Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a recent decision, the Patna High Court dismissed a husband’s challenge against an order granting interim maintenance to his estranged wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife had been awarded Rs. 5,000 per month as interim maintenance and Rs. 15,000 as litigation costs during the pendency of the matrimonial suit filed by the husband.
The petitioner argued that he was willing to take back his wife and accused her of being unwilling to return to the matrimonial home. He also claimed that she was financially independent, working as a computer teacher and earning Rs. 10,000 per month, whereas he had no source of income.
The wife, however, alleged that she was subjected to cruelty for dowry soon after the marriage. She stated that her family had to pay Rs. 2 lakhs after a panchayat intervention to allow her return to her matrimonial home. Even after the birth of their daughter, she faced further demands for dowry. Eventually, the husband abandoned her and their child at a bus stand in 2015. She has been residing with her elderly parents since then and has also initiated criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC against her husband and his family.
In her application for interim maintenance, the wife asserted that she had no independent source of income, whereas her husband owned a jewellery shop and earned about Rs. 1 lakh monthly, along with additional rental income from a house he owned.
The Family Court found that the husband failed to produce any evidence of the wife’s income. He did not deny their marriage or the birth of their daughter, who stays with the wife. As such, the court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month and Rs. 15,000 for litigation.
The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that maintenance under Section 24 is meant to alleviate the financial hardship of a dependent spouse. Even if the wife earns a modest amount, she is entitled to support if her income is insufficient to sustain herself and her child.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [(2014) 16 SCC 715], the High Court reiterated that mere earning by a spouse is not a ground to reject a maintenance claim. The burden is on the party alleging income to provide proof, which the petitioner failed to do.
Therefore, finding no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s order, the High Court refused to interfere under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the protective intent of interim maintenance provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act. It makes clear that:
- A woman’s basic income does not bar her from receiving maintenance if she is still financially dependent.
- Allegations without proof of a spouse’s income are insufficient to deny maintenance.
- The Court prioritizes the financial security of estranged wives and children, especially in cases involving allegations of cruelty and abandonment.
This decision strengthens the principle that matrimonial litigation should not leave the financially weaker spouse vulnerable or at the mercy of the other.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether a wife earning a basic income is entitled to interim maintenance?
- Yes, if the income is insufficient for her sustenance.
- Can the husband avoid paying maintenance by claiming the wife is unwilling to return?
- No, particularly if the wife has alleged and initiated proceedings for cruelty or dowry harassment.
- Did the Family Court err in granting interim maintenance?
- No, the High Court found the order legal and justified.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715
Case Title
Pramod Kumar v. Sandhya Kumari Burnwal alias Sandhaya Deep
Case Number
Civil Misc. Jurisdiction No. 864 of 2018
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 100
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the Petitioner: Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, Advocate
- For the Respondent: Name not mentioned in the order
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjODY0IzIwMTgjMSNO-zxesavApOVQ=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
