Indian Law Research

Rajnesh v. Neha

Decision date:

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decision date
04 November 2020
Citation / docket
2020 INSC 631; [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1093
Source length
66 PDF pages
Review status
AI-assisted draft; not reviewed by a lawyer
Read summaryRead judgmentOpen original PDF

Draft summary

Written with AI assistance from the source judgment. Not reviewed by a lawyer. Historical decision summary, independently checked by an AI reviewer; not a current-law certification.

In one sentence

The Court issued nationwide maintenance directions on financial disclosure, overlapping claims, the starting date of awards and enforcement.

Question decided

How should courts obtain financial information and coordinate maintenance orders under different statutes?

Key holdings

Outcome

The Court issued the directions in Part B under Article 142 and ordered circulation to the courts concerned. The individual maintenance dispute is addressed separately in Part A.

Source PDF pages: 55, 56.

Plain-English explanation

Maintenance disputes often involve incomplete financial information, delay and claims made under more than one law. In Rajnesh v. Neha, the Supreme Court set out a framework intended to make these proceedings more consistent. Both sides must provide the applicable disclosure affidavit so the court can assess income, assets, liabilities and relevant needs. The judgment includes affidavit formats as enclosures; they are retained in the accompanying source. A person seeking maintenance must also disclose earlier maintenance proceedings and orders. When deciding a later claim, the court must consider adjustment or set-off of an earlier award. That is different from treating a second remedy as automatically barred. The Court also directed that maintenance be awarded from the date of the application and discussed enforcement through the applicable statutory mechanisms. It did not prescribe one fixed amount or percentage for every family. The circumstances and relevant financial evidence matter. This draft focuses on the general directions, while the full judgment separately records the individual dispute. Later decisions and applicable procedural changes still require review before publication.

Relevant law in the judgment

Separate opinions

The judgment separates the individual appeal in Part A from the general directions in Part B and includes three enclosures.

Research notes and limits

Check later Supreme Court treatment, current affidavit requirements, applicable personal-law remedies and procedural transition. Do not turn the factors into a fixed maintenance calculator.

Source and extraction notes

Unchanged source PDF · Source website

Page references use physical PDF pages. Complete source PDF saved; not certified as a flawless transcription.

Judgment — source material

The section below reproduces machine-extracted court text, with original page images where extraction is unreliable. It is not an AI rewrite. Each page links to the unchanged PDF.

Jump to a source page

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66

Source PDF page 1

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
1 
 
         REPORTABLE 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2020 
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9503 of 2018) 
 
RAJNESH            …APPELLANT 
 
Versus 
 
NEHA & Anr.        …RESPONDENTS 
 
INDEX 
PART A  Order passed in Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020 
PART B    General Guidelines and Directions 
 I.  Issue of Overlapping Jurisdictions 
 II.  Payment of interim maintenance 
 III.  Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance  
 IV.  Date from which Maintenance to be awarded 
 V.  Enforcement of orders of maintenance 
 VI.  Final Directions

Source PDF page 2

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
2 
 
INDU MALHOTRA, J.  
PART A 
Leave granted.  
(i)  The present Criminal Appeal arises out of an application for Interim 
Maintenance filed in a petition u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. by the Respondent-wife and 
minor son. The Respondent No.1-wife left the matrimonial home in January 
2013, shortly after the birth of the son-Respondent No.2. On 02.09.2013, the wife 
filed an application for interim maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of herself 
and the minor son. The Family Court vide a detailed Order dated 24.08.2015 
awarded interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month to the Respondent No.1-
wife from 01.09.2013; and Rs.5,000 per month as interim maintenance for the 
Respondent No.2 -son from 01.09.2013 to 31.08.2015; and @ Rs. 10,000 per 
month from 01.09.2015 onwards  till further orders were passed in the main 
petition. 
(ii)  The Appellant-husband challenged the Order of the Family Court vide 
Criminal Writ Petition No.875/2015 filed before the Bombay High Court , 
Nagpur Bench. The High Court  dismissed the Writ Petition  vide Order dated 
14.08.2018, and affirmed the Judgment passed by the Family Court. 
(iii)  The present appeal has been filed to impugn the Order dated 14.08.2018. 
This Court issued notice to the wife and directed the Appellant-husband to file 
his Income Tax Returns and Assessment Orders for the period from 2005-2006 
till date. He was also directed to place a photocopy of his passport on record. By 
a further Order dated 11.09.2019, the Appellant-husband was directed to make 
payment of the arrears of Rs.2,00,000 towards interim maintenance to the wife; 
and a further amount of Rs.3,00,000, which was due and payable to the wife 
towards arrears of maintenance , as per his own admission . By a subsequent 
Order dated 14.10.2019, it was recorded that only a part of the arrears had been 
paid. A final opportunity was granted to the Appellant-husband to make payment 
of the balance amount by 30.11.2019, failing which, the Court would proceed 
under the Contempt of Courts Act for wilful disobedience with the Orders passed 
by this Court.

Source PDF page 3

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
3 
 
 In the backdrop of the facts of this case, we considered it fit to frame 
guidelines on certain aspects pertaining to the payment of mai ntenance in 
matrimonial matters . There are different statutes providing for making an 
application for grant of maintenance / interim maintenance, if any person having 
sufficient means neglects, or refuses to maintain his wife, children, parents. The 
different enactments provide an independent and distinct remedy framed with a 
specific object and purpose. Inspite of time frames being prescribed by various 
statutes for disposal of interim applications, we have noticed, in practice  that in 
a vast majority of cases, the applications are not disposed of within the time 
frame prescribed . To address various issues which arise for consideration in 
applications for grant of maintenance / interim maintenance, it is necessary to 
frame guidelines to ensure that there is uniformity and consistency in deciding  
the same. To seek assistance on these issues, w e have appointed Ms. Anitha 
Shenoy and Mr.  Gopal Sankaranaryanan, Senior Advocates  as Amici Curiae, 
who have graciously accepted to assist this Court. 
(iv)  By a further Order dated 17.12.2019, the Appellant was directed to pay 
an amount of Rs.1,45,000 to the Respondent no.1-wife within a period of 45 
days.  
 On the issue of framing guidelines, the National Legal Services Authority 
was directed to elicit responses from the State Legal Services Authorities of 
various States.  
(v)  By a subsequent Order dated 05.08.2020, it was recorded that an Affidavit 
of Compliance had been filed on 04.08.2020 by the Appellant-husband, wherein 
it was stated that arrears of Rs.1,45,000 till 11.09.2019 had been paid by him in 
January, 2020. However, he had made no further payment to the wife thereafter. 
With respect to the amount of Rs.10,000 p.m. payable for the minor son, the 
Order had been complied with  till July 2020. A statement was made by the 
Counsel for the Appellant that he was not disputing the payment of maintenance 
for his son, and would continue to pay the same . A direction was issued by this 
Court to pay the entire arrears of maintenance to the wife @ Rs.15,000 p.m. as

Source PDF page 4

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
4 
 
fixed by the Family Court , and continue to pay the said amount during the 
pendency of proceedings.  
(vi)  By the Order dated 25.08.2020, it was noted that the Appellant had filed 
an Affidavit dated 23.08.2020 wherein he had admitted and acknowledged that 
an amount of Rs.5,00,000 was pending towards arrears of maintenance to the 
Respondent No.1-wife. The Appellant was directed to pay 50% of the arrears 
within a period of 4 weeks to the Respondent No .1, failing which , he was 
directed to remain present before the Court on the next date  of hearing . The 
Counsel for the husband placed on record a chart of various proceedings pending 
between the parties . Taking note of the aforesaid facts, we considered it 
appropriate to refer the matter for mediation by Mr. Shridhar Purohit, Advocate, 
a well-known Mediator in Nagpur, to resolve all disputes pending between the 
parties, and arrive at an overall settlement.  
(vii)  On 08.10.2020, we were informed that the mediation had failed. The 
husband appeared before the Court, and made an oral statement that he did not 
have the financial means to comply with the Order of maintenance paya ble to 
the Respondent No.1-wife, and had to borrow loans from his father to pay the 
same. He however stated that he had paid the maintenance awarded to the son, 
and would continue to do so without demur. Both parties addressed arguments 
and filed their written submissions. 
(viii)  We have  heard the Counsel for the parties, and  perused the written 
submissions filed on their behalf.  
 The husband has inter alia submitted that he was presently unemployed, 
and was not in a position to pay maintenance to the Respondent No.1-wife. He 
stated that he did not own any immovable property, and had only one operational 
bank account. The husband declined to pay any further amount towards the 
maintenance of his wife. It was further submitted that the Family Court had 
erroneously relied upon the Income Tax Returns of 2006, while determining the 
maintenance payable in 2013. He further submitted that he was exploring new 
business projects, which would enable him to be in a better position to sustain 
his family.

