| CITATION | 2024 INSC 76 |
| CASE NUMBER | Civil appeal no. 1318-1319 of 2024 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 29th January, 2024 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Yagwati @Poonam |
| RESPONDENT | Ghanshyam |
| BENCH | Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma |
INTRODUCTION
The present judgment deals with the issue of enhancement of maintenance of the appellant/wife and her daughter. In this case, both the parties who are husband and wife had started living separately because of a disputed marriage and the appellant/wife filed a maintenance application and the Family Court allowed it, however the appellant/wife approached the appellant courts for enhancement of maintenance.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
- That the marriage of the appellant/wife and respondent/husband was solemnized on 27.04.1982 and 3 children came to borne out of the wedlock i.e., (i) Abhishek; (ii) Aashish; and (iii) Nikki.
- That in 1998, the marriage of the parties suffered complications which led to the parties residing separately. The respondent chose to reside with 2 of his major children, and the appellant started living with her minor daughter Nikki. The respondent left both of them.
- That the respondent had filed for divorce under section 13 of Hindu marriage Act and ex-parte divorce was also granted by the Family Court of Jaipur. Then the respondent re-married with another girl.
- That appellant also filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside ex-parte divorce decree, which was allowed vide order dated 09.09.2011 and divorce petition which was filed by the respondent/husband was also restored.
- That the appellant had filed a application under section 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Family Court, Jaipur granted maintenance of Rs 3000/- per month to the appellant, Rs 5000/- per month to the daughter until she stain the age of majority and Rs 2000/- as litigation court vide order dated 15.04.2009.
- That the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan. The Hon’able High Court enhanced the maintenance and ordered Rs 6000/- per month to the appellant and Rs 10,000/- per month to the daughter. Now against this impugned order dated 11.11.2016, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Apex Court.
QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED;
Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of maintenance which is granted by impugned order dated 11.11.2016?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT-
1. The appellant contended that the respondent was working in BSNL company and the respondent was earning considerable salary in relation to his obligation qua the maintenance of the appellant and minor daughter.
2. The appellant contended that the last withdrawn salary of the respondent from BSNL company was Rs .1,05,871/- as per RTI report, filed by the appellant.
3. The appellant also contended that the respondent has not paid maintenance to the appellant despite of clear direction of Hon’able High Court of Rajasthan vide impugned order 11-11-2016 that the respondent have to pay maintenance to the appellant on or before 11-11-2017.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT-
The respondent contended that the respondent is not earning the amount to the tune of Rs 1,05,871/- as the respondent has retired from BSNL company and living on pension basis. Hence, the order of the High Court is appropriate.
FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE APEX COURT-
1. After considering the contentions of both the parties, the Apex Court granted maintenance of Rs 20,000/- per month to the appellant with effect from the date of this Order.
2. Furthermore, the arrears payable in respect of the maintenance due to the Appellant shall be payable in equal installments by the respondent in addition to the regular maintenance as quantified by the Apex Court above.
3. The Apex Court also directed the family court to quantify the arrears pending towards the respondent and fixate the duration.
4. The Apex Court also clarify that the regular maintenance i.e. Rs 20,000/- and additional installment of arrears, quantified by Family Court, shall not exceed 50% of pension of the respondent.
ANALYSIS–
The respondent has not produced many contentions except the one contention that he had retired from his job of BSNL, however the court considered this fact the respondent was earning handsome salary before retirement, now also the respondent is getting pension but he never paid single penny to the appellant. After considering all this, the Apex Court increased the maintenance of the appellant qua the income of the respondent and also directed the Family Court to quantify arrears which would be paid through installment, affixed by family court.
CONCLUSION-
This case is related with the issue of increasing maintenance to the appellant/wife and her daughter. The apex court increased the maintenance of the appellant according to the income of the respondent so that she may not be deprived from her rights to live with dignity as the respondent husband is liable to maintain his wife and daughter. However, the court gave directions after considering the situation of both the parties and passed an order for the benefit of both the parties as the Apex Court also directed Family Court not to increase arrears + regular maintenance more than 50% of pension.
REFERENCES-
Indian kanoon website –
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129669276
This article is written by Amanpreet Kaur, Advocate, graduated from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Intern at LegalVidiya.
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.
0 Comments