* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1100 : 2024 INSC 76
Yagwati @ Poonam
v.
Ghanshyam
(Civil Appeal Nos.1318-1319 of 2024)
29 January 2024
[Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Maintenance granted to the appellant by the Family Court, enhanced
by High Court. If to be enhanced further.
Headnotes
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – s.18 – Maintenance
– Enhancement – Parties having three children were residing
separately – Respondent-husband was residing with the
two major children and the appellant-wife was residing with
the minor child – Ex-parte decree of divorce was passed in
favour of the Respondent whereafter he re-married – In the
interregnum, the Appellant sought maintenance u/ss.18, 20,
application was allowed by the Family Court – Later, ex-parte
order decreeing the divorce in favour of the Respondent was
set aside; and the application u/s.13, Hindu Marriage Act
filed by the Respondent was restored – Cross-appeal(s) filed
against the Order of the Family Court – Maintenance granted
was enhanced by High Court – Appellant sought further
enhancement contending that the Respondents’ salary had
increased significantly, relying upon an RTI application filed
with BSNL revealing that the Respondent was last drawing a
salary of Rs.1,05,871/- per month serving as Assistant Manager,
BSNL – Respondent submitted that he has since attained the
age of superannuation and no longer receives the said salary
and is only drawing pension from BSNL:
Held: In view of the position of the parties and the totality of
circumstances, the monthly maintenance payable u/s.18 enhanced
from Rs. 10,000/- per month to Rs. 20,000/- per month from the
date of the pronouncement of the present Order – Furthermore, the
arrears payable in respect of the maintenance due to the Appellant
be payable in equal instalments by the Respondent in addition to
the regular maintenance as quantified – Directions issued to the
Family Court. [Paras 11-13]
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1101
Yagwati @ Poonam v. Ghanshyam
List of Acts
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Hindu Marriage Act,
1955; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
List of Keywords
Maintenance; Monthly maintenance; Maintenance enhancement;
Family Court.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.1318-1319 of
2024.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCMA Nos.2834 of 2009
and 1514 of 2010.
Appearances for Parties
Sonal Jain, Ajay Veer Singh, Ms. Divya Garg, Uday Ram Bokadia,
Shubham Singh, Atit Jain, Ajay Jain, Ms. Deepika Jain, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Puneet Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal(s) culminate out of a common order dated
11.11.2016 whereunder the High Court of Rajasthan (the “High
Court”) enhanced the award of maintenance granted to the Appellant
by the Family Court at Jaipur under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act, 1956 (the “Act”) from Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand) per month to (i) Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) from
the date of filing the application before the High Court i.e., 16.05.2009
up until 31.12.2005; and (ii) Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per
month from 01.01.2006 onwards (the “Impugned Order”).
3. The Appellant herein seeks an enhancement of maintenance awarded
by the High Court on the ground that the maintenance awarded by
the High Court is inadequate and does not reflect the true financial
capacity of the Respondent.
1102 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
4. The marriage between the Appellant and Respondent came to be
solemnized on 27.04.1982, thereafter 3 (three) children came to
borne out of the wedlock i.e., (i) Abhishek; (ii) Aashish; and (iii) Nikki.
Subsequently in 1998, the marriage encountered complications which
led to the parties residing separately. Pertinently, the Respondent
chose to reside with 2 (two) of his major children, namely (i) Abhishek;
and (ii) Aashish. Accordingly, the Respondent left the Appellant and
Nikki i.e., a minor, to fend for themselves.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Respondent filed an application
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the “HMA”)
seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties. Vide an
order dated 31.05.2005, an ex-parte decree came to be passed
in favour of the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent married
another lady on 20.07.2007.
6. In the interregnum, the Appellant preferred an application before the
Family Court, Jaipur seeking maintenance under Section 18 and
Section 20 of the Act. Vide an order dated 15.04.2009, the Family
Court, Jaipur allowed the Appellants’ application, and accordingly
granted maintenance as follows:
(i) Appellant: Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month
w.e.f from 15.04.2009;
(ii) Nikki: Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month w.e.f from
15.04.2009 until Nikki attained the age of majority; and
(iii) Litigation Cost: Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand)
(hereinafter referred to as the “Underlying Order”)
7. Subsequently, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the “CPC”) came to be preferred by the
Appellant. Vide an order dated 09.09.2011, in the aforesaid application,
the ex-parte order decreeing the divorce in favour of the Respondent
came to be set aside; and accordingly, the application under Section
13 of the HMA preferred by the Respondent was restored.
8. The parties preferred cross-appeal(s) against the Underlying Order of
the Family Court, Jaipur which came to be disposed of by the High
Court vide the Impugned Order. In the present appeal, the Appellant
has drawn the attention of this Court to the considerable salary that
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1103
Yagwati @ Poonam v. Ghanshyam
the Respondent was drawing from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
(“BSNL”), whilst dragging his feet in relation to his obligations qua
maintenance under the Impugned Order.
9. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has
submitted that the Respondents’ salary has increased significantly.
In this regard he has relied upon a Right to Information (“RTI”)
application filed with BSNL, whereunder it is revealed that the
Respondent was last drawing a handsome salary of Rs.1,05,871/-
(Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy-One)
per month whilst serving as Assistant Manager, BSNL. Accordingly, it
is prayed that the maintenance awarded by the High Court ought to
be enhanced further. Pertinently, it was also brought to the attention
of this Court that the arrear(s) of maintenance have not been paid
to the Appellant despite a categorical direction from the High Court
to clear the arrear(s) of maintenance within 1 (one) year from date
of the Impugned Order i.e., on or before 11.11.2017.
10. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the Respondent submitted that the Respondent has since attained
the age of superannuation and accordingly, no longer receives the
aforementioned salary. It was submitted that the Respondent is only
drawing pension from BSNL; and that the maintenance granted by
the High Court ought not to be interfered with.
11. Considering the position of the parties and the totality of circumstances
surrounding the present appeal(s), we are of the considered view
that the Appellant should be granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Thousand) per month as maintenance with effect from the
date of this Order.
12. We accordingly allow the appeal(s) preferred by the Appellant and
enhance the monthly maintenance payable under Section 18 of
the Act from Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month to Rs.
20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) per month with effect from the
date of the pronouncement of this Order. Furthermore, the arrears
payable in respect of the maintenance due to the Appellant shall be
payable in equal instalments by the Respondent in addition to the
regular maintenance as quantified by us above.
13. Resultantly, in furtherance of our orders above, the Family Court,
Jaipur is directed to:
1104 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(i) Quantify the total arrears due to the Appellant in terms of the
Impugned Order;
(ii) Fixate the duration and the quantum of monthly payment
to be made by the Respondent in furtherance of arrears of
maintenance as computed in terms of Paragraph 13(i) above, in
such a manner that the total amount i.e., (a) regular maintenance
to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand); and
(b) the amount quantified towards the extinguishment of arrears
of maintenance does not exceed 50% of the pension drawn by
the Respondent from BSNL;
(iii) Issue necessary directions to the BSNL to ensure that the
total amount i.e., (a) regular maintenance to the extent of Rs.
20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand); and (b) the additional
monthly payment as more particularly identified in 13(ii) above,
is credited into the Appellants’ bank account on an identified
date of every calendar month; and
(iv) A copy of this Order may also be sent to BSNL for necessary
compliance and onward action (if any).
14. Further, it is made clear that the aforementioned quantification
process would not interfere with our direction to the Respondent to
pay the Appellant regular maintenance to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand) per month with effect from the date of
the pronouncement of this Order.
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
