The Supreme Court of India, today on 4th November 2020, delivered an extremely momentous judgment, laying down guidelines in determining payment of interim compensation and its quantum to be paid in matrimonial cases. A bench comprising of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Subash Reddy hearing the case, Rajnesh v. Neha [Cr. A No. 730 OF 2020] concerning the issue of maintenance to be paid to a wife and son as provided in Section 125 CrPc.
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the maintenance of wives, children, and parents. It is required under this section that any person who has sufficient means and neglects to maintain, then such a person can be ordered to do so by a Magistrate of the first class.
While pronouncing a verdict for this case, the Court laid down guidelines that apply to family, district, and magistrate courts over the country. These guidelines deal with the problem of overlapping jurisdiction and about avoiding conflicting orders being passed for the same matter in different proceedings. The court has also taken a stricter view concerning the grant of maintenance in matrimonial cases.
The judgment recalls, Justice Krishna Iyer’s verdict in the case, Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kushal and Ors [1 (1978) 4 SCC 70] which opined that maintenance laws are provisions which are a measure for social justice enacted to protect women and children which comes within Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 15 of the Indian Constitution deals with ‘Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.’ Article 15(3) states that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making special provisions for women and children.
Earlier the court had appointed as amicus curiae, two senior advocates to facilitate and help the court to make several decisions on a plethora of matters such as payment of interim maintenance, the basis for deciding amount of maintenance, circumventing overlapping judgments, and several other issues in this regard.
Main aspects of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
It is now required that both parties must file an affidavit of disclosure of their respective assets and liabilities in all maintenance proceedings before the concerned court.
Certain factors have also been laid down with regard to ascertaining the quantum of interim maintenance and alimony payable. These factors shall act as a point of reference for concerned courts.
It has been enumerated in the judgment that status of the parties involved, reasonable needs of the dependant spouse and children and factors such as education, qualification, presence, and level of income and such other factors need to be considered in whether they are able to ensure the same standard of living the spouse was accustomed to in the matrimonial home. The financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any should also be taken into account while determining the quantum of maintenance. In essence, the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home must be taken as one of the main deciding factors. There shall also be no room for extravagance while issuing maintenance. The amount should be a reasonable one. The judgment also mentions the verdict of the case, Bharat Hedge v. Smt. Saroj Hedge [140 (2007) DLT 16] which laid down certain factors which needed to be taken into account while determining maintenance.
Other than these factors, the court required that the ‘age and employment of parties’ to be taken into consideration. While considering if the applicant is personally equipped and qualified, the age must also be taken into account. The court noted that in cases where the wife has had to relinquish employment and with the advancement of age, re-entry into the workforce would not be easy. The court also noted that as opined by several courts, the fact that the wife is earning a consistent income should not hinder from acquiring maintenance.
With regard to the maintenance of minor children, it would include all expenses necessary for the child such as food, clothing, residence, education, and medical expenses. Other expenses such as extra coaching and vocational training must also be considered. Serious disability or ill health of children or spouse must also be relevant in quantifying maintenance. But in no case must the maintenance awarded be excessive.
The court has also noted the necessity to issue guidelines concerning overlapping judgments to bring uniformity in court practices. In a situation where successive claims for maintenance are contested under different statutes, courts can either adjust or set-off of the amount awarded in an earlier proceeding whilst deciding whether any additional amount is to be awarded in future proceedings of the same. During the subsequent proceedings, the applicant must disclose all details of the earlier proceeding and the orders passed in the proceedings. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any alteration or modification, then the party is required to move the concerned court during the same proceeding.
To bring further uniformity, the court has directed that maintenance should be awarded from the date on which application was made before the concerned court and further held that orders of maintenance may be enforced like a decree of a civil court, through provisions that are available for enforcing a money decree.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being.