Source PDF page 5

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
5 
 
 The wife has inter alia submitted that the amount of Rs.10,000 awarded 
for the son was granted when he was 2 ½ years old  in 2015. The said amount 
was now highly inadequate to meet the expenses of a growing child, who is 7 ½ 
years old, and is a school-going boy. It was further submitted that the admission 
fee for the current academic year 2020 -2021 had not yet been paid.  If the fee 
was not paid within time, the school would discontinue sending the link for 
online classes. She submitted that she was being over-burdened by the growing 
expenses, with no support from the husband.  
 With respect to the contention of the husband that he had no income, she 
submitted that the husband had made investments in real estate projects , and 
other businesses, which he was concealing from the Court , and diverting the 
income to his parents. It has also been alleged that the Appellant had retained 
illegal possession of her Streedhan, which he was refusing to return. Despite 
orders being passed by this Court, and in the proceedings under the D.V. Act, he 
was deliberately not complying with the same. In these circumstances, it was 
submitted that there was a major trust deficit, and there was no prospect for 
reconciliation. 
(ix)  With respect to the issue of enhancement of maintenance for the son, the 
Respondent is at liberty to move the Family Court for the said relief. We cannot 
grant this relief in the present appeal, as it has been filed by the husband. 
(x)  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we order and direct that : 
(a)  The Judgment and order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Family Court, 
Nagpur, affirmed by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench vide Order 
dated 14.08.2018 for payment of interim maintenance  @ Rs.15,000 p.m. to 
the Respondent No.1-wife, and Rs.10,000 p.m. to the Respondent No.2-son, 
is hereby affirmed by this Court; 
(b)  The husband  is directed to pay the entire arrears  of maintenance  @ 
Rs.15,000 p.m., within a period of 12 weeks’ from the date of this Judgment, 
and continue to comply with this Order during the pendency of the 
proceedings u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court;

Source PDF page 6

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
6 
 
(c)  If the Appellant-husband fails to comply with the aforesaid directions of 
this Court, it would be open to the respondents to have the  Order enforced 
u/S.128 Cr.P.C., and take recourse to all other remedies which are available 
in accordance with law; 
(d)  The proceedings for payment of interim maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. 
have been pending between the parties for a period of over 7 years now. We 
deem it appropriate that the Family Court decides the substantive application 
u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. in Petition No. E-443/ 2013 finally, in light of the directions 
/ guidelines issued in the present judgment, within a period of 6 months’ from 
the date of this judgment.  
 The Registry is directed to forward a  complete copy of the pleadings, 
alongwith the written submissions filed by the parties , and the record of the 
proceedings in the present Criminal Appeal, to the Family Court, Nagpur. 
The present Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Source PDF page 7

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
7 
 
PART B 
 Given the backdrop of the facts of the present case, which reveal that the 
application for interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has remained 
pending before the Courts for seven years now, and the difficulties encountered 
in the enforcement of orders  passed by the Courts, as the wife was constrained 
to move successive applications for enforcement from time to time, we deem it 
appropriate to frame guidelines on the issue of maintenance, which would cover 
overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for payment of maintenance, 
payment of Interim Maintenance, the criteria for determining the quantum of 
maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be  awarded, and 
enforcement of orders of maintenance. 
Guidelines / Directions on Maintenance 
  Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice  to 
provide recourse to dependant wives and children for their financial support, so 
as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.  
Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India provides that : 
“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special 
provision for women and children.” 
 
 Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, which 
envisages a positive role for the State in fostering change towards the 
empowerment of women, led to the enactment of various legislations from time 
to time. 
 Justice Krishna Iyer in his judgment in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal 
v Mrs. Veena Kaushal & Ors.1 held that the object of maintenance laws is : 
“9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to 
protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of 
Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of 
statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant 
words with social f unctions to fulfil.  The brooding presence of the 
constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children 
must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is 
 
1 (1978) 4 SCC 70.

Source PDF page 8

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
8 
 
possible to be selective in picking out that interpretat ion out of two 
alternatives which advances the cause — the cause of the derelicts.” 
        
 The legislations which have been framed on the issue of maintenance are 
the Special Marriage Act 1954 (“SMA”), Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 ; and 
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“D.V. Act”) which 
provide  a statutory remedy to women, irrespective of the religious community 
to which they belong, apart from the personal laws applicable to various religious 
communities.  
I    Issue of Overlapping Jurisdiction 
 Maintenance may be claimed under one or more of the afore-mentioned 
statutes, since each of these enactments provides an independent and distinct 
remedy framed with a specific object and purpose . For instance, a Hindu wife 
may claim maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 
(“HAMA”), and also in a substantive proceeding for either dissolution of 
marriage, or restitution of conjugal rights, etc. under the Hindu Marriage Act, 
1955 (“HMA”) by invoking Sections 24 and 25 of the said Act. 
(i)  In Nanak Chand  v Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors. 2, the Supreme 
Court held that there was no inconsistency between the Cr.P.C . and HAMA. 
Section 4(b) of HAMA would not repeal or affect the provisions of Section 488 
of the old Cr.P.C. It was held that : 
“4. Both can stand together . The Maintenance Act is an act to amend and 
codify the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus. The 
law was substantially similar before and nobody ever suggested that Hindu 
Law, as in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, insofar 
as it dealt with the maintenance of children, was in any way inconsistent 
with Section 488, Cr.P.C. The scope of the two laws is different. Section 488 
provides a summary remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to 
all religions and has no relationship with the personal law of the parties.  
Recently the question came before the Allahabad High Court in Ram Singh 
v. State: AIR1963All355, before the Calcutta High Court in Mahabir 
Agarwalla v. Gita Roy [1962] 2 Cr. L.J.528 and before the Patna High 
Court in Nalini Ranjan v. Kiran Rani: AIR1965Pat442. The three High 
Courts have, in our view, correctly come to the conclusion that Section 4(b) 
of the Maintenance Act does not repeal or affect in any manner the 
provisions contained in Section 488, Cr.P.C.” 
(emphasis supplied)  
 
2 (1969) 3 SCC 802.

Source PDF page 9

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
9 
 
 
 While it is true that a party is not precluded from appro aching the Court 
under one or more enactments, since the  nature and purpose of the relief under 
each Act is distinct and independent, it is equally true that the simultaneous 
operation of these Acts, would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting 
orders. This would have the inevitable effect of overlapping jurisdiction. This 
process requires to be streamlined, so that the respondent / husband is not 
obligated to comply with successive orders of maintenance passed under 
different enactments. 
For instance, i f in a previous proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. , an 
amount is awarded towards maintenance, in the subsequent proceeding filed 
for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, where an application 
for maint enance pendente lite  is filed  under Section 24  of that Act , or for 
maintenance under Section 25, the payment awarded in the earlier proceeding 
must be taken note of, while deciding the amount awarded under HMA.  
Statutory provisions under various enactments 
(a) The Special Marriage Act, 1954 (“SMA”) 
 Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides that a marriage 
between any two persons who are citizens of India may be solemnised under this 
Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in 
force. It is a secular legislation applicable to all persons who solemnize their 
marriage in India. 
Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act provides that a wife is entitled to 
claim pendente lite  maintenance, if she does not have sufficient independent 
income to support her and for legal expenses. The maintenance may be granted 
on a weekly or monthly basis during the pendency of the matrimonial 
proceedings. The Court would determine the quantum of maintenance depending 
on the income of the husband, and award such amount as may seem reasonable.  
Section 36 reads as: 
“S.36. Alimony pendente lite.—Where in any proceeding under Chapter V 
or Chapter VI it appears to the district court that the wife has no 
independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses

Source PDF page 10

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
10 
 
of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife, order the husband 
to pay her the expenses of the proceeding, and weekly or monthly during 
the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the husband’s income, it may 
seem to the court to be reasonable.  
Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the 
proceeding and such weekly or monthly sum during the proceeding under 
Chapter V or Chapter VI, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within 
sixty days from the date of service of notice on the husband.” 
 
 Section 37 provides for grant of permanent alimony at the time of passing 
of the decree, or subsequent thereto. Permanent alimony is the consolidated 
payment made by the husband to the wife towards her maintenance for life. 
Section 37 reads as:  
“S. 37. Permanent alimony and maintenance. —(1) Any court exercising 
jurisdiction under Chapter V or Chapter VI may, at the time of passing any 
decree or at any time subsequent to the decree, on application made to it 
for the purpose, order that the husband shall secure to the wife for her 
maintenance and support if necessary, by a charge on the husband’s 
property such gross sum or such monthly or periodical payment of money 
for a term not exceeding her life, as, having regard to her own property, if 
any, her husband’s property and ability, the conduct of the parties and other 
circumstances of the case, as it may seem to the court to be just.  
(2) If the district court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances 
of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-Section (1), 
it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order 
in such manner as it may seem to the court to be just. 
(3) If the district court is satisfied that the wife in whose favour an order 
has been made under this Section has remarried or is not leading a chaste 
life, it may, at the instance of the husband, vary, modify or rescind any such 
order and in such manner as the court may deem just.”  
 
(b) The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”) 
 The HMA is a complete code which provides for the rights, liabilities and 
obligations arising from a marriage between two Hindus. Sections 24 and 25 
make provision for maintenance to a party who has no independent income 
sufficient for his or her support, and necessary expenses. This is a gender-neutral 
provision, where either the wife or the husband may claim maintenance. The pre-
requisite is that the applicant does not  have independent income which is 
sufficient for her or his support, during the pendency of the lis.

