Headline: Supreme Court Grants Permission in Maintenance Dispute
In a noteworthy development, Justice Rajesh Bindal has granted permission in a maintenance case where the respondent allegedly declined to accept notice, resulting in the service being deemed complete based on the office report dated October 30, 2023.
This case revolves around an appeal by a minor daughter challenging the alteration of a Family Court order by the High Court. Initially set at Rs. 20,000/- per month, the maintenance was later reduced to Rs. 7,500/- per month by the High Court.
The legal representative for the appellant provided context, revealing that the marriage between the appellant’s mother and the respondent took place in 2008. In September 2022, the Family Court granted a divorce to the respondent-husband and awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000 for the minor daughter. The High Court, however, reduced the amount, citing the respondent’s financial distress.
Despite being served, the respondent has not appeared before the Supreme Court. The appellant, a 6-7-year-old minor, is at the center of the maintenance dispute.
The appellant’s counsel urged the Supreme Court to overturn the High Court’s order and reinstate the Family Court’s decision. In response, the Supreme Court reviewed the case, considering the guidelines established in the landmark judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324.
The court underscored the importance of a standardized procedure for evaluating maintenance, citing the common tendency of parties to provide incomplete or exaggerated information. The guidelines, issued on November 4, 2020, mandate the filing of a standardized Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in all maintenance proceedings, including pending cases. The court’s ruling on this matter will bear implications for the application of these guidelines in future maintenance disputes.
“72. Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings, this Court considers it necessary to frame guidelines in exercise of our powers under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India:
72.1. (a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family Court/District Court/Magistrate’s Court concerned, as the case may be, throughout the country;
72.2. (b) The applicant making the claim for maintenance will be required to file a concise application accompanied with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets;
72.3. (c) The respondent must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The courts may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. If the respondent delays in filing the reply with the affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for this purpose, the court may consider exercising the power to strike off the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be wilful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings [Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain, (2020) 17 SCC 822 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1915] . On the failure to file the affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record;
72.4. (d) The above format may be modified by the court concerned, if the exigencies of a case require the same. It would be left to the judicial discretion of the court concerned to issue necessary directions in this regard.
72.5. (e) If apart from the information contained in the Affidavits of Disclosure, any further information is required, the court concerned may pass appropriate orders in respect thereof.
72.6. (f) If there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek permission of the court to serve interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under Order 11 CPC. On filing of the affidavit, the court may invoke the provisions of Order 10 CPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so. The income of one party is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The court may invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal knowledge of the party concerned.
72.7. (g) If during the course of proceedings, there is a change in the financial status of any party, or there is a change of any relevant circumstances, or if some new information comes to light, the party may submit an amended/supplementary affidavit, which would be considered by the court at the time of final determination.
72.8. (h) The pleadings made in the applications for maintenance and replies filed should be responsible pleadings; if false statements and misrepresentations are made, the court may consider initiation of proceeding under section 340 CrPC, 1973 and for contempt of court.
72.9. (i) In case the parties belong to the economically weaker sections (“EWS”), or are living below the poverty line (“BPL”), or are casual labourers, the requirement of filing the affidavit would be dispensed with.
72.10. (j) The Family Court/District Court/Magistrate’s Court concerned must make an endeavour to decide the IA for interim maintenance by a reasoned order, within a period of four to six months at the latest, after the Affidavits of Disclosure have been filed before the court.
72.11. (k) A professional Marriage Counsellor must be made available in every Family Court.”
Criteria were set forth to ascertain the maintenance amount, specifically focusing on the support for minor children. These guidelines can be located in paragraphs 91 and 92, as presented below:
“Permanent alimony
91. The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for extracurricular/coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed.
92. Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties.”
