| CITATION | 2023:DHC:8322-DB |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 21 NOVEMBER 2023 |
| COURT | DELHI HIGH COURT |
| APPELLANT | CHETRAM MALI |
| RESPONDENT | KARISHMA SAINI |
| BENCH | (ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA) JUDGE (V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE |
| ACTS REFERRED | Hindu Marriage Act 1955 – Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act 1955 – Section 25 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 – Section 12 |
INTRODUCTION
In the complex domain of family law, where emotions often run high and lives are often woven together in an inescapable fabric of mutuality, the case at hand deals with domestic violence and post financial responsibilities of the husband towards his estranged wife. The present appeal in the high court of Delhi is calling into question the decision of the family court, Saket, New Delhi directing the appellant to pay the sum of Rs 30000 per month to the respondent under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for her maintenance pendente lite and also Rs 51000 as the litigation cost from the date of filing of petition to the date of disposal. As we navigate through the labyrinth of legal arguments, it is indispensable to bear in mind the broader societal implications of the court’s decision. Moreover, it is not just an isolated case between two individuals, it is a microcosm of a larger discourse on the rights and responsibilities that underpin the institution of marriage and the aftermath of its dissolution.
In the pages that follow, we shall explore the intricate facets of this case, meticulously dissecting the allegations of domestic violence and delving into the legal obligations that persist even after the formal dissolution of marital ties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant Mr. Chetram Mali in this legal saga and his wife Karishma Saini, the respondent, were once bound by the sacred vows of matrimony on November 19, 2018, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, their union was disintegrated on July 07, 2020, when the respondent returned to her parental home, leaving in its trail of emotional turmoil, legal complexities, and an urgent need for justice. Respondent is believed to have filed a complaint under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against Mr. Chetram Mali, the appellant, and his family members on January 27, 2021. The court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs 21000 per month to the respondent for maintenance on December 12, 2022. The appellant in response preferred to file a divorce petition before the Family Court, Saket, New Delhi wherein the order in question was passed, charging the appellant to pay the respondent a sum of Rs 30000 per month for maintenance including litigation expenses.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the appellant is responsible for paying the respondent, the maintenance and litigation charges when she has a good educational background and is self-sufficient to do so?
- Whether the appellant is financially able to provide maintenance with the responsibility of his family members?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
- The appellant contended that he was directed to pay a sum of Rs 21000 per month as maintenance under the Protection of Women under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which has been elevated to Rs 30000 by the family court under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act without any change in the facts.
- The gross salary as per the salary slip of May 2022 is reflected to be Rs 1,04,276 and in hand salary is said to be Rs 47,784.
- The counsel for appellants also states that respondent, Karishma Saini, has a Graduation degree from Delhi University and she has been working as a Receptionist at Shuddhi Ayurveda Panchkarma Hospital. They also submit that the respondent has a monthly income of Rs 25000 per month.
- Also, the appellant has already paid Rs 11000 to the respondent as litigation expenses.
- The appellant is the only earning member in the family and has to support his aged mother-father as well as his brother and sister. Moreover, he has taken a loan of Rs 4 lakh from his employer for his younger brother’s marriage and he is paying installments for paying of the loan.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
- It was urged that the respondent was merely working as a social worker and did not collect any salary for the work done at the hospital.
- The current salary of the appellant, as stated by the counsel of the respondent was more than Rs 1,04,000 per month as per his salary slip of May 2022.
DECISION OF THE FAMILY COURT
The judge, after taking into consideration the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by parties in terms of Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 SCC Online SC 903, observed that Karishma Saini, the respondent, had no independent source of income and cannot support herself for necessary expenses of litigation given that there was no reliable evidence that she works as a receptionist and draws a salary for the work done. Also, the affidavit that the appellant filed states that a sum of Rs 19,450 is being incurred on payment of EMIs but no details for the same had been mentioned except the pay slip, a sum of Rs 18,093 is being paid by the appellant for the society recovery, which could not be taken into consideration for calculating any liability of the appellant.
JUDGEMENT OF THE HIGH COURT
The high court stated that as per the pay slip of May 2022, the gross salary of the appellant is Rs 1,04,276, a deduction of Rs 25000 is reflected against ‘court recovery’, and Rs 17,425 against ‘society recovery’ apart from statutory deductions. Thus, the net salary therefore falls to Rs 56,492. The reason for the higher maintenance pendente lite of Rs 30000 per month as compared to Rs 21000 per month under the PWDV Act initiated by Karishma Saini, has not come up in the impugned order. There is no evidence to infer that deductions as per the pay slip have been started only after the commencement of the proceedings to escape maintenance. While considering the amount payable to the respondent by the appellant, the family responsibilities and other financial expenses of the appellant cannot be ignored. It must be noticed that the respondent claims to have no source of income but she does have a good educational background being a Graduate of Delhi University. She, by her own choice, is doing social work and this does not impede undertaking meaningful employment.
The spouse has a reasonable capacity to earn but who chooses to remain unemployed and idle without any sufficient explanation or any sincere efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to be a burden on the other party. This provision is gender neutral and the provisions of Section24& 25 of HMA provide the rights, liabilities, and obligations arising from marriage between the parties under HMA.
The judges ordered the appellant to pay Rs 21,000 per month along with the litigation cost to the respondent for maintenance as paid in the proceedings under the PWDV act from the date of filing the petition before the family court till the date of disposal. Considering the inflation and future rise in prices the court ordered the maintenance amount during the pendency of divorce proceedings shall increase by Rs 1500 per month for each succeeding year.
All the pending applications shall be considered disposed of.
ANALYSIS
- The reduced maintenance obligations not only reflect the changing dynamics of modern relationships but also underscore the importance of adapting legal frameworks to address the diverse needs and situations of individuals involved in divorce proceedings.
- This judgment recognizes the principle of fairness and equity, taking into consideration the responsibility of the appellant towards his family.
- In navigating the complexities of family law, this judgment sets a precedent for similar cases and highlights the consideration given to the responsibilities of both spouses post-divorce.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the resolution of this case, marked by an amicable judgment by the high court that led to reduction in the maintenance payments under Hindu Marriage Act, signifies a nuanced and pragmatic approach to family law. As we move forward, it is essential for legal systems to continue promoting dialogue and compromise, fostering an environment that prioritizes the well being and equitable treatment of individuals transitioning through the challenging process of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19884501/
https://www.manupatrafast.com/pers/Personalized.aspx
written by
Diya bhaskar, New law college Bhartiya Vidyapeeth deemed to be university pune, an intern under legal vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