Source PDF page 11

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
11 
 
 Section 24 of the HMA provides for maintenance pendente lite, where the 
Court may direct the respondent to pay the expenses of the proceeding, and pay 
such reasonable monthly amount, which is considered to be reasonable, having 
regard to the income of both the parties.  
  Section 24 reads as: 
“24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.— 
Where in any proceeding under this Act it appear s to the court that either 
the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income 
sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses  of the 
proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the 
respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding , and 
monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the 
petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to 
the court to be reasonable. 
Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the 
proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as 
possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice 
on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.” 
                    (emphasis supplied) 
 The proviso to Section 24 providing a time line of 60 days for disposal of 
the application was inserted vide Act 49 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001. 
 Section 25 provides for grant of permanent alimony, which reads as : 
“25. Permanent alimony and maintenance — 
(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of 
passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made 
to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, 
order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant  for her or his 
maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum 
for a term not e xceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the 
respondent's own income and other property, if any, the income and other 
property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other 
circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such 
payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable 
property of the respondent. 
(2) If the court is satisfied that there is, a change in the circumstances of 
either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it 
may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order 
in such manner as the court may deem just. 
(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been 
made under this section has remarried or, if such party is the wife, that she

Source PDF page 12

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
12 
 
has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that he has had 
sexual intercourse with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance 
of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as 
the court may deem just.” 
        (emphasis supplied) 
 
Section 26 of the HMA provides that the Court may from time to time pass 
interim orders with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of the 
minor children. 
(c) Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAMA”) 
HAMA is a special legislation which was enacted to amend and codify the 
laws relating to adoption and maintenance amongst Hindus, during the 
subsistence of the marriage. Section 18 provides that a Hindu wife shall be 
entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. She is entitled to 
make a claim for a separate residence , without forfeiting her right  to 
maintenance. Section 18 read in conjunction with Section 23 states the factors 
required to be considered for deciding the quantum of maintenance to be paid. 
Under sub-section (2) of Section 18, the husband has the obligation to maintain 
his wife, even though she may be living separately. The right of separate 
residence and maintenance would however not be available if the wife has been 
unchaste, or has converted to another religion.  
Section 18 reads as follows :  
“18. Maintenance of wife.— 
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married 
before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be 
maintained by her husband during her lifetime. 
(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband 
without forfeiting her claim to maintenance— 
 (a)  if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without 
reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish or willfully 
neglecting her; 
 (b)  if he has treated her with such cruelty as to c ause a reasonable 
apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with 
her husband; 
 (c)  [****] 
 (d)  if he has any other wife living;

Source PDF page 13

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
13 
 
 (e)  if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or 
habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere; 
 (f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; 
 (g)  if there is any other cause justifying living separately. 
(3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residency and 
maintenance from her husban d if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu 
by conversion to another religion.” 
 
 The distinction between maintenance under HMA and HAMA is that the 
right under Section 18 of HAMA is available during the subsistence of a 
marriage, without any matrimonial proceeding pending between the parties. 
Once there is a divorce, the wife has to seek relief under Section 25 of HMA. 3  
 Under HMA, either the wife , or the husband , may move for judicial 
separation, restitution of conjugal rights, dissolution of marriage, payment of 
interim maintenance under Section 24, and permanent alimony under Section 25 
of the Act , whereas under Section 18 of HAMA, only a wife may seek 
maintenance. 
 The interplay between the claim for maintenance under HMA and HAMA 
came up for consideration by the Supreme Court in Chand Dhawan v Jawaharlal 
Dhawan.4 The Supreme Court, while considering the various laws relating to 
marriage amongst Hindus, discussed th e scope of applications under the HMA 
and HAMA in the following words : 
“23. …Section 18(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 
entitles a Hindu wife to claim maintenance from her husband during her 
life-time. Sub -section (2) of Section 18 grants her the right to live 
separately, without forfeiting her claim to maintenance, if he is guilty of any 
of the misbehaviors enumerated therein or on account of his being in one of 
objectionable conditions as mentioned therein. So while sustaining her 
marriage and preserving her marital status, the wife is entitled to claim 
maintenance from her husband. On the other hand, under the Hindu 
Marriage Act, in contrast, her claim for maintenance pendente lite is 
durated on the pendency of a litigation of the kind envisaged under Sections 
9 to 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and her claim to permanent maintenance 
or alimony is based on the supposition that either her marital status has 
been strained or affected by passing a decree for restitution of conjugal 
rights or judicial separation in favour or against her, or her marriage 
stands dissolved by a decree of nullity or divorce, with or without her 
 
3  Panditrao Chimaji Kalure v Gayabai (2002) 2 Mah LJ 53. 
4 (1993) 3 SCC 406.

Source PDF page 14

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
14 
 
consent. Thus when her marital status is to be affected or disrupted the court 
does so by passing a decree for or ag ainst her. On or at the time of the 
happening of that event, the court being seize d of the matter, invokes its 
ancillary or incidental power to grant permanent alimony. Not only that, 
the court retains the jurisdiction at subsequent stages to fulfill this 
incidental or ancillary obligation when moved by an application on that 
behalf by a party entitled to relief. The court further retains the power to 
change" or alter the order in view of the changed circumstances. Thus the 
whole exercise is within the gamm it of a diseased or a broken marriage. 
And in order to avoid conflict of perceptions the legislature while codifying 
the Hindu Marriage Act preserved the right of permanent maintenance in 
favour of the husband or the wife, as the case may be, dependent on the 
court passing a decree of the kind as envisaged under Sections 9 to 14 of 
the Act. In other words without the marital status being affected or; disputed 
by the matrimonial court under the Hindu Marriage Act the claim of 
permanent alimony was not to be valid as ancillary or incidental to such 
affectation or disruption. The wife's claim to maintenance necessarily has 
then to be agitated under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 
which is a legislative measure later in point of time than the Hindu  
Marriage Act, 1955, though part of the same socio -legal scheme 
revolutionizing the law applicable to Hindus….” 
        (emphasis supplied) 
 
  Section 19 of the HAMA provides that a widowed daughter-in-law may 
claim maintenance from her father-in-law if (i) she is unable to maintain herself 
out of her own earnings or other property; or, (ii) where she has no property of 
her own, is unable to obtain maintenance; (a) from the estate of her husband, or 
her father or mother, or (b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate.  
Section 20 of HAMA provides for maintenance of children and aged 
parents. Section 20 casts a statutory obligation on a Hindu male to maintain an 
unmarried daughter, who is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings, 
or other property. In Abhilasha v Parkash & Ors .,5 a three-judge bench of this 
Court held that Section 20(3) is a recognition of the principles of Hindu law, 
particularly the obligation of the father to maintain an unmarried daughter. The 
right is absolute under personal law, which has been given statutory recognition 
by this Act. The Court noted the distinction between the award of maintenance 
to children u/S. 125 Cr.P.C., which limits the claim of maintenance to a child, 
until he or she attains majority. However, if an unmarried daughter is by reason 
 
5 Decided on 15.10.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.615/2020.

Source PDF page 15

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
15 
 
of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain herself, under 
Section 125(1)(c), the father would be obligated to maintain her even after she 
has attained majority. The maintenance contemplated under HAMA is a wider 
concept. Section 3(b) contains an inclusive definition of maintenance including 
marriage expenses. The purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide 
immediate relief to the wife and children in a summary proceeding, whereas 
under Section 20 read with Section 3(b) of HAMA, a much larger right is 
contemplated, which requires determination by a civil court.  
 Section 22 provides for maintenance of dependants. Section 23 provides 
that while awarding maintenance, the Court shall have due regard to the criteria 
mentioned therein :  
“23. Amount of maintenance. –  
(1) It shall be in the discretion of the court to determine whether any, and 
if so what, maintenance shall be awarded under the provisions of this Act, 
and in doing so, the court shall have due regard to the consideration set out 
in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), as the case may be, so far as they are 
applicable. 
 
(2) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a 
wife, children or aged or infirm parents under this Act, regard shall be had 
to— 
(a) the position and status of the parties; 
(b) the reasonable wants of the claimant; 
(c) if the claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is justified in 
doing so; 
(d) the value of the claimant's property and any income derived from s uch 
property, or from the claimant's own earning or from any other source; 
(e) the number of persons entitled to maintenance under this Act. 
 
(3) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a 
dependant under this Act, regard shall be had to— 
(a) the net value of the estate of the deceased after providing for the 
payment of his debts; 
(b) the provision, if any, made under a will of the deceased in respect, of 
the dependant; 
(c) the degree of relationship between the two; 
(d) the reasonable wants of the dependant; 
(e) the past relations between the dependant and the deceased; 
(f) the value of the property of the dependant and any income derived from 
such property, or from his or her earnings or from any other course;

Source PDF page 16

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
16 
 
(g) the number of dependants entitled to maintenance under this Act.” 
 
(d) Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 
 Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for 
maintenance of wife, children and parents  in a summary proceeding . 
Maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. may be claimed by a person 
irrespective of the religious community to which they belong.  The purpose and 
object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief to an applicant.  An 
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is predicated on two conditions  :  (i) the 
husband has sufficient means ; and (ii) “neglects” to maintain his wife, who is 
unable to maintain herself. In such a case, the husband  may be directed by the 
Magistrate to pay such monthly sum  to the wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is 
awarded on the basis of the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant 
factors. 
 The remedy provided by Section 125 is summary in nature, and the 
substantive disputes with respect to dissolution of marriage can be determined 
by a civil court / family court in an appropriate proceeding, such as the Hindu 
Marriage Act, 1956. 
 In Bhagwan Dutt v Kamla Devi 6 the Supreme Court held that under 
Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. only a wife who is “unable to maintain herself” is entitled 
to seek maintenance. The Court held :  
“19. The object of these provisions being to prevent vagrancy and 
destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife 
to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, 
but is modestly consistent with the status of the family . The needs and 
requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, 
only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the 
earnings of the husband and his commitments.” 
(emphasis supplied) 
 Prior to the amendment of Section 125 in 2001, there was a ceiling on the 
amount which could be awarded as maintenance, being Rs. 500 “in the whole”.  
In view of the rising costs of living and inflation rates, the ceiling of Rs. 500 was 
 
6 (1975) 2 SCC 386.

