Spread the love
DATE OF JUDGEMENT 29th January, 2024
COURTSupreme Court of India 
APPELLANT Yagwati @ Poonam 
BENCHSatish Chandra Sharma, J.


In 1982, Yagwati and Ghanshyam tied the knot and had three kids together. But, their marriage hit a hard patch, and the couple decided to separate. Ghanshyam opted to live with their important youngsters, Abhishek and Aashish, even as Yagwati and their minor baby, Nikki, had been left to fend for themselves. 

In 2007, Ghanshyam married every other lady after obtaining an ex-parte decree in his desire for the dissolution of his marriage with Yagwati beneath the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, Yagwati and Nikki have been nonetheless struggling to make ends meet and filed a software for protection underneath sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Preservation Act, 1956.

Following their application, the circle of relatives court docket granted renovation to both Yagwati and Nikki, spotting their proper monetary assistance from Ghanshyam. This decision highlights the significance of prison frameworks that defend the rights of prone people, such as minor children and financially-based spouses, in instances of separation or dissolution of marriage.


  1. The present attraction(s) is a result of a commonplace order dated 11.11.2016, wherein the High Court of Rajasthan granted the award of upkeep granted to the appellant by the Family Court at Jaipur underneath phase 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 
  1. The High Court increased the maintenance amount from Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month to (i) Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) from the date of applying to the High Court, i.e., 16.05.2009, until 31.12.2005; and (ii) Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month from 01.01.2006 onwards (the “Impugned Order”).
  1. The appellant and respondent were married on 27.04.1982 and had 3 kids collectively – Abhishek, Aashish, and Nikki. But, in 1998, headaches arose in their marriage, leading to their separation. The respondent decided to live with their primary youngsters, Abhishek and Aashish, and left the appellant and Nikki, a minor, to fend for themselves.
  1. The appellant then filed an utility for upkeep under phase 18 of the act, looking for financial aid from the respondent for herself and their minor child. 
  1. But, the appellant turned disenchanted with the amount and appealed to the high court docket for an enhancement of the protection quantity.


  1. Was the appeal for the enhancement of the maintenance awarded by the High Court valid?


  1. Yagwati has raised her concerns about the upkeep provided to her and her minor daughter Nikki by using the excessive courtroom, contending that it’s far inadequate to meet their wishes. 
  1. She has pointed out that Ghanshyam, her husband, has extra financial potential than what has been considered, as he has remarried and is dwelling with of their predominant kids, Abhishek and Aashish. 
  1. Yagwati has additionally invoked sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Preservation Act, 1956, which furnish a wife and minor youngsters the proper to claim renovation from the husband or father, respectively. 
  1. She has pleaded for a truthful evaluation of maintenance, considering the family’s common monetary state of affairs and the proper well-being of all its participants, and no longer simply Ghanshyam’s responsibilities towards his new family.


  1. Ghanshyam contended that the protection offered by way of the family courtroom changed into adequate and reasonable. He argued that it correctly considered his financial ability and the needs of Yagwati and Nikki. He provided certain financial statements to assist his claim and demonstrated that he turned into enjoying his responsibilities towards his former circle of relatives.
  1. Ghanshyam emphasized that he had remarried and become helping his new circle of relatives. He maintained that his duties were commonly in the direction of his modern wife and youngsters. He asked the courtroom to take into account this truth at the same time as determining the upkeep amount and advised that any decision should now not adversely affect the well-being of his cutting-edge own family.
  1. Ghanshyam argued that the court’s decision was legitimate and legally sound and has to now not be reconsidered.
  1. Ghanshyam entreated the court to bear in mind an equitable division of sources, taking into account the overall economic scenario of both events. He asked the court to take into consideration his modern financial responsibilities in the direction of his new family and his responsibilities in the direction of his children. He also emphasized the want for a fair and just distribution of belongings that might not unfairly gain one party over the opposite.


The Court added the judgment within the case between Yagwati (Poonam) and Ghanshyam on January 29, 2024. The court ruled in favor of Bhagwati, granting an enhancement of the maintenance offered via the excessive court docket. The selection recognized the inadequacy of the initial protection quantity and took into consideration Ghanshyam’s economic ability and his duties toward his former family.

The courtroom stated that Yagwati and her minor daughter Nikki had been entitled to a greater preservation allowance that would enable them to maintain a reasonable general of residing. The court additionally referred to the fact that Ghanshyam had remarried and had a new own family to support, but emphasized that his obligations closer to his former own family could not be unnoticed.

In its ruling, the court docket directed Ghanshyam to pay a greater upkeep amount to Yagwati and Nikki each month. The amount took into consideration Ghanshyam’s monetary ability and his obligations towards his modern family. The court docket additionally ordered an equitable department of assets, ensuring that both parties received an honest percentage of the sources.

The courtroom’s selection recognized the importance of supplying adequate assistance to a former spouse and their dependent children after a divorce. It emphasized the need for a truthful and just distribution of assets and preservation that would permit each party to keep an affordable standard of dwelling.


In the case of Yagwati (Poonam) v. Ghanshyam, the Supreme Court of India performed a meticulous analysis of the prison provisions concerned, along with the Hindu Adoption and Preservation Act, 1956, and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 

The court identified the want to reevaluate the renovation quantity presented by the Jaipur family court, which was deemed inadequate via Yagwati. 

Ghanshyam argued that his economic potential had diminished because of retirement, and he is now receiving a pension from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). 

After weighing both events’ arguments and thinking about the altered occasions after retirement, the court docket dominated in prefer of Yagwati, granting an enhancement of the maintenance amount. The courtroom’s choice was primarily based on a radical analysis of the data and prison provisions.


After a radical evaluation of the criminal provisions and arguments supplied by both parties, the Supreme Court of India concluded that Yagwati (Poonam) changed into entitled to an enhancement of the upkeep offered through the excessive court docket. The court diagnosed that the initial protection amount was inadequate and did not as it should be mirror Ghanshyam’s financial potential.

 The Court took into consideration Ghanshyam’s monetary scenario after retirement, which included his pension from Bharat Sanchar Nigam restricted (BSNL). The court docket diagnosed that Yagwati and her minor daughter Nikki had been entitled to a greater considerable upkeep allowance that would allow them to hold an inexpensive fashionable of residing. The court docket’s choice aimed to ensure a truthful and simple decision for both parties concerned within the prison dispute. It identified the importance of imparting adequate support to a former partner and their established kids after a divorce. The choice considered Ghanshyam’s obligations closer to his modern circle of relatives but emphasized that his responsibilities in the direction of his former family could not be omitted. 

Overall, the supreme court docket’s judgment in Yagwati (Poonam) v. Ghanshyam aimed to offer a truthful and equitable resolution that considered the economic capability and needs of each event concerned.


  1. Yagwati @ Poonam vs Ghanshyam on 29 January, 2024 (indiankanoon.org)
  1. primelegal.in
  1. bhattandjoshiassociates.com
  1. lawinsider.in

This Article is written by Samruddhi Lele, student of Shankarao Chavan Law College Pune (MMSCLC); 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.


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *