Top 10 Landmark Supreme Court & Important Judgment On Maintenance Of Wife & Children

 

 

I. MAINTENANCE UNDER HINDU LAW

 

1. Smt. Chand Dhawan v Jawaharlal Dhawan, (1993) 3 SCC 406

 

In this case a marriage took place in 1972, and in 1985 a petition for mutual divorce was filed at Amritsar. The wife alleged that she was not a consenting party to the petition and thus, it was dismissed. After this, the husband applied for a regular petition for divorce at Ghaziabad on the grounds of wife indulging in adultery. The court granted maintenance for an amount to the wife. The husband did not pay this and therefore the divorce proceedings were stayed.

The wife filed a petition for alimony and permanent maintenance at Amritsar and she was granted maintenance Pendente Lite under an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.  She also claimed permanent alimony under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The husband moved to the High Court seeking revision of the amounts and the wife too approached the High Court for the enhancement of the Sum under both the Sections. The High Court dismissed the applications on the ground.

It was held by the Supreme Court that a claim for permanent maintenance or alimony can be only given when a decree of conjugal rights for judicial separation is given. When the marital status is affected or disrupted by passing of a decree the court can invoke its powers to grant permanent alimony. Since in the present case no such decree was passed a claim for permanent alimony would not stand.

 

2. Mrs. Veena Kalia v Dr. Jatinder Nath Kalia, AIR 1996 Delhi 54

 

In this case, a petition was filed by the wife under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce and for maintenance pendente Lite. The petitions were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had accepted the decree which was rendered by a foreign Court which had dissolved their marriage; as such the petition would be barred by the principles of Res Judicata.

The Court held that the wife had no opportunity of contesting the proceedings before the foreign Court and she was not a party to it. It was held that the ground on which the divorce was given to the husband was that he had been living separately such a ground could not be stained as per the Hindu law of marriage and divorce.

It was held that on a reading of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, a court while granting maintenance would have to consider factors such as the position of both the parties, the conduct of both the parties, their status, the reasonable wants of the claimant and the number of persons entitled to maintain, the expenses for maintaining an unmarried daughter.

It was further held that the quantum of maintenance would also have to be determined considering the cost of living and also the inflation at the present times.

 

3. Kulbhushan Kumar v Raj Kumari, 1971 AIR 234 

 

In this case the appellant was married to the respondent and after sometime the appellant did not wish to live with his wife. A daughter was also born to them and as such the respondent claimed maintenance for self and the child by filing a suit for maintenance under the Hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1956. The trial court had allowed the amount further the High Court increased the amount of maintenance on the petition of the wife.

Aggrieved by the order the husband filed the instant appeal against the order of the High Court on the ground that the High Court had not followed the principles which had been laid down under the Hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956.

It was held by the Supreme Court that even if the wife was getting an amount from her father, it will not be considered as an income for the purpose of considering the quantum of maintenance. It was further held that there was no evidence to prove that she would inherit any property after her father’s death and as such these grounds would be immaterial in a proceeding for grant of maintenance.

 

 

 

II. MAINTENANCE UNDER MUSLIM LAW

 

4. Md. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556

 

The brief facts of the case were that Shah Bano begum was married to an affluent lawyer Mohd. Ahmad Khan in the year 1932 and there was an inheritance dispute going on in their home. Therefore their marriage was annulled in the year 1978.

The husband paid Rs. 3000 as Mehr and Rs. 200 per month as maintenance till iddat period. A suit was filed by Shah Bano because of the meager amount she received as maintenance. The husband contended that he is only required to pay maintenance till iddat period and no more as per the Muslim personal law.

Thereby, Shah Bano Begum filed maintenance proceedings under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.).

The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that if the divorced Muslim woman is unable to maintain herself after the Iddat period, maintenance may be ordered under section 125 of the Cr.P.C in spite of Mehar and maintenance being paid during Iddat.

It was held that Sec 125 of the Cr.P.C. has no bearing on the Religion and its aim is towards Social Justice. If a Muslim woman cannot maintain herself after divorce then she will be given the benefit of Sec 125 Cr. P.C. till the time she remarries.

5. Daniel Latifi v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SCW 3932

In this case the validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was challenged on the ground that the Enactment negated the effect of the Shah bano Judgment. It was contented by the Petitioner that Sec 125 Cr.P.C. was passed in order to achieve Social Achieve and the instant Act kept a Muslim woman at bay from its benefits. Thus it was a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Constitutionality of the Act was saved and it was held by the Court that the social conditions which are prevalent in the society need to be kept in mind.

It was held that the Act says ‘Reasonable and fair provision’ and ‘maintenance’ ‘within the iddat period it means the lump sum amount ‘within iddat’ for the rest of women’s life  and Mehar under section 3(C) does not amount to maintenance under section 3(A).