Source PDF page 17

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
17 
 
done away by the 2001 Amendment Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons 
of the Amendment Act states that the wife had to wait for several years before 
being granted maintenance. Consequently, the Amendment Act introduced an 
express provision for grant of “interim maintenance”. The Magistrate was vested 
with the power  to order the respondent to make a monthly allowance towards 
interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition.  
 Under sub -section (2) of Section 125, t he Court is conferred with the 
discretion to award payment of maintenance either from the date of the order, or 
from the date of the application.  
 Under the third proviso to the amended Section 125, t he application for 
grant of interim maintenance must be disposed of as far as possible within sixty 
days’ from the date of service of notice on the respondent. 
 The amended Section 125 reads as under :  
“125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. 
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- 
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or 
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, 
unable to maintain itself, or 
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who 
has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or 
mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or 
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,  
a Magistrate of the fi rst class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, 
order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his 
wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate 
thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as t he Magistrate may from 
time to time direct:  
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child 
referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her 
majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female 
child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means : 
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the 
proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this 
sub-section, order such person to make a mont hly allow for the interim 
maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of 
such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the 
same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct :

Source PDF page 18

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
18 
 
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim 
maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as 
far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service 
of notice of the application to such person. 
 Explanation. – For the purposes of this Chapter,- 
(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian 
Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875); is deemed not to have attained his majority; 
(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by,  or has obtained a 
divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. 
(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and 
expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so 
ordered, from the date of the applicatio n for maintenance or interim 
maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be. 
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with 
the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a 
warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, 
and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's 
allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of 
proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the 
warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until 
payment if sooner made:  
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount 
due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such 
amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due:  
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition 
of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may 
consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under 
this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just 
ground for so doing.  
Explanation. – If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman 
or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be a just ground for his wife' s 
refusal to live with him. 
(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or 
interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, from 
her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any 
sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living 
separately by mutual consent. 
(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under 
this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses 
to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual 
consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.” 
        (emphasis supplied)

Source PDF page 19

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
19 
 
 In Chaturbhuj v Sitabai7 this Court held that the object of maintenance 
proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy 
and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by 
a speedy remedy. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice  
especially enacted to protect women and children, and falls within the 
constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the 
Constitution.  
 Proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are summary in nature.  In 
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v Meena & Ors.8 this Court held that Section 125 of the 
Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a 
woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements 
could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. Since it is the 
sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor 
children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he 
is able -bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except  on any legally 
permissible ground mentioned in the statute. 
 The issue whether presumption of marriage arises when parties are in a 
live-in relationship for a long period of time, which would give rise to a claim 
u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. came up for consideration in Chanmuniya v Virendra Kumar 
Singh Kushwaha & Anr . 9  before the Supreme Court.  It was held that where a 
man and a woman have cohabited for a long period of time, in the absence of 
legal necessities of a valid marriage, such a woman would be entitled to 
maintenance. A man should not be allowed to benefit from legal loopholes, by 
enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage, without undertaking the duties 
and obligations of such marriage. A broad and expansive interpretation must be 
given to the term “wife,” to include even those cases where a man and woman 
have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long perio d of 
time. Strict proof of marriage should not be a pre -condition for grant of 
 
7 (2008) 2 SCC 316. 
8 (2015) 6 SCC 353. 
9 (2011) 1 SCC 141. 
  This judgment was referred to a larger bench.

Source PDF page 20

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
20 
 
maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. The Court relied on the Malimath Committee 
Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System published in 2003, which 
recommended that evidence regarding  a man and woman living together for a 
reasonably long period, should be sufficient to draw the presumption of 
marriage.  
The law presumes in favour of marriage, and against concubinage, when a 
man and woman cohabit continuously for a number of years. Unlike matrimonial 
proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential , in proceedings u/S. 125 
Cr.P.C. such strict standard of proof is not necessary.10  
(e) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“D.V. Act”) 
The D.V. Act stands on a separate footing from the laws discussed 
hereinabove. The D.V. Act provides relief to an aggrieved woman who is 
subjected to “domestic violence.” The “aggrieved person” has been defined by 
Section 2(a) to mean any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship 
with the respondent, and alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic 
violence. Section 2(f) defines “domestic relationship” to include a relationship 
between two persons who live , or have at any point of time lived to gether in a 
shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through 
a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption , or are family members living 
together as a joint family. 
Section 2(q) of the Act defined “respondent” to mean an “adult male 
person” who is , or has been , in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved 
woman. In Hiral P. Harsora & Ors . v Kusum Narottamdas Harsora & Ors .11 
this Court held that the “respondent” could also be a female in a domesti c 
relationship with the aggrieved person. Section 3 of the D.V. Act gives a gender-
neutral definition to “domestic violence”. Physical abuse, verbal abuse, 
emotional abuse and economic abuse can also be  inflicted by women against 
other women. Even sexual a buse may, in a given fact circumstance, be by one 
woman on another. Section 17(2) provides that the aggrieved person cannot be 
 
10 Kamala & Ors. v. M.R. Mohan Kumar (2019) 11 SCC 491. 
11 (2016) 10 SCC 165.

Source PDF page 21

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
21 
 
evicted or excluded from a “shared household ”, or any part of it by the 
“respondent”, save in accordance with the procedure established by law. If 
“respondent” is to be read as only an adult male person, women who evict or 
exclude the aggrieved person would then not be covered by the ambit of the Act, 
and defeat the very object, by putting forward female persons who can evict or 
exclude the aggrieved woman from the shared household. The Court struck down 
the words “adult male” before the word “person” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act, 
and deleted the proviso to Section 2(q), as being contrary to the object of the Act.  
The expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” as being akin to a 
common law or a de facto marriage, came up for consideration in D. Velusamy 
v D. Patchaiammal.12 It was opined t hat a common law marriage is one which 
requires that although a couple may not be formally married : (a) the couple hold 
themselves out to society as being akin to spouses; (b) the  parties  must be of 
legal age to marry; (c) the parties must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal 
marriage, including being unmarried ; and (d) the  parties must have voluntarily 
cohabited, and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a 
significant period of time. However, not all live-in relationships would amount 
to a relationship in the nature of marriage to avail the benefit of D.V. Act. Merely 
spending week -ends together , or a one -night stand , would not make it a 
“domestic relationship”. 
For a live-in relationship to fall within the expression “relationship in the 
nature of marriage”, this Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma13 laid down the 
following guidelines : (a) duration of period of relationship; (b) shared 
household; (c) domestic arrangements; (d) pooling of resources and financial 
arrangements; (e) sexual relationship; (f) children; (g) socialisation in public and 
(h) intention and conduct of the parties. The Court held that these guidelines were 
only indicative, and not exhaustive. 
“Domestic violence ” has been defined in Section 3 of the Act , which 
includes economic abuse as defined in Explanation 1 (iv) to Section 3, as : 
 
12 (2010) 10 SCC 469. 
13 (2013) 15 SCC 755.

Source PDF page 22

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
22 
 
“Economic abuse which means deprivation of all or any economic or 
financial resources, to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law 
or custom, whether payable under an order of a Court or otherwise, or 
which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity, including but not 
limited to household necessities for the aggrieved person, or her children.” 
 
Section 17 by a non-obstante clause provides that notwithstanding anything 
contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic 
relationship shall have the right to reside in the “shared household”, irrespective 
of whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. Section 17 
reads as : 
“17. Right to reside in a shared household: 
 (1)  Notwithstanding anything contained household: in any other law for 
the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have 
the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, 
title or beneficial interest in the same. 
 (2)  The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared 
household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the 
procedure established by law.” 
 
Section 19 deals with residence orders , grant of injunctive reliefs , or for 
alternate accommodation / payment of rent by the respondent. 
A three-judge bench of this Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja14 
has overruled the judgment in S.R.Batra v Taruna Batra,15 wherein a two judge 
bench held that the wife is entitled to claim  a right of residence in a “shared 
household” u/S.17 (1), which would only mean the house belonging to, or taken 
on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which 
the husband is a member. In Satish Chander Ahu ja (supra), the Court has held 
that although the judgment in S.R. Batra (supra) noticed the definition of shared 
household under Section 2(s), it did not advert to different parts of the definition, 
which makes it clear that there was no requirement for the shared household to 
be owned singly or jointly by the husband, or taken on rent by the husband.  If 
 
14 Decided on 15.10.2020 in C.A. No. 2483/2020 by a bench comprising of Hon’ble Justices Ashok 
Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R.Shah. 
15 (2007) 3 SCC 169.

