“Maintenance pendente lite/permanent alimony u/s 24 or 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 may be claimed by either wife or husband. The phrase “sufficient for her or his support” has to be interpreted to mean that applicant is able to maintain with reasonable comfort and standard of living which applicant was accustomed in matrimonial home.”
In the context of an appeal pursuant to Section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Division Bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta* of the Delhi High Court addressed a critical matter. The appeal challenged the Family Court’s order dated April 6, 2023, wherein pendente lite maintenance for the appellant-wife was denied, and the respondent-husband was directed to remit Rs. 20,000 per month for the maintenance of the minor child.
Background:
The matrimonial union under consideration, solemnized on September 2, 2000, bore fruit in the form of a daughter born on December 10, 2010. Allegations of cruelty, desertion, and the compelling of separate habitation led the wife to initiate dissolution proceedings under Sections 13(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Simultaneously, an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act was filed, seeking Rs. 75,000 per month for both herself and the minor daughter. The respondent-husband, while consenting to divorce, became non-responsive during subsequent proceedings, leading to his being proceeded ex parte.
The wife, possessing qualifications in LLB and MBA, and professionally engaged in Gems and Gemology through the entity IDT Laboratory, disclosed the financial particulars of her business. Additionally, she asserted rental income, fixed deposits, and monthly expenditure, including educational expenses for the child. The Family Court, despite granting a divorce decree, withheld maintenance pendente lite, asserting the wife’s self-sufficiency. The husband, a practicing advocate, was directed to pay Rs. 20,000 per month for the minor child’s maintenance.
Court’s Decision:
Drawing guidance from the precedent in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court underscored the absence of a rigid framework for maintenance determination. Relevant considerations encompassed the parties’ status, reasonable needs, educational and professional qualifications, independent income, and the capacity to maintain the accustomed standard of living. The Court meticulously evaluated the husband’s longstanding practice as an advocate and emphasized the necessity for a pragmatic maintenance quantum.
The Court rejected the contention that the wife’s personal earnings precluded her entitlement to maintenance, emphasizing the husband’s heightened obligation. It elucidated that various statutes, such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, were imbued with the constitutional principle under Article 15(3).
In the ultimate disposition, the Delhi High Court, modifying the Family Court’s order, accorded the wife an additional maintenance sum of Rs. 15,000 per month, over and above the Rs. 20,000 designated for the minor child. The Court directed the husband to liquidate arrears promptly.