It was further held that the liability of a Muslim man extends beyond the period of iddat to pay maintenance and thus he has to make a reasonable advance payment during the period of iddat so that the divorced wife can take care of her future needs.

 

 

III. MAINTENANCE OF CHILDREN

6. Noor Saba Khatoon v Mohd. Quasim, AIR 1997 SC 3280

In this case the question before the case was that whether a Muslim child would be entitled to claim maintenance under sec 125 Cr.PC. till they achieve the age of majority and in cases of female child till they are married or the law applicable would be that as per the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

The Apex Court held that there is an obligation which is cast upon the Muslim father as per the personal law and also as per the provisions of statutory law to provide and maintain a child.

It was held that a Muslim child would be entitled to claim maintenance as per the provisions of sec 125 Cr.P.C and the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 would not bar his right till a child attains the age of majority or becomes stable enough to maintain himself.

In the case of a female child the father would be liable to maintain her till she is married irrespective of the fact that she is staying with her divorced mother.

It was further held that a child’s right is independent of the Right of a Muslim woman to claim for maintenance as per the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

 

7. Padmja Sharma v Ratan Lal Sharma, 2000 (2) SCR 621

 

In this case, the appellant was the wife and her marriage with the respondent was dissolved on a decree of divorce that had been filed on the ground of cruelty. In the instant appeal the wife filed an application for enhancement of maintenance of her two minor children born out of the marriage and she also claimed maintenance from the day when she had filed the application for maintenance under sec 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

She argued that she had not been granted the full claim with regard to streedhan and litigation expenses.

After going through the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 it was held that wife is entitled to maintenance by her husband during her lifetime and also that the parents are under an obligation during their lifetime to maintain their children.

A minor child till the time he/she reaches the age of majority would be entitled to maintenance from his or her father or mother. It was held that the obligation of the father to maintain a child is similar to that of the mother and it is not the law that the obligation is only of the father to maintain the minor.

It was held that since in the instant case both the wife and husband were working, the obligation to contribute to the maintenance of the children was on both.

 

8. Dr. R.K. Sood v Usha Rani Sood, I (1997) DMC 588 

 

In this case the question before the court was that whether an application for maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was on only on behalf of the minor child for maintenance could be allowed when the child was in the custody of the mother

In the instant case the respondent was married to the petitioner and a female child was born. An application was filed by the respondent for dissolution of marriage under section 13 of the Act and it was pending. The child was a minor who was in the custody of her mother.

It was held that the provisions of section 24 of the Act are not restricted  the provisions of section 26 of the Act have been made in providing aid to the provisions of section 24 and as such the Court can pass interim orders with regard to maintenance for the minor child.

It was held that an application can be treated as an application under section 26 of the Act and such a scheme would be permissible. It was further held that a father cannot be allowed to run away from the liability to maintain the child.

In order to determine the quantum of maintenance, balance has to be drawn between the need of the child and the income facilities of the father. It was held that the father cannot be allowed to live a grand life whereas the daughter is made to live like a maid.

 

IV.MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 125 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.

9. Savitri W/O Shri Govind Singh v Shri Govind Singh Rawat, 1986 AIR 984

 

In this, the petitioner had filed an application for maintenance from her husband under the provisions of Sec 125 Cr.PC. During the pendency of the application she filed another application praying for a relief that she be provided with an interim maintenance till the period the application is decided finally.

Her application for interim maintenance was dismissed by the lower court on the ground that there was no provision for interim maintenance in the provision.

The Supreme Court while dealing with the question held that even though the provisions did not grant the right to interim maintenance the same can be paid by an order of the court.

It was held that an application would take time to be decided and in the meanwhile the applicant would need something to subsist and to stay alive. It was held that an applicant would be able to enjoy the fruits of the provisions only they were alive till the application was decided finally.

The Court further held that an affidavit stating the grounds as to why an interim maintenance be paid to the applicant be submitted along with the application so that the magistrate may satisfy him/herself as to whether the interim measure is to be allowed or not.

 

10.Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal, AIR 1978 SC 1807

 

In this a petition was filed by the petitioner who was aggrieved by the order of a magistrate who had allowed an application for maintenance under Sec 125 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the mother and two children together. (The section provided for a sum of Rs. 500 back then)

It was argued by him that the Magistrate had exceeded the cap of Rs 500/- and the amount enshrined by the Section if for the whole of wife and children.

It was held by the Court that such a construction was not tenable under law and it would frustrate the intent of the Parliament. It was held that the section provided the remedy separately to a wife and child and their right cannot be read as a whole with regard to the quantum of money.

It was held that the section aims towards social justice and the term whole means all the items of maintenance as a whole and not that all the members of a family are considered as one unit. They are to be considered as different units for the purpose of the section.