Source PDF page 23

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
23 
 
the interpretation given in S.R. Batra is accepted, it would frustrate the object of 
the Act. The Court has taken the view that the definition of “shared household” 
in Section 2(s) is an exhaustive definition . The “shared household” is the 
household which is the dwelling place of the aggrieved person in present time. 
If the definition of “shared household” in Section 2(s) is read to mean all the 
houses where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship alongwith 
the relatives of the husband, there will be a number of shared households, which 
was never contemplated by the legislative scheme. The entire scheme of the 
legislation is to provide immediate relief to the aggrieved person with respect to 
the shared household where the aggrieved woman lives or has lived. The use of 
the expression “at any stage has lived” , is with the intent of not denying 
protection to an aggrieved woman merely on the ground that she was not living 
there on the date of the application, or on the date when the Magis trate passed 
the order u/S. 19.  The words “lives , or at any stage has lived in a domestic 
relationship” has to be given its normal and purposeful meaning.  Living of the 
woman in a household must refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere 
fleeting or casual living at different places would not make it a shared household. 
The intention of the parties and the nature of living, including the nature of the 
household, must be considered, to determine as to whether the parties intended 
to treat the premises as a “shared household” or not. Section 2(s) r.w. Section s 
17 and 19 grant an entitlement in favour of an aggrieved woman to the right of 
residence in a “shared household”, irrespective of her having  any legal interest 
in the same or not. From the definition of “aggrieved person” and “respondent”, 
it was clear that : 
(i) it is not the requirement of law that the aggrieved person may either 
own the premises jointly or singly, or by tenanting it jointly or 
singly; 
(ii) the household may belong to a joint family of which the respondent 
is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved 
person has any right, title, or interest in the shared household;

Source PDF page 24

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
24 
 
(iii) the shared household may either be owned, or tenanted by the 
respondent singly or jointly. 
The right to residence u/S. 19 is, however, not an indefeasible right, 
especially when a daughter-in-law is claiming a right against aged parents-in-
law.  While granting relief u/S. 12  of the D.V. Act, or in any c ivil proceeding, 
the court has to balance the rights between the aggrieved woman and the parents-
in-law. 
Section 20 provides for monetary relief to the aggrieved woman :  
“20. Monetary reliefs.- 
(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, 
the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the 
expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any 
child of the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence and such relief 
may include, but is not limited to,- 
(a) the loss of earnings; 
(b) the medical expenses; 
(c) the loss caused due to destruction, damage or removal of any property 
from the control of the aggrieved person; and  
(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, 
including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under 
section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any 
other law for the time being in force.  
(2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair 
and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the 
aggrieved person is accustomed. 
(3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum 
payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and 
circumstances of the case may require.” 
       (emphasis supplied) 
Section 20(1)(d) provides that maintenance granted under the D.V. Act to 
an aggrieved woman and children, would be given effect to, in addition to an 
order of maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or any other law 
in force. 
Under sub-section (6) of Section 20, the Magistrate may direct the employer 
or debtor of the respondent, to directly pay the aggrieved person, or deposit with 
the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit

Source PDF page 25

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
25 
 
of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief 
payable by the respondent. 
Section 22 provides that the Magistrate may pass an order directing the 
respondent to pay compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental 
torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence 
perpetrated by the respondent. 
Section 23 provides that the Magistrate may grant an ex parte  order, 
including an order under Section 20 for monetary relief. The Magistrate must be 
satisfied that the applica tion filed by the aggrieved woman discloses that the 
respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence, or that 
there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence. 
In such a case, the Magistrate is empowered to pass an ex parte order on the basis 
of the affidavit of the aggrieved woman.  
Section 26 of the D.V. Act provides that any relief available under Sections 
18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding before a Civil 
Court, Family Court or Criminal Court. Sub -section (2) of Section 26 provides 
that the relief mentioned in sub -section (1) may be sought in addition to, and 
alongwith any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in a suit or legal 
proceeding before a civil or criminal court. Section 26 (3) provides that in case 
any relief has been obtained by the  aggrieved person in any proceeding other 
than proceedings under this Act, the aggrieved woman would be bound to inform 
the Magistrate of the grant of such relief. 
Section 36 provides that the D.V. Act shall be in addition to, and not in 
derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. 
Conflicting judgments on overlapping jurisdiction 
(i)         Some High Courts have taken the view that since each proceeding is distinct 
and independent of the other, maintenance granted in one proceeding cannot be 
adjusted or set-off in the other. For instance, in Ashok Singh Pal v Manjulata,16 
the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the remedies available to an aggrieved 
person under S . 24 of the HMA  is independent of  S. 125 of the Cr.P.C. In an 
 
16  AIR 2008 MP 139.

Source PDF page 26

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
26 
 
application filed by the husband for adjustment of the amounts awarded in the 
two proceedings, it was held that the question as to whether adjustment is to be 
granted, is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised by the Court. There is 
nothing to suggest as a thumb rule which lays down as a mandatory requirement 
that adjustment or deduction of maintenance awarded u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. must be 
off-set from the amount awarded under S.24 of the HMA, or vice versa. 
 A similar view was taken by another single judge of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in Mohan Swaroop Chauhan v Mohini.17  
 Similarly, the Calcutta High Court in Sujit Adhikari v Tulika Adhikari18 
held that adjustment is not a rule. It was held that the quant um of maintenance 
determined by the Court under HMA is required to be added to the quantum of 
maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. 
 A similar view has been taken in Chandra Mohan Das  v Tapati Das 19, 
wherein a challenge was made on the point that the Court ought to have adjusted 
the amount awarded in a proceeding under S.125 Cr.P.C., while determining the 
maintenance to be awarded under S.24 of the HMA, 1955.  It was held that the 
quantum of maintenan ce determined under S.24 of HMA was to be paid in 
addition to the maintenance awarded in a proceeding under S.125 Cr.P.C. 
(ii)  On the other hand, the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, have held that in 
case of parallel proceedings, adjustment or set-off must take place.  
The Bombay High Court in a well-reasoned judgment delivered in Vishal 
v Aparna & Anr. ,20 has taken the correct view. The Court was considering  the 
issue whether interim monthly maintenance awarded under Section 23 r.w. 
Section 20 (1)(d) of the D.V. Act could be adjusted against the maintenance 
awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court held that the order passed 
under the D.V. Act and th e Cr.P.C. were both independent proceedings, and 
adjustment was not permissible. The Bombay High Court set aside the judgment 
of the Family Court, and held that Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act makes it clear 
 
17 (2016) 2 MP LJ 179. 
18 (2017) SCC OnLine Cal 15484. 
19  2015 SCC OnLine Cal 9554. 
20  2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1207.

Source PDF page 27

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
27 
 
that the maintenance granted under this Act, would be in addition to an order of 
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and any other law for the time being in 
force. Sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the D.V. Act enjoins upon the aggrieved 
person to inform the Magistrate, if she has obtained any relief  available under 
Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, in any other legal proceeding filed by her, whether 
before a Civil Court, Family Court, or Criminal Court. The object being that 
while granting relief under the D.V. Act, the Magistrate shall take into accou nt 
and consider if any similar relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person. 
Even though proceedings under the D.V. Act may be an independent proceeding, 
the Magistrate cannot ignore the maintenance awarded in any other legal 
proceedings, while determining whether over and above the maintenance already 
awarded, any further amount was required to be granted for reasons to be 
recorded in writing.  
 The Court observed : 
“18. What I intend to emphasize is the fact that the adjustment is permissible 
and the adjustment can be allowed of the lower amount against the higher 
amount. Though the wife can simultaneously claim maintenance under the 
different enactments, it does not in any way mean that the husband can be 
made liable to pay the maintenance awarded in each of the said 
proceedings.” 
(emphasis supplied) 
 
 It was held that while determining the quantum of maintenance awarded 
u/S.125 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate would take int o consideration the interim 
maintenance awarded to the aggrieved woman under the D.V. Act.  
The issue of overlapping jurisdictions  under the HMA and D.V. Act or 
Cr.P.C. came up for consideration before a division bench of the Delhi High  
Court in RD v BD21 wherein the Court held that maintenance granted to an 
aggrieved person under the D.V. Act , would be in addition to an order of 
maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. , or under the HMA. The legislative mandate 
envisages grant of maintenance to the wife under various statutes. It was not the 
intention of the legislature that once an order is passed in either of the 
 
21 2019 VII AD (Delhi) 466.

Source PDF page 28

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
28 
 
maintenance proceedings, the order would debar re -adjudication of the issue of 
maintenance in any other proceeding. In paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment, 
it was observed that : 
“16. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Sections 20, 26 and 36 of DV Act 
would clearly establish that the provisions of DV Act dealing with 
maintenance ar e supplementary to the provisions of other laws and 
therefore maintenance can be granted to the aggrieved person (s) under the 
DV Act which would also be in addition to any order of maintenance arising 
out of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 
  
17. On the converse, if any order is passed by the Family Court under 
Section 24 of HMA, the same would not debar the Court in the proceedings 
arising out of DV Act or proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. instituted 
by the wife/aggrieved person claiming maintenance. However, it cannot be 
laid down as a proposition of law that once an order of maintenance has 
been passed by any Court then the same cannot be re -adjudicated upon by 
any other Court. The legislative mandate envisages grant of maintenance 
to the wife under various statutes such as HMA, Hindu Adoption and 
Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'HAMA'), Section 125 of 
Cr.P.C. as well as Section 20 of DV Act. As such various statutes have been 
enacted to provide for the maintenance to the wife and it is nowhere the 
intention of the legislature that once any order is passed in either of the 
proceedings, the said order would debar re adjudication of the issue of 
maintenance in any other Court.” 
                  (emphasis supplied) 
 
 The Court held that u/S. 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act, m aintenance awarded 
to the aggrieved woman under the D.V. is in addition to an order of maintenance 
provided u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. The grant of maintenance under the D.V. Act would 
not be a bar to seek maintenance u/S. 24 of HMA. 
 Similarly, in Tanushree & Ors.  v A.S.Moorthy,22 the Delhi High Court  
was considering a case where the Magistrate’s Court had sine die adjourned the 
proceedings u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that parallel proceedings for 
maintenance under the D.V. Act were pending. In an appeal filed by the wife 
before the High Court, it was held that a reading of Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. 
Act indicates that while considering an application u/S. 12  of the D.V. Act, the 
 
22 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7074.

