| CITATION | AIR 2000 SC 1398 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 28TH MARCH, 2000 |
| COURT | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (SC) |
| PETITIONER | PADMJA SHARMA |
| RESPONDENT | RATAN LAL SHARMA |
| BENCH | D.P. WADHWA & M.B. SHAH |
INTRODUCTION
A child’s development greatly depends on the care and assistance they get during their early years. The maintenance and care of the child from an early age determines their potential in the future. It is the responsibility of both parents to give their children with the needs for their development and well-being. Both Indian legislation and the Indian judiciary firmly recognize this parental responsibility. Whether they live together or apart, the parents still owe it to their kid in terms of social, moral, and legal obligations.
In this case the bench of Justices D.P. Wadhwa and M.B. Shah of the Supreme Court of India re-established the meaning of the term maintenance as it appears in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and applied it to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
(Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 26) provides the provision for passing interim orders with respect to education, maintenance and custody of a minor child, if any proceedings for either regarding dissolution of marriage, restitution of conjugal rights or any other proceedings. Trial or appellate courts have the power to pass such interim maintenance orders.
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 Section 20 lays down provision for maintenance for children and aged parents.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Both the parties are Hindus. On May 2, 1983, their marriage was solemnly performed according to Hindu customs. On January 27, 1984, a son was born as the first child, and on June 28, 1985, another son was born. On May 21, 1990, the wife submitted a petition for a dissolution of the marriage. She also prayed for the children’s maintenance, custody, and guardianship, as well as the restoration of her “streedhan.” She also submitted an application in accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) Section 125 at the same time.
The wife filed a petition in the Family Court on August 2, 1991, under Section 26 of the Act, seeking maintenance for both children at an amount of Rs. 25,75 per month. However, maintenance was requested for both children at an amount of Rs. 2,500 per month in the affidavit that accompanied the plea. It was brought to light that the husband’s monthly salary was Rs. 6233.40. In addition, the wife sought Rs. 5,000 for legal fees and Rs. 1,585 for the children’s school enrollment cost.
On October 27, 1995, the wife filed a fresh application under Section 26 of the Act, referencing her earlier August 2, 1991 application to the court. At that time, she was demanding Rs. 2,500 a month for every child. She said that in August 1995, her husband’s pay had increased to Rs. 12,225. On August 26, 1997, Wife submitted a second application under the previously stated Act Section.
On October 4, 1997, the respondent’s wife got a divorce decree from the Family Court, dissolving their marriage.
The Family Court granted a decision of Rs. 1,00,000 as the cost of the items in response to a claim of Rs. 1,80,000 for “streedhan,” with an alternate plea accessible if the respondent failed to return the things the wife mentioned in her petition. It was additionally ordered that maintenance be provided to each kid at the rate of Rs. 500 per month starting on October 4, 1997, and that both children stay in the care of the mother, the appellant, until they attain the age of majority. A payment of Rs. 1,000 was given to the wife for the expense of the court proceedings.
The wife filed a petition at the High Court, requesting a decree for the full sum of Rs. 1,80,000 as well as an increase in child maintenance. By its contested decision, the High Court awarded each kid Rs. 500 per month starting on the date of the application and raised the children’s monthly allowances from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1,000, effective from the date of the Family Court’s October 4, 1997 order.
ISSUES RAISED
- Is it proper to file a case for the augmentation of maintenance under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Supreme Court of India?
- Is the father the only one who has to make arrangements for his child’s maintenance?
CONTENTIONS OF PLAINTIFF
- In the current instance, the appeal wife said that she had been harassed by the respondent husband on a regular basis, which had caused the trial before the Family Court to be delayed, in addition to her claims before the High Court and the Apex Court.
- The husband complained to the Apex Court at the case’s hearing that he couldn’t get legal counsel in the Family Court, even though the wife’s father, a lawyer, was representing her and that she didn’t say anything when her father fought in court.
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT
1.The party that was responding to the court has not shown up. The spouse’s ex-parte agreements have been heard by the court.
JUDGEMENT
The ratio decidendi and obiter dicta comprise a case’s verdict. Both of these elements are included in the verdict in the current case.
Ratio decidendi
Given that an order under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is never final and that the decree made under it is always subject to alteration, the appellant may reapply to the Family Court for an increase in support if the circumstances have changed sufficient to justify it.
Obiter dicta
The laws that apply to Hindus are outlined in the Obiter dicta Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; and Hindu Succession Act, 1956. To interpret a particular provision, a definition of a term may be derived from any of the four Acts that comprise the law, unless there is something unacceptable in the context. It is necessary to read these Acts consecutively and comprehend them in light of one another.
Views expressed by the court :
1.The Apex Court granted the appeal in part. The respondent is required to pay Rs. 500 monthly for each of his children starting on August 2, 1991, Rs. 1,000 monthly starting on October 27, 1995, and Rs. 1,500 monthly starting on August 26, 1997, for the second and third applications. These amounts are extra to the Rs. 250 monthly allowance that the respondent has been providing the children in accordance with Section 125 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure. Under rulings from the Family Court, High Court, or the Supreme Court’s interim order, the respondent was allowed to alter the amounts he had previously paid.
2. A person is obligated to provide for their aged or ailing parents or an unmarried daughter to the degree that the parent or daughter, as applicable, is unable to sustain themselves out of their own income or other assets. A monthly payment of Rs. 3,000 for each child, to be shared equally by both parents in a 2:1 ratio, would be sufficient to sustain them, the Apex Court decided after considering the whole picture and taking into account that a mother living with her children is considered a “parent” in this case.
CONCLUSION
The current ruling reflects the equal rights and obligations placed on a minor child’s parents. The Apex Court made it clear that, in cases where both parents make an adequate living, the mother must also make a proportionate contribution to the maintenance of her children, even though Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides multiple grounds for providing maintenance to those who are in need of it.
REFERENCES
https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/padmja-sharma-vs-ratan-lal-sharma-22506
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1810824/
This Article is written by Simran Haider Pathan, student at Balaji Law College of Pune, Maharashtra, Intern at 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.
