Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of Family Court Act, 1984 against an order passed by the Family Court under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, whereby the Family Court has directed the husband to pay one time Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses to the wife in the case and also directed him to pay one time Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs and Rs.500/ per hearing, within 30 days from the date of order, the division bench of Vivek Chaudhary and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ. held that there was no evidence indicating that the wife lacked an independent income, while it was established that the husband, a Colonel in the Indian Army, earned a substantial salary. Hence, the Family Court’s decision to award the wife Rs. 50,000 for filing a reply, along with Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 500 per hearing, payable by the husband within 30 days, was deemed reasonable and not requiring interference.
Background:
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23-01-2011 and out of the said wedlock, one son was born in 2015. Apparently, the matrimonial relations between the parties become strained and due to indifference, the wife started living separately. In the aforesaid background, the husband filed for a divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), before the Family Court, wherein, the wife moved an application under Section 24 of HMA seeking pendente-lite maintenance, which was allowed by the Family Court. Aggrieved, the husband filed the present appeal.
Issue: Whether based on pleading and evidence, the Family Court has rightly allowed the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court clarified that by the impugned order the Court has granted only the expenses which the wife is going to make in the divorce suit before the Family Court. Therefore, if any amount is being paid under the orders of the Department for the maintenance of children, the same does not in any manner impact on the expenses which the wife is required to make in the suit before the Family Court.
The Court noted that the husband is a Colonel in Indian Army, and he is having good source of income. However, the wife has no source of income for her livelihood and her child as well as she is also not getting any maintenance.
The Court reiterated that a husband’s obligation to maintain his wife arises on marriage, whereas such an obligation towards the children arises on their birth. These obligations are imposed on him by operation of law. It is also a moral obligation imposed upon him, and it would rather be ‘immoral’ and ‘illegal’ to deny them maintenance.
Further, the Court viewed that it is a sacred duty of an able-bodied husband or father, towards his wife and children to maintain in all circumstances.
The Court observed that in matrimonial proceedings, wives and children often find themselves in opposition to the husband or father, with the parties not always on equal footing. While some women may receive financial support from their parents or siblings, or earn their own livelihood in exceptional cases, many are unable to cope with the financial burden of such proceedings. This financial vulnerability is often exploited by husbands, leaving women and children at a significant disadvantage during legal battles.
The Court highlighted the importance of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which seeks to address the financial imbalance often faced by wives during matrimonial proceedings. Under this provision, the wife can seek maintenance from the husband during the pendency of the case, ensuring that she is not left financially vulnerable while the legal proceedings are ongoing. Section 24 is crucial in providing a temporary financial arrangement (pendente-lite), allowing the wife to defend her case effectively and ensuring that she is on equal footing with her husband, at least financially. The provision aims to create a fiction of equality, enabling both parties to pursue the case on an equal level, with the wife receiving the necessary support to cover legal expenses and continue the litigation. Thus, this interim maintenance came to be called ‘pendente lite maintenance’, which is also in the nature of a ‘temporary alimony’ to the wife and is in the nature of granting ‘interim relief’, ‘interim measure’, ‘interim protection’ etc.
The Court reiterated that the maintenance granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act should be a “reasonable and fair” amount, allowing the wife to maintain herself in accordance with the lifestyle she is accustomed to, her entitled status, or the husband’s mode of living. However, it emphasized that the maintenance cannot be for a luxurious lifestyle or exceed the husband’s financial capacity. For children, the maintenance should also cover their educational expenses, as well as litigation costs, including travel expenses for attending court hearings. This ensures that the wife and children are provided the necessary support during the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings.
The Court stated that the object of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to provide financial support to a spouse during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings. This provision ensures that the spouse can maintain themselves and have sufficient funds to carry on the litigation, preventing undue hardship due to lack of financial resources. Section 24 aims to help the spouse, particularly the wife, withstand the financial strain caused by separation and navigate through matrimonial proceedings initiated by the other party. It ensures the survival of the wife during the legal process and extends to cover appeals, revisions, and related proceedings arising from the matrimonial case, including pendente lite maintenance.
The Court mentioned that the significance of maintenance orders passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is further highlighted by the fact that these orders are made enforceable in the same manner as a Civil Court decree, as per Section 51 and Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This ensures that the maintenance granted during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings is legally binding and can be enforced. However, these maintenance orders will cease once the matrimonial proceedings are concluded, as they are intended to provide temporary support during the legal process.
In this case, the Court noted that there was no adjudication on whether the wife was staying away from the husband without justifiable cause. However, the primary focus of the Court was on the wife’s financial situation, as outlined in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, specifically whether she has independent and sufficient income for her upkeep.
The Court held that there was no evidence to suggest that the wife lacked an independent income, while it was established that the husband, a Colonel in the Indian Army, earned a substantial salary. Given this, the Family Court’s decision to award the wife Rs. 50,000 for filing a reply, along with Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 500 per hearing, payable by the husband within 30 days, was found to be reasonable.
The Court emphasised that there was no perversity in the Family Court’s order, and as such, the decision did not warrant interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, as the Court found no illegality or infirmity in the order.
[Arun Pandey v. Neha Pandey, 2024 SCC OnLine All 6955, decided on 11-11-2024]
Advocate who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Appellant: Advocate Prachish Pandey