Source PDF page 29

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
29 
 
Court would take into account an order of maintenance passed u/S. 125 Cr.P.C., 
or any other law for the time being in force. The mere fact that two proceedings 
were initiated by a party, would not imply that one would have to be adjourned 
sine die. There is a distinction in the scope and power exercised by the Magistrate 
under S.125, Cr.P.C. and the D.V. Act. With respect to the overlap in both 
statutes, the Court held : 
“5. Reading of Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act further shows that the two 
proceedings are independent of each other and have different scope, though 
there is an overlap. Insofar as the overlap is concerned, law has catered for 
that eventuality and laid down that at the time of consideration of an 
application for grant of maintenance under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the 
maintenance fixed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be taken into account.” 
       (emphasis supplied) 
 
 The issue whether maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. could be awarded by the 
Magistrate, after permanent alimony was  granted to the wife in the divorce 
proceedings, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Rakesh 
Malhotra v Krishna Malhotra.23 The Court held that once an order for permanent 
alimony was passed, the same could be modified by the same court by exercising 
its power u/S. 25(2) of HMA. The Court held that : 
“16. Since the Parliament has empowered the Court Under Section 25(2) 
of the Act and kept a remedy intact and made available to the concerned 
party seeking modification, the logical sequitur would be that the remedy 
so prescribed ought to be exercised rather than creating multiple channels 
of remedy seeking maintenance. One can understand the situation where 
considering the exigencies of the situation and urgency in the matter, a wife 
initially prefers an application Under Section 125 of the Code to secure 
maintenance in order to sustain herself. In such matters the wife would 
certainly be entitled to have a full -fledged adjudication in the form of any 
challenge raised before a Competent Court either under the Act Or similar 
such enactments. But the reverse cannot be the accepted norm.” 
 
The Court directed that the application u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. be treated as an 
application u/S. 25(2) of HMA and be disposed of accordingly. 
 
23  2020 SCC OnLine SC 239.

Source PDF page 30

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
30 
 
(iii)       In Nagendrappa Natikar v Neelamma24 this Court considered a case where 
the wife instituted a suit under Section 18 of HAMA, after signing a consent 
letter in proceedings u/S. 125 Cr.P.C., stating that she would not make any 
further claims for maintenance against the husband. It was held that  the 
proceedings u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. were summary in nature, and were intended to 
provide a speedy remedy to the wife. Any order passed u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. by 
compromise or otherwise would not foreclose the remedy u/S. 18 of HAMA. 
(iv)  In Sudeep Chaudhary v Radha Chaudhary25 the Supreme Court directed 
adjustment in a case where the wife had filed an application under Section 125 
of the Cr.P.C., and under HMA. In the S. 125 proceedings, she had obtained an 
order of maintenance. Subsequently, in proceedings under the HMA, the wife 
sought alimony. Since the husband failed to pay maintenance awarded, the wife 
initiated recovery proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the maintenance 
awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be adjusted against the amount awarded 
in the matrimonial proceedings under HMA, and was not to be given over and 
above the same. 
   Directions on overlapping jurisdictions 
 It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under 
different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under 
the D.V. Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A. It would, however, 
be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the 
proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If 
maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is 
under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for 
maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the 
quantum of maintenance in  the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family 
court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously 
instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant. 
 
24 (2014) 14 SCC 452. 
25 (1997) 11 SCC 286.

Source PDF page 31

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
31 
 
 To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting 
orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent 
maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous ma intenance 
proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into 
consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and 
grant an adjustment or set -off of the said amount. If the order passed in the 
previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be 
required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.

Source PDF page 32

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
32 
 
II    Payment of Interim Maintenance 
(i)  The proviso to Section 24 of the HMA (inserted vide Act 49 of 2001 w.e.f. 
24.09.2001), and the third proviso to Section 125 Cr.P.C.  (inserted vide Act 50 
of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001) provide that the proceedings for interim maintenance, 
shall as far as possible, be disposed of within 60 days ’ from the date of service 
of notice on the contesting spouse. Despite the statutory provisions granting a 
time-bound period for disposal of proceedings for interim maintenance, we find 
that applications remain pending for several years in most of the cases. The 
delays are caused by various factors, such as tremendous docket pressure on the 
Family Courts, repetitive adjournments sought by parties, enormous time taken 
for completion of pleadings at the interim stage  itself, etc . Pendency of 
applications for maintenance at the interim stage for several years defeats the 
very object of the legislation. 
(ii)  At present, the issue of interim maintenance is decided on the basis of 
pleadings, where some amount of guess -work or rough estimati on takes place, 
so as to make a prima facie assessment of the amount to be awarded. It is often 
seen that both parties submit scanty material, do not disclose the correct details, 
and suppress vital information, which makes it difficult for the Family Courts to 
make an objective assessment for grant of interim maintenance. While there is a 
tendency on the part of the wife to exaggerate her needs, there is a corresponding 
tendency by the husband to conceal his actual income.  
 It has therefore become necessary to lay down a procedure to streamline 
the proceedings, since a dependant wife, who has no other source of income, has 
to take recourse to borrowings from her parents / relatives during the interregnum 
to sustain her self and the minor children, till she begins receiving interim 
maintenance. 
(iii)  In the first instance, the Family Court in compliance with the mandate of 
Section 9 of the Family Courts Act 1984, must make an endeavour for settlement 
of the disputes. For this, Section 6 provides that the State Government shall, in 
consultation with the High Court, make provision for counsellors to assist a 
Family Court in the discharge of its functions . Given the large and growing

Source PDF page 33

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
33 
 
percentage of matrimonial litigation, it has become necessary that the provisions 
of Section 5 and 6 of the Family Courts Act are given effect to, by providing for 
the appointment of marriage counsellors in every Family Court , which would 
help in the process of settlement. 
 If the proceedings for settlement are unsuccessful, the Family Court  
would proceed with the matter on merits. 
(iv)  The party claiming maintenance either as a spouse, or as a partner in a 
civil union, live-in relationship, common law marriage, should be required to file 
a concise application for interim maintenance with limited pleadings, alongwith 
an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned court , 
as a mandatory requirement.  
(v)  On the basis of the pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits of 
Disclosure, the Court would be in a position to make an objective assessment of 
the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage. 
(vi)  The Delhi High Court  in a series of judgments beginning with Puneet 
Kaur v Inderjit Singh Sawhney 26 and followed in Kusum Sharma v Mahinder 
Kumar Sharma27 (“Kusum Sharma I”) directed that applications for maintenance 
under the HMA, HAMA, D.V.  Act, and the Cr.P.C. be accompanied with an 
Affidavit of assets, income and expenditure as prescribed. In Kusum Sharma II,28 
the Court framed a format of Affidavit of assets, income and expenditure to be 
filed by both parties at the threshold of a matrimonial litigation. Th is procedure 
was extended to maintenance proceedings under the Special Marriage Act and 
the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.  In Kusum Sharma III, 29 the Delhi High Court 
modified the format of the Affidavit, and extended it to maintenance proceedings 
under the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Minority & Guardianship 
Act, 1956. In Kusum Sharma IV 30 the Court took notice that the filing of 
Affidavits alongwith pleadings gave an unfair advantage to the party who files 
 
26  ILR (2012) I Delhi 73. 
27 (2014) 214 DLT 493. 
28 (2015) 217 DLT 706. 
29 MANU/DE/2406/2017. 
30 2017 – (2018) 246 DLT 1.

