Chetram Mali Vs Karishma Saini on 21 Nov 2023

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows:

From Para 6,

6. XX
…
It may be noticed that though respondent claims to have no independent source of income but has reasonable educational background being a graduate from Delhi University. She appears to have voluntarily undertaken social work as claimed despite there being no impediment for undertaking a meaningful employment. The spouse having a reasonable capacity of earning but who chooses to remain unemployed and idle without any sufficient explanation or indicating sincere efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to saddle the other party with one sided responsibility of meeting out the expenses. The equivalence does not have to be with mathematical precision but with the objective to provide relief to the spouse by way of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, who is unable to maintain and support during the pendency of proceedings and to ensure that party should not suffer due to paucity of source of income. The provision is gender neutral and the provisions of Section 24 & 25 of HMA provide for the rights, liabilities and obligations arising from marriage between the parties under HMA.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Sameer Datta Kadam Vs Supriya Sameer Kadam

Posted on June 30, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Interim Maintenance of 5 lakhs per month was granted by Trial Court which was challenged at Bombay High Court. High Court did not find any error in the Interim Order of the trial Court. It held that the Trial Court rightly gave reasons for granting the interim maintenance from the date of application instead of from the date of Order.

Sameer Datta Kadam Vs Supriya Sameer Kadam on 10 Jan 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42033330/

https://www.legitquest.com/case/sameer-datta-kadam-v-supriya-sameer-kadam/1E27A6

Supreme Court also denied to interfere into the Interlocutory Order but extended the time to settle the arrears from 4 weeks to 8 weeks.

Sameer Datta Kadam Vs Supriya Sameer Kadam on 08 Feb 2019

Source:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83077908/

Sujit Kumar Vs Vandana on 08 Aug 2016

Posted on January 19, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Delhi High Court said the follow about HMA 24…

11. The object behind Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to provide for maintenance, pendente-lite, to a spouse in matrimonial proceedings so that during the pendency of the proceedings the spouse can maintain herself/himself and also have sufficient funds to carry on the litigation so that the spouse does not unduly suffer in the conduct of the case for want of funds.
12. A spouse unable to maintain himself/herself is entitled to maintenance on the principle of equi-status and respect that the spouse would have enjoyed if he/she continued to live with other spouse.
13. The provisions of Section 24 are beneficent in nature and the power is exercised by the Court not only out of compassion but also by way of judicial duty so that the indigent spouse may not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse. The legislature, in its discretion, has not fixed any guideline regarding ceiling limit of maintenance, pendente-lite, as in the case of Divorce Act or Parsi Marriage Act. The word ‘support’ in Section 24 is not to be narrowly interpreted. It does not mean bare existence. It means that the claimant spouse should have the same comfort as the other. Of course, the Section is not intended to bring about arithmetical equality between the two.
14. The Court while considering the merits of an application for grant of an interim maintenance under Section 24 has to necessarily arrive at prima-facie determination about the earning capacity of the rival claimants. The determination cannot be made with exactitude; it is essentially interim in nature. The Court is called upon to make a summary consideration of amount which the applicant is to be awarded by way of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses in accordance with the financial resources of the parties. Capacity of the other party to earn cannot be taken into consideration – it is only the actual earning of the opposite party on the basis of which relief can be granted. Permanent income and not casual income is relevant. For example if a husband brings on record that the non-applicant wife earns some amount by taking coaching classes for children, this cannot be termed as her permanent income or that the wife has independent permanent source of income. The proceedings being summary, the matter has to be decided on the basis of pleadings supported by affidavits and the documents that may be filed by the parties in support of their case.
15. Where there was sufficient means in the family of the husband on the strength of which the husband got married he has to share the burden to support his wife during the course of annulment of such marriage.

Sujit Kumar Vs Vandana on 08 Aug 2016

Citations : [2016 SCC ONLINE DEL 4397]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182704867/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/581180f42713e179479e391b

https://indiajusticefoundation.org/sujit-kumar-vs-vandana-delhi-high-court-08-08-2016/

Maintenance Judgments

Posted on October 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Maintenance judgments by Enactment

Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Marriage Act here.

Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC here.

Maintenance for Limited Time Period here.

Maintenance after Mutual Consent Divorce here.

Agreements against Public Policy are Void here.

A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha on how to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.

Another 2-judge bench of Apex Court has to Order re-circulation of above judgment in Aditi Sharma Vs Jitesh Sharma, because the Trial Court Judges stopped following Supreme Court judgement here. Exactly after 3 long years!!!

Telangana High Court gave a wonderful order here, confirming that any order passed by Trial Courts, without calling for the Income affidavits is void ab initio and therefore is liable to set aside and matters will be remanded back to the same Trial Courts for fresh adjudication.

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Dr. Deepak K S Vs Dr. Sowmya Sharath on 23 March, 2018

Posted on May 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a funny judgment where by a highly qualified wife is granted maintenance under Section 24 of HMA.

