Whether wife can claim interim maintenance so that her income becomes equal with income of husband?

There is no doubt that the appellant has been working with reputed multinational companies. Her own income affidavit reveals that her net income is approximately Rs. 1 Lac per month. There is no child from the wedlock and she has no other liabilities. Looking at the totality of the facts, we find that this is not the case where the appellant is unable to maintain herself. In fact, the earnings of the appellant are sufficient to maintain herself and give her the required comforts of life. The law on the subject as discernible from some of the judgments mentioned above is clear that when a spouse is qualified and has the capacity to earn, normally, interim maintenance is not to be granted. In a given situation, the courts have been granting some maintenance in a case where there is capacity to earn but some other factors prevent the spouse from earning despite making best efforts. However, in a case like the present, where the spouse is qualified and is actually earning, interim maintenance under Section 24 need not be granted. We do not agree with the submission of the appellant that though she is earning a good amount of salary, she should still be given interim maintenance to bring her at par with the lifestyle of the respondent. The provisions of this section are not meant to equalize the income of the wife with that of the husband but are only to see that when divorce or other matrimonial proceedings are filed, either of the party should not suffer because of paucity of source of income and the maintenance is then granted to tie over the litigation expenses and to provide a comfortable life to the spouse. Where, however, both the spouses are earning and have a good salary, merely because there is some salary difference cannot be a reason for seeking maintenance. In the present case, what the appellant seeks is an equalization with the respondent which we are afraid cannot be granted under Section 24.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before G.S Sistani and Jyoti Singh, JJ.)

K.N .  v.    R.G .

MAT. APP(F.C) 93/2018 and CM APPL 18317/2018

Decided on February 12, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7704

MAT. APP(F.C) 93/2018

Print Page

NOTES ON HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955

S 3. Definition:-

c) full blood and half blood- Two persons are said to be related to each other by full blood when they are descended from a common father by the same wife, and by half blood when they are descended from a common father but by different wives;

d) uterine blood -Two persons are said to be related to each other by uterine blood, when they descended from a common mother but by different husbands;

f) Sapinda relationship with reference to any person extends as far as third generation inclusive in the line of ascent through mother and fifth generation inclusive in the line of ascent through father,the line being traced upwards in each case from the person concerned, who is to be counted as the first generation.

Read important judgments on Hindu Marriage Act: Click here

Print Page

Whether fact that husband has retired can be considered by court while granting interim maintenance?

After hearing rival submissions of both parties in
connection with C.O. 2948 of 2015 and C.O. 2614 of 2015 I am
of the view that while awarding pendente lite alimony, Court
should take into the account the income as it stood on the date of
hearing of the application. Admittedly, the application was
pending for about 10 years before the Court below. When the
application was made at that time the husband was in service
and had been earning a considerable amount but after retirement
his income is reduced to a great extent. It is also on record, that
in the meantime he had purchased a flat measuring about 750
square ft. wherein the wife and their son have been residing. The
son is well educated and earns a fat salary. The wife O.P. had
contended that the husband had landed properties at Fulia,
which yields him about Rs.1,50,000/- per month but that part of
her submission has not been substantiated by any document.
Even the description of landed property was not there. Therefore,it cannot be said that the husband has some earning from the
landed property also.
 At the same time, the wife deserves a moderate standard
of living because she is the wife of an Ex-Chief Engineer of
Doordarshan when he had been residing with her husband, her
standard of living was obviously much higher and she was
accustomed with that. Naturally, she deserves that standard of
living. Due to retirement of her husband, she is also supposed to
sacrifice her standard of living to some extent because she has
been provided with a flat which has not been denied.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CULCUTTA
(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
C.O. No. 2948 of 2015
With
C.O. No. 2614 of 2015
Sri Gurubar Biswas V Smt. Krishna Biswas
Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Chattopadhyay

Judgment Delivered On : 10.03.2016.
Citation:AIR 2016 (NOC)513 Cal

Print Page

Whether court granting alimony pendente lite has inherent jurisdiction to modify its earlier order?

It is to be relevantly pointed out that where the parties are living apart and the wife's means are insufficient to support herself and her children, she is entitled to alimony pendente lite as per decision Bibi Balbir Kaur Kathuria V. Raghubir  Singh Kathuria reported in AIR 1974 Punjab and Haryana at page 225.  Moreover, the right of maintenance and the expenses of litigation is conferred on a spouse.  It cannot be gainsaid that a Court granting alimony pendente lite has inherent jurisdiction and power to modify, vary its earlier order as per decision Anuradha V. Santosh Nath  Khanna reported in AIR 1976 Delhi 246.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED:  06.08.2015
CORAM:
 MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
 MR.JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL

C.M.A.No.224 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1 of 2014

S.Keerthana Vs. G.Sridhar    
Citation;AIR 2016(NOC)135MADRAS

Print Page

Whether Application for maintenance pendente lite during pendency of application U/Order 9, Rule 4, CPC is maintainable?

a) The case examined the meaning of the expression 'proceedings under the Act' in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - It was held that the expression could not be given narrow and restricted meaning under the Act - It was further held that the application for maintenance pendente lite during pendency of application under Order 9, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code was maintainable.

b) The case examined an application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for restoration of petition filed by the husband - The wife started proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings - It was held that the Court could not allow husband to withdraw his application for restoration so as to adversely affect the wife's remedy under Section 24

c) The case examined the proceedings for maintenance pendente lite and the expenses of the same under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - It was held that the provision under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was not inconsistent with the provision of the Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

Bombay High Court

Vinod Kimar Kejriwal vs Usha Vinod Kejriwal on 20 March, 1992

Equivalent citations: AIR 1993 Bom 160, 1992 (2) BomCR 648, I (1993) DMC 32

Bench: A Savant

Print Page

When wife is liable to pay maintenance to husband U/S 24 of Hindu Marriage Act?

The purpose of section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is to provide 

support to a spouse who has no independent source of income and 

is incapable of maintaining himself/herself. It is trite law that the 

term „support‟ is not to be construed in a narrow manner so as to 

mean bare subsistence. It means that the other spouse, who has no 

independent source of income, is provided with such maintenance 

so as to live in a similar status as was enjoyed by them in their 

matrimonial home. It is the purpose of section 24 that the wife or 

the husband who has no sufficient source of income for her or his 

support or for the expenses of the proceedings must be provided 

with such reasonable sum that strikes equity between the spouses. 

Delhi High Court

Rani Sethi vs Sunil Sethi on 31 March, 2011

Print Page