Source PDF page 34

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
34 
 
the affidavit subsequently. In this judgment, it was clarified that the Affidavit 
must be filed simultaneously by both parties.  In Kusum Sharma V 31 the Court 
consolidated the format of the Affidavits in the previous judgments, and directed 
that the same be filed in maintenance proceedings. 
(vii)  Given the vastly divergent demographic profile of our country, which 
comprises of metropolitan cities, urban areas, rural areas, tribal areas, etc., it was 
considered appropriate to elicit responses from the various State Legal Services 
Authorities (“SLSAs”).  
 This Court vide its Order dated 17.12.2019 requested the National Legal 
Services Authority ( “NALSA”) to submit a report of the suggestions  received 
from the SLSAs for framing guidelines on the Affidavit of Disclosure of the 
Assets and Liabilities to be filed by the parties. 
(viii)  The NALSA submitted a comprehensive report dated 17.02.2020 
containing suggestions from all the State Legal Service Authorities  throughout 
the country. We find the various suggestions made by the SLSAs to be of great 
assistance in finalizing  the Affidavit of Disclosure  which can be used by the 
Family Courts for determining the quantum of maintenance to be paid. 
(ix)  Keeping in mind the varied landscape of the country, and the 
recommendations made by the SLSAs, it was submitted  that a simplified 
Affidavit of Disclosure may be framed to expedite the process of determining 
the quantum of maintenance.  
 We feel that the A ffidavit to be filed by parties residing in urban areas, 
would require to be entirely different from the one applicable to rural areas, or 
tribal areas. 
 For this purpose, a comprehensive Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and 
Liabilities is being attached as Enclosure I and II to this judgment.  
(x)  We have been informed by the Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority 
that the State of Meghalaya has a predominantly tribal population, which follows 
a matrilineal system of society. The population is comprised of three tribes viz. 
the Khasis, Jaintia and Garo tribes.  In Meghalaya, the youngest daughter is the 
 
31 Decided by the Delhi High Court vide Judgment dated 06.08.2020.

Source PDF page 35

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
35 
 
custodian of the property, and takes important decisions relating to family 
property in consultation with her maternal uncle. The majority of the population 
is employed in the unorganized sector, such as agriculture. Under Section 10(26) 
of the Income Tax Act 1961, the tribals residing in this State are exempted from 
payment of income tax.  
        The Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority has suggested that the 
declaration in Meghalaya be made in the format enclosed with this judgment as 
Enclosure III.  
(xi)  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 : 
(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 concerned Family  Court / District Court / Magistrate ’s Court, as 
the case may be, throughout the country;  
(b)  The applicant making the claim for maintenance will be required to file a 
concise application accompanied with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets; 
(c)  The respondent must submit the reply alongwith the Affidavit of 
Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The Court s 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.32 
 On the failure to file the Affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family 
Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on basis of the 
Affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record; 
 
32 Kaushalya v Mukesh Jain, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1129-1130 / 2019 decided vide Judgment 24.07.2019.

Source PDF page 36

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
36 
 
(d)  The above format may be modified by the concerned Court, i f the 
exigencies of a case require the same. It would be left to the judicial discretion 
of the concerned Court, to issue necessary directions in this regard. 
(e)  If apart from the information contained in the Affidavit s of Disclosure, 
any further information is required, the concerned Court may pass 
appropriate orders in respect thereof. 
(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 XI of the CPC; 
 On filing of the Affidavit, the Court may invoke the provisions of Order 
X of the C.P.C 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. 
(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. 
(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 u/S. 340 Cr.P.C., 
and for contempt of Court. 
(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. 
(j)  The concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrate’s Court must 
make an endeavour to decide the I.A. for Interim Maintenance by a reasoned

Source PDF page 37

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
37 
 
order, within a period of four to six months at the latest, after the Affidavits 
of Disclosure have been filed before the court. 
(k)  A professional Marriage Counsellor must be  made available in every 
Family Court. 
Permanent alimony 
(i)  Parties may lead oral and documentary evidence with respect to income, 
expenditure, standard of living, etc. before the concerned Court , for fixing 
the permanent alimony payable to the spouse.  
(ii)  In contemporary society, where several marriages do not last for a 
reasonable length of time, it may be inequitable to direct the contesting 
spouse to pay permanent alimony to the applicant for the rest of her life. The 
duration of the marriage would be a relevant factor to be taken into 
consideration for determining the permanent alimony to be paid.  
(iii)  Provision for grant of  reasonable expenses for the marriage of children 
must be  made at the time of determining permanent alimony , where the 
custody is with the wife. The expenses would be determined by taking into 
account the financial position of the husband and the customs of the family.  
(iv)  If there are any trust funds  / investments created by any spouse  / 
grandparents in favour of the children, this would also be taken into 
consideration while deciding the final child support.

Source PDF page 38

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
38 
 
III   Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance  
(i)  The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to ensure that  
the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the 
failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no 
straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. 
 The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of 
the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and depend ant children; whether the 
applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any 
independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to 
maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial 
home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she 
was working during the subsistence of the marriage ; whether  the wife was 
required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child 
rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of 
litigation for a non-working wife.33  
 In Manish Jain  v Akanksha Jain 34 this Court held that the financial 
position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while 
determining the quantum of maintenance . An order of interim maintenance is 
conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has 
no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a 
claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The 
court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the 
spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual 
situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various 
factors brought before it. 
 On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband , his actual 
income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family 
members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would 
 
33 Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v District Judge, Dehradun & Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 7. 
Refer to Vinny Paramvir Parmar v Paramvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112. 
34 (2017) 15 SCC 801.

Source PDF page 39

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
39 
 
be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum 
of maintenance to be paid . The Court must have due regard to the standard of 
living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high co sts of 
living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income 
ipso facto does not absolve  him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is 
able bodied and has educational qualifications.35 
(ii)  A careful and just balance must be drawn  between all relevant factors.  
The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on 
the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant 
was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.36  
 The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and 
avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should 
neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive  and unbearable  for the 
respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The 
sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain 
herself with reasonable comfort. 
(iii)  Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the 
criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 
23 of HAMA provide s the following factors which may be taken into 
consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the 
claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for 
the same, (iv) value of the claimant’s property and any income derived from such 
property, (v) income from claimant’s own earning or from any other source. 
(iv)  Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief granted to 
the aggrieved woman and  / or the children must be adequate, fair , reasonable, 
and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was 
accustomed to in her matrimonial home.  
 
35 Reema Salkan v Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303. 
36 Chaturbhuj v Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316.

Source PDF page 40

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
40 
 
(v)  The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde 37 laid down 
the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance :  
  “1. Status of the parties. 
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant. 
3.The independent income and property of the claimant. 
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain. 
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as 
he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. 
6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any. 
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance 
and treatment etc. of the applicant. 
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant. 
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the 
non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. 
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation. 
11. The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the 
amount awarded u/ 24 of the Act. 17.” 
 
(vi)  Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove, certain 
additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum of 
maintenance payable.  
(a) Age and employment of parties 
 In a marriage of long duration, where parties have endured the 
relationship for several years, it would be a relevant factor to be taken into 
consideration. On termination of the relationship, if the wife is educated and 
professionally qualified, but had to give up her employment opportunities to 
look after the needs of the family being the primary caregiver to the minor 
children, and the elder members of the family, this factor would be required 
to be given due importance. This is of particular relevance in contemporary 
society, given the highly competitive industry standards, the separated wife 
would be required to undergo fresh training to acquire marketable skills and 
re-train herself to secure a job in the paid workforce  to rehabilitate herself. 
With advancement of age, it would be difficult for a dependant wife to get an 
easy entry into the work-force after a break of several years.  
 
 
 
37 140 (2007) DLT 16.

Source PDF page 41

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
41 
 
(b) Right to residence 
 Section 17 of the D.V. Act grants an aggrieved woman the right to live in 
the “shared household”. Section 2(s) defines “shared household” to include 
the household where the aggrieved woman lived at any stage of the domestic 
relationship; or the household owned and rented jointly or singly by both, or 
singly by either  of the spouses ; or  a joint family house, of which the 
respondent is a member.  
 The right of a woman to reside in a “shared household”  defined under 
Section 2(s) entitles the aggrieved woman for right of residence in the shared 
household, irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same . This 
Court in Satish Chander Ahuja  v Sneha Ahuja 38 (supra) held that “shared 
household” referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared hou sehold of the 
aggrieved person where she was living at the time when the application was 
filed, or at any stage lived  in a domestic relationship . The living of the 
aggrieved woman in the shared household must have a degree of permanence. 
A mere fleeting or  casual living at different places would not constitute a 
“shared household”. It is important to consider the intention of the parties, 
nature of living, and nature of the household, to determine whether the 
premises is a “shared household”.  Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 
of the D.V. Act entitles a woman to the right of residence in a shared 
household, irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same. There is 
no requirement of law that the husband should be a member of the joint 
family, or that the household must belong to the joint family, in which he or 
the aggrieved woman has any right, title or interest. The shared household 
may not necessarily be owned or tenanted by the husband singly or jointly. 
 Section 19 (1)(f) of the D.V. Act provides that the Magistrate may pass a 
residence order inter alia directing the respondent to secure the same level of 
alternate accommodation for the aggrieved woman as enjoyed by her in the 
shared household. While passing such an order, the Magistrate may direct the 
 
38 Civil Appeal No. 2483 / 2020 decided vide Judgment dated 15.10.2020.

Source PDF page 42

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
42 
 
respondent to pay the rent and other payments, having regard to the financial 
needs and resources of the parties. 
(c) Where wife is earning some income 
 The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar 
from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided 
guidance on this issue in the following judgments. 
In Shailja & Anr. v Khobbanna,39 this Court held that merely because the 
wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the 
maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court has to determine 
whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, 
in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.40 
Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.41 
In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors.  v Anil Kachwaha 42  the wife had a 
postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband 
raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not 
require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled 
this contention, and held that m erely because th e wife was earning some 
income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.  
The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale  v Kalyani Sanjay 
Kale43 while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha  (supra), held 
that neither the mere potential to earn , nor the actual earning of the wife, 
howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance. 
An able -bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning 
sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that 
he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by 
the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj  v Shila Rani Chander 
 
39 (2018) 12 SCC 199. 
    See also Decision of the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v S. Deepa & Ors., 2016 Cri LJ 4794. 
40 Chaturbhuj v Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316.  
41 Vipul Lakhanpal v Smt. Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 1252. 
42 (2014) 16 SCC 715. 
43 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694.