Don’t miss to read the para 12

Dr. Deepak K S Vs Dr. Sowmya Sharath on 23 March, 2018

XXX Vs Amitabh Sinha on 27 Jul 2017

Posted on May 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This Maintenance order, under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, is modified ‘from the date of order’ to ‘from date of application’ by Karnataka High Court, thereby enormously enhancing the overall interim maintenance to be paid by husband.

XXX Vs Amitabh Sinha on 27 Jul 2017

Note: Name (and Address) of the Petitioner redacted upon her request email dt: 05 Jul 2023

Pradeep Kumar Vs Ratna Sharma on 3 July, 2009

Posted on May 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Judgment from Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was help non-working Knife has to be given maintenance.

Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ratna Sharma on 3 July, 2009

Bharat Hegde vs Saroj Hegde on 24 April, 2007

Posted on April 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another Key Judgement from Delhi High Court elucidating the judicial principles required to be applied while deciding an Interim Maintenance application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

This is a case involving the son of Ex CM of Karnataka State of India, Mr. Rama Krishna Hegde.

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act goes a step further inasmuch as it permits maintenance to be claimed by the husband even against the wife.

It should not expose the non applicant to unjust contempt or other coercive proceedings. On the other hand, maintenance should not be so low so as to make the order meaningless.

Tax avoidance is the norm. Tax compliance is the exception in this country. Therefore, in determining interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude.

The 11 factors for consideration are:

1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of the claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non applicant has to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar life style as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non applicant.
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.
10. The non applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
11. The amount awarded u/s. 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/s. 24 of the Act.”

If the capital asset is an industrial property, a coffee plantation, an orchard or any other agricultural holding, there would be a presumption that the said capital asset is yielding some income. It is not presumed to be a dead asset.

But where the law requires a Judge to form an opinion based on a host of primary data, a Judge can formulate an opinion pertaining to the likely income from the capital assets of the husband.

It is a well recognized principle of law that where a person withholds vital information, a presumption arises against him that had he disclosed the information, the same would have been adverse to him.

Sh. Bharat Hegde vs Smt. Saroj Hegde on 24 April, 2007

Citations : 140 (2007) DLT 16

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/260066/

Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997

Posted on April 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Read this judgment from Supreme Court of India which is important in more than one ways.

Lower Courts are impleaded as respondents:

It is not proper or even justified on the part of the appellant to implead the courts as respondents and respondents 1 and 2 are, therefore, struck off from the record of this appeal.

It does appear to us from the affidavit of the husband that it conceals more than what it tells of his income and other assets. Attempt has been made to conceal his true income and that leads us to draw an adverse inference against the husband about his income that it is much more than what is being disclosed to us.

Considering the diverse claims made by the parties one inflating the income and the other suppressing an element of conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the income of the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision.

Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those; he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. Amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.

Date from which Interim maintenance can be claimed:

If wife has no source of income it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and also children of the marriage on the basis of the provision contained in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Her right to claim maintenance fructifies on the date of the filing of the petition for divorce under the Act.

The court has discretion in the matter as to from which date maintenance under Section 24 of the Act should be granted.

Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997

Rani Sethi vs Sunil Sethi on 31 March, 2011

Posted on April 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a verdict from Delhi High Court dismissing petition of the wife that is filed against the Trial court order to pay maintenance to Husband along with litigation expenses and a car for his usage !!

One should appreciate the detailed dissection made by the Hon’ble Court, of the financial information made available by parties in arriving at the conclusion.

The purpose of section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is to provide support to a spouse who has no independent source of income and is incapable of maintaining himself/herself. It is trite law that the term “support” is not to be construed in a narrow manner so as to mean bare subsistence. It means that the other spouse, who has no independent source of income, is provided with such maintenance so as to live in a similar status as was enjoyed by them in their matrimonial home. It is the purpose of section 24 that the wife or the husband who has no sufficient source of income for her or his support or for the expenses of the proceedings must be provided with such reasonable sum that strikes equity between the spouses.

Rani Sethi vs Sunil Sethi on 31 March, 2011

The Supreme Court Judgment of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge, Dehradun & Others is available here.

The Delhi High Court judgment of Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde is available here that talks about the 11 factors to be considered an application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act.

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: HM Act 24 – Interim Maintenance Granted

Chetram Mali Vs Karishma Saini on 21 Nov 2023

Sameer Datta Kadam Vs Supriya Sameer Kadam

Sujit Kumar Vs Vandana on 08 Aug 2016

Maintenance Judgments

Dr. Deepak K S Vs Dr. Sowmya Sharath on 23 March, 2018

XXX Vs Amitabh Sinha on 27 Jul 2017

Pradeep Kumar Vs Ratna Sharma on 3 July, 2009

Bharat Hegde vs Saroj Hegde on 24 April, 2007

Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997

Rani Sethi vs Sunil Sethi on 31 March, 2011