Overlapping Jurisdiction

There are many laws from which maintenance may be claimed from

 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

  Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance ct, 1956
 Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on Marriage) ct, 1986
 Muslim Women( Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 2019
 Special Marriage Act, 1954
 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005(PWDV)
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC)

Also Conflicting judgments exist,

Some high courts say that each proceeding is distinct while others say that the amount
needs to be set off. However no limit has been set over applying for maintenance under
multiple laws

so SC held

no limit has been set over applying for maintenance under multiple laws

 It is unfair to direct the husband to pay maintenance under multiple proceedings

 It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes.
For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act and Section
125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A.
 Wife is under obligation to disclose any granted maintenance
 Civil court shall take any previously granted proceeding into account while granting/
determining an adjustment or set-off of the said amount.
 If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the
party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.

2. Payment of Interim Maintenance:

While framing the Guidelines, the Hon'ble Court found that despite the statutory provisions inter
alia requiring that proceedings for interim maintenance be disposed of in a time bound manner,
the said applications remained pending for several years inter alia on account of multiple
adjournments sought by parties, enormous time taken for completion of pleadings at the interim
stage itself, etc.

It was observed that such delays defeated the very object of the legislation. Further, the quantum
of interim maintenance was being decided by Courts on the basis of pleadings and rough
estimations made therein. Additionally, parties would submit insufficient material, disclose the
incorrect/ ambiguous details, and suppress vital information. These factors made it difficult for
the Courts to make an objective assessment for grant of interim maintenance. Accordingly, the
Court inter-alia laid down the following directions:

 Endeavor must be made for settling the disputes. Only when the proceedings for
settlement are unsuccessful should the Court proceed with the matter on merits.
  A professional marriage counsellor must be made available in every Court.

 Both parties have to mandatorily file an Affidavit of Disclosure in all maintenance

proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Court.

 The party claiming maintenance should mandatorily file a concise application for interim
maintenance with limited pleadings, along with the Affidavit of Disclosure before the
concerned Court.

 The respondent must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure within a
maximum period of four weeks. The Court ought not to grant the respondent more than
two opportunities for submission of his/her Affidavit of Disclosure.

 The Court may consider exercising its power to strike off the defence of the respondent,
if the respondent seeks more than two adjournments for filing his/her pleadings and if the
Court finds that such conduct of the respondent has been willful and contumacious in
delaying the proceedings.

 On the respondent's failure to file the Affidavit of Disclosure within the prescribed time,
the Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the
Affidavit of Disclosure filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record.

 On the basis of the pleadings filed by both the parties and the Affidavits of Disclosure,
the Courts should make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be
awarded towards maintenance in the interim stage.

 If any further information is required, apart from the information contained in the
Affidavits of Disclosure, the concerned Court may pass appropriate orders in respect
thereof.

 If during the course of proceedings there is a change in the financial status of any party,
or there is a change of any relevant circumstances, or if some new information comes to
light, the party may submit an amended/ supplementary affidavit, which would be
considered by the Court at the time of final determination.

 The concerned Court must make an endeavor to decide the Interim Application for
Interim Maintenance by a reasoned order, within a period of maximum four to six
months, after the Affidavits of Disclosure have been filed before the Court.

 These directions may be modified by the concerned Court, if exigencies of a case require
the same. It would be left to the judicial discretion of the concerned Court to issue
necessary directions in this regard.

In addition to the above, the Supreme Court made the following observations with respect to
Permanent Maintenance:
  Parties could lead oral and documentary evidence with respect to income, expenditure,
standard of living, etc., before the concerned Court, for fixing the permanent maintenance
payable to the spouse.

 The duration of the marriage should be taken into consideration for determining the
permanent maintenance to be paid.

 Provision in relation to grant of reasonable expenses for the marriage of children must be
made at the time of determining permanent maintenance (in cases where the custody is
with the wife). The expenses ought to be determined by taking into account the financial
position of the husband and the customs of the family.

 If there are any trust funds/ investments created by any spouse/ grandparents in favour of
the children, the same ought to be taken into consideration while deciding the quantum of
final child support.

3. Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance

Whilst setting out the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, the Hon'ble Court
recognised that there can be no straitjacket formula for fixing such a quantum. Stressing upon the
importance of maintaining a careful and just balance between all relevant factors, the Court held
that the maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic. It directed the Courts to
take cognizance of the fact that maintenance awarded to the applicant should neither be so
extravagant that it becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so
meagre that it drives the applicant to penury.

In addition to the statutory guidance, the Court inter alia laid down the following indicative
factors to be considered before determining the quantum of maintenance (a) the status of the
parties; (b) reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; (c) whether the applicant is
educated and professionally qualified; (d) whether the applicant has any independent source of
income; (e) whether the income is sufficient to enable the applicant to maintain the same
standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; (f) whether the applicant
was employed prior to her marriage; (g) whether she was working during the subsistence of the
marriage; (h) whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for
nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; (i) reasonable
costs of litigation for a non-working wife.

Apart from the aforesaid factors set out hereinabove, the Court laid down certain additional
factors for determining the quantum of maintenance payable. These are inter alia as follows:

 Age and employment of parties;

 Duration of marriage;
 Maintenance of minor children; and
  Serious disability or ill health of a spouse, child /children from the marriage or dependent
relative who require constant care and recurrent expenditure, would also be a relevant
consideration while quantifying maintenance.

The aforesaid factors are not exhaustive, and the concerned Court can exercise its discretion to
consider any other factor/s, which may be necessary or relevant in the facts and circumstances of
a particular case.

4. Date from which maintenance is to be awarded:

Whilst deciding the date from which maintenance is to be awarded, the Court found that most of
the statutes containing provisions for maintenance (except Section 125(2) CrPC) were silent on
the said issue. Absence of a uniform regime has resulted in inconsistencies in the practice
adopted by various Courts with respect to the date from which maintenance was to be awarded.
While some Courts held that payment of maintenance was to be made from the date on which the
application for maintenance was filed, others held that such payment should be made from the
date of the order granting maintenance. Further, some other Courts were also of the view that
such payments ought to be made from the date on which the summons were served upon the
respondent.

With a view to settle the law in this regard, the Supreme Court has held that maintenance in all
cases (including Section 125 CrPC) is to be awarded from the date on which the application was
made before the concerned Court. This was done with a view to prevent a dependent spouse
from being reduced to destitution.

5. Enforcement/ Execution of orders of maintenance

Considering the difficulties in enforcing maintenance orders, the court mapped out three
strategies, any of these may be used
 the maintenance orders may be enforces similar to a degree of a civil court and the court
would have the power for civil detention, attaching property etc.
Section 125(3) of the Cr. P. C. provides that if the party against whom the maintenance,
the same shall be recovered in the manner as provided for and the magistrate may award
sentence of imprisonment of a term which may extend to one month, or until payment,
whichever is earlier
 The court may strike off the defense of the respondent.
Some Family Courts have passed orders for striking off the defense of the respondent in
case of non payment of maintenance petition
Law is not that powerless as not to bring the husband to book. If the husband has failed to
make the payment of maintenance and litigation expenses to wife, his defense be struck
out
 The court may initiate contempt proceedings for willful disobedience

Conclusion:
This is a praiseworthy judgment of the contemporary times. It has provided with guidelines and
uniformity to the clustering of laws regarding ,maintenance. The issues resolved are overlapping
of laws, lack of uniformity for maintenance, ambiguity over the date of maintenance,
enforcement methods and criteria for calculation of maintenance