PADMJA SHARMA V. RATAN LAL SHARMA

Spread the love

Post Views: 976

CITATION	AIR 2000 SC 1398
DATE OF JUDGMENT	28^TH MARCH, 2000
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT	PADMJA SHARMA
RESPONDENT	RATAN LAL SHARMA
BENCH	D.P. WADHWA & M.B. SHAH

INTRODUCTION

Various Acts in India make helpful provisions for the upkeep of children and parents. The goal of such provisions is to achieve a social goal by preventing vagrancy and poverty, as well as to offer a simple, affordable, and quick method for giving assistance and maintenance to children and parents.

While hearing the case of Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma (2000), a bench of Justices D.P. Wadhwa and M.B. Shah of the Supreme Court of India re-established the meaning of the term maintenance provided in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, while applying the same to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court further stated that the upkeep of a minor child is the responsibility of both parents, particularly if the mother is financially well-off. The current article is a case study of the previously described case.

While partially admitting the Appellant’s appeal, the Court noted that under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, read in connection with Hindu Laws related to family, a mother has the same responsibility to support a young child as a father. When both parents of a minor child work, they must pay maintenance in proportion to their earnings. The law does not require the father to shoulder the whole burden of maintenance even if the mother is financially capable of doing so.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In 1983, the pair married and had two children. Padmja Sharma, the Appellant, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty in 1990, coupled with a plea for the restoration of her ‘streedhan’, custody of the children in the suit, and an application for support under Section 125 CrPC.
She afterward filed another application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), demanding a sum of money for the children’s upkeep, entrance fees, and legal expenses. The Family Court ordered maintenance under Section 125 of the Code at Rs. 250/- per month for each kid, as well as interim maintenance under Section 26 of the Act at Rs. 250/- per month for each child. Four years later, she filed another application under Section 26 of the Act seeking an increase in maintenance due to the Respondent’s wage rise.
After one year, another application was made under Section 26 for an increase in the maintenance amount.

ISSUE RAISED

Is the Supreme Court of India the suitable court to bring a case for maintenance augmentation under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
Is the father the sole parent responsible for the upkeep of his child?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT

Along with her allegations before the High Court and the Supreme Court, the appeal wife in the current case contended that the husband (respondent) had harassed her repeatedly in order to postpone the trial before the Family Court.
The Apex Court observed during the hearing that the husband had a complaint that he was unable to acquire legal counsel in the Family Court, despite the fact that the wife was represented by her father, who is also a lawyer, and that while her father fought in court, she kept mute.
The respondent had not attended before the Apex Court after being furnished with a notice. As a result, the wife’s arguments were heard ex parte by the bench.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

The respondent before the court has not appeared. The court has heard the wife’s ex-parte agreements.

RATIO DECIDENDI

If the circumstances have changed, the appellant may re-apply to the Family Court for an increase in support, since an order under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is never conclusive and the decree made under it is always amendable.

OBITER DICTA

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956, and the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 create a coded form of law for Hindus. To interpret a specific provision, a definition of a term may be drawn from any of the four Acts that comprise the law, unless there is something unacceptable in the context. All of these Acts must be studied and comprehended in conjunction with one another.

JUDGEMENT

Both parties identify as Hindus. On May 2, 1983, they were married according to Hindu rituals. The first child, a son, was born on January 27, 1984, and the second, also a son, was born on June 28, 1985. On May 21, 1990, the wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. She also asked for the restitution of her “streedhan,” custody and care of the children, and financial support for them. She also filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Code).

On 2-8-1991, the wife petitioned the Family Court under Section 26 of the Act, requesting support of Rs 2575 per month for both children. However, in the affidavit accompanying the plea, maintenance was claimed at Rs 2500 per month for both children. It was mentioned that the husband’s monthly salary was Rs 6233.40. The wife also claimed Rs 1585 in school enrollment fees for her children, as well as Rs 5000 in litigation expenses.

By ruling dated September 13, 1997, the Family Court merged two actions — one under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage and the other under Section 26 of the Act. On October 4, 1997, the Family Court issued a divorce decision in favor of the wife, ending the marriage between her and the respondent. The Family Court gave a decision of Rs 1,000,000 as cost of the goods against the claim of Rs 1,80,000 towards “streedhan,” which plea was granted in the alternative if the respondent did not return the things stated by the wife in her petition. It was further ruled that both children be in the care of the mother, the appellant, until they reached the age of majority, and that support for each kid be given at Rs 500 per month beginning 4-10-1997. The wife was given a sum of Rs 1000 as lawsuit costs.

In the matter at hand, the Court determined that the Appellant is obligated to pay for the upkeep of the children in the ratio of 2:1, assuming that the Respondent’s wage is almost double that of the Appellant. Apart from the Rs. 250/- per month that the Respondent has previously been paying to them under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month for each of the children was deemed sufficient for their upkeep.

Given the whole picture in this scenario, we believe that a payment of Rs 3000 per month for each of the children would be sufficient to support them, which would be shared equally by both parents. As a result, we order that the respondent pay Rs 2000 per month for each of the two aforementioned children beginning on 4-10-1997, the date of the Family Court’s ruling.

For the earlier time, the respondent must pay Rs 500 per month for each of the children beginning on the date of the application, Rs 1000 per month beginning on the date of the second application, which is October 27, 1995, and Rs 1500 per month beginning on August 26, 1997. These sums are in addition to the Rs 250 per month that the respondent has previously been paying to the children under Section 125 of the Code. The respondent may modify the sums he has previously paid by orders of the Family Court, the High Court, or the interim order of this Court. As a result, the appeal is partially granted.

CONCLUSION

The current decision reflects the equal rights and obligations inherent in both parents of a minor kid. Although Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides several grounds for providing maintenance to those in need, the Supreme Court clarified that when both parents earn a decent living, the father cannot bear the entire burden of looking after his children’s maintenance; the mother must also contribute proportionately.

REFERENCE

This case analysis is drafted by Bhoomi Sharma, a student at Lloyd Law College, and legal intern at legal Vidhya.