Source PDF page 43

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
43 
 
Prakash.44 The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material  
that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the 
family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If 
the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse 
inference may be drawn by the Court.  
This Court in Shamima Farooqui v Shahid Khan45 cited the judgment in 
Chander Prakash (supra) with approval, and held that the obligation of the 
husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. 
(d) Maintenance of minor children 
 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 extra-curricular / coaching classes, 
and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed. 
 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.  
(e) Serious disability or ill health 
 Serious disability or ill health of a spouse, child  / children from the 
marriage / dependant rel ative who require constant care and recurrent 
expenditure, would also be a relevant consideration while quantifying 
maintenance.  
 
44 AIR 1968 Delhi 174. 
45 (2015) 5 SCC 705.

Source PDF page 44

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
44 
 
IV   Date from which Maintenance to be awarded 
There is no provision in the HMA with respect to the date from which an 
Order of maintenance may be made effective. Similarly, Section 12 of the D.V. 
Act, does not provide the date from which the maintenance is to be awarded.  
Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is the only statutory provision which provides that 
the Magistrate may award maintenance either from the date of the order, or from 
the date of application. 46 
In the absence of a uniform regime, there is a vast variance in the practice 
adopted by the Family Courts in the country, with respect to the date from which 
maintenance must be awarded. The divergent views taken by the Family Courts 
are : first, from the date on which the application for maintenance was filed; 
second, the date of the order granting maintenance; third, the date on which the 
summons was served upon the respondent. 
(a) From date of application 
 The view that maintenance ought to be granted from the date when the 
application was made , is based on the rationale that the primary object of 
maintenance laws is to protect a deserted wife and depend ant children from 
destitution and vagrancy. If maintenance is not paid from the date of application, 
the party seeking maintenance would be deprived  of sustenance, owing to the 
time taken for disposal of the application, which often runs into several years. 
The Orissa High Court in Susmita Mohanty v Rabindra Nath Sahu47 held 
that the legislature intended to provide a summary, quick and comparatively 
inexpensive remedy to the neglected person. Where a litigation is prolonged, 
either on account of the conduct of the opposite party, or due to the heavy docket 
in Courts, or for unavoidable reasons, it would be unjust and contrary to the 
object of the provision, to provide maintenance from the date of the order. 
In Kanhu Charan Jena v. Smt. Nirmala Jena48 , the Orissa High Court was 
considering an application u/S. 125 Cr.P.C., wherein it was held that even though 
 
46 K. Sivaram v K. Mangalamba & Ors.1989 (1) APLJ (HC) 604. 
47 1996 (I) OLR 361. 
48  2001 Cri LJ 879.

Source PDF page 45

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
45 
 
the decision to award maintenance either from the date of application, or from 
the date of order, was within the discretion of the Court, it would be appropriate 
to grant maintenance from the date of application. This was followed in Arun 
Kumar Nayak v Urmila Jena,49 wherein it was reiterated that dependents were 
entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application. 
The Madhya Pradesh High  Court in Krishna Jain v Dharam Raj Jai n50 
held that a wife may set up a claim for maintenance to be granted from the date 
of application, and the husband may deny it. In such cases, the Court may frame 
an issue, and decide the same based on evidence led by parties. The view th at 
the “normal rule” was to grant maintenance from the date of order, and the 
exception was to grant maintenance from the date of application, would be to 
insert something more in Section 125(2) Cr.P.C., which the Legislature did not 
intend. Reasons must b e recorded in both cases. i.e. when maintenance is 
awarded from the date of application, or when it is awarded from the date of 
order.  
The law governing payment of maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. from the date 
of application, was extended to HAMA by the Alla habad High Court in Ganga 
Prasad Srivastava v Additional District Judge, Gonda & Ors. 51 The Court held 
that the date of application should always be regarded as the starting point for 
payment of maintenance. The Court was considering a suit for maintenance u/S. 
18 of HAMA, wherein  the Civil Judge directed that maintenance be paid from 
the date of judgment. The High Court  held that the normal inference should be 
that the order of maintenance would be effective from the date of application. A 
party seeking maintenance would otherwise be deprived of maintenance due to 
the delay in disposal of the application, which may arise due to paucity of time 
of the Court, or on account of the conduct of one of the parties. In this case, there 
was a delay of seven years in disposing of the suit, and the wife could not be 
 
49 (2010) 93 AIC 726 (Ori). 
50 1993 (2) MPJR 63. 
51 2019 (6) ADJ 850.

Source PDF page 46

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
46 
 
made to starve till such time. The wife was held to be entitled to maintenance 
from the date of application / suit. 
The Delhi High Court in Lavlesh Shukla v Rukmani52 held that where the 
wife is unemployed and is incurring expenses towards maintaining herself and 
the minor child / children, she is entitled to receive maintenance from the date of 
application. Maintenance is awarded to a wife to overcome the financial crunch, 
which occurs on account of her separation from her husband. It is neither a matter 
of favour to the wife, nor any charity done by the husband. 
(b) From the date of order 
The second view that maintenance ought to be awarded from the date of 
order is based on the premise that the general rule is to award maintenance from 
the date of order, and grant of maintenance from the date of application must be 
the exception. Th e foundation of this view is based on the interpretation of 
Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. which provides :  
“(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and 
expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if 
so ordered , fro m the date of the application for maintenance or interim 
maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.” 
        (emphasis supplied) 
 The words “or, if so ordered” in Section 125 has been interpreted to mean 
that where the court is awarding maintenance from the date of application, 
special reasons ought to be recorded.53 
In Bina Devi  v State of U.P., 54  the Allahabad High Court on an 
interpretation of S.125(2) of the Cr.P.C. held that when maintenance is directed 
to be paid from the date of application, the Court must record reasons. If the 
order is silent, it will be effective from the date of  the order, for which reasons 
need not be recorded. The Court held that Section 125(2) Cr.P.C.  is prima facie 
clear that maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order. 
 
52 Crl.Rev.P. 851/2019 decided by the Delhi High Court vide Order dated 28.11.2019. 
53 Bina Devi & Ors. v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 69 ACC 19. 
54 (2010) 69 ACC 19.

Source PDF page 47

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
47 
 
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Amit Verma v Sangeeta Verma & 
Ors.55 directed that maintenance ought to be granted from the date of the order. 
(c) From the date of service of summons 
The third view followed by some Courts is that maintenance ought to be 
granted from the date of service of summons upon the respondent.  
The Kera la High Court in S. Radhakumari  v K.M.K. Nair 56  was 
considering an application for interim maintenance preferred by the wife in 
divorce proceedings filed by the husband. The High Court held that maintenance 
must be awarded to the wife from the date on which summons were served in 
the main divorce petition. The Court relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta 
High Court in Samir Banerjee v Sujata Banerjee,57 and held that Section 24 of 
the HMA does not contain any provision that maintenance must be awarded from 
a specific date. The Court may, in exercise of its discretion, award maintenance 
from the date of service of summons. 
The Orissa High Court in Gouri Das  v Pradyumna Kumar Das 58 was 
considering an application fo r interim maintenance filed u/S. 24 HMA by the 
wife, in a divorce petition instituted by the husband. The Court held that the 
ordinary rule is to award maintenance from the date of service of summons.  It 
was held that in cases where the applicant in the maintenance petition is also the 
petitioner in the divorce petition, maintenance becomes payable from the date 
when summons is served upon the respondent in the main proceeding.  
In Kalpana Das v Sarat Kumar Das,59  the Orissa High Court held that the 
wife was entitled to maintenance from the date when the husband entered 
appearance. The Court was considering an application for interim maintenance 
u/S. 24 HMA in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife. The 
Family Court awarded interim maintenance to the wife and minor child from the 
date of the order. In an appeal filed by the wife and minor child seeking 
 
55 CRR No. 3542/2019, decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide Order dated 08.01.2020. 
56 AIR 1983 Ker 139. 
57 70 CWN 633. 
58 1986 (II) OLR 44. 
59 AIR 2009 Ori 133.

Source PDF page 48

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
48 
 
maintenance from the date of application, the High Court held that the Family 
Court had failed to assign any reasons in support of its order, and directed : 
“9. …Learned Judge. Family Court has not assigned any reason as to why 
he passed the order of interim maintenance w.e.f. the date of order. When 
admittedly the parties are living separately and prima facie it appears that 
the Petitioners have no independent source of income, therefore, in our view 
order should have been passed for payment of interim maintenance from 
the date of appearance of the Opposite Party-husband…” 
(emphasis supplied)  
   
    Discussion and Directions 
 The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High 
Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded.  
 Even though  a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court  to grant 
maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order  in 
S. 125(2) Cr.P.C., it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of 
application in all cases, including Section 125 Cr.P.C.  In the practical working 
of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay 
in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would 
therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded 
from the date of the application.  
 In Shail Kumari Devi and Ors. v Krishnan Bhagwan Pathak60, this Court 
held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date 
of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies 
the award of maintenance from the date of application. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh 
v Meena61, this Court held that repetitive adjournments sought by the husband in 
that case resulted in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the case. The delay in 
adjudication was not only against human rights, but also against the basic 
embodiment of dignity of an individual. The d elay in the conduct of the 
proceedings would require grant of maintenance to date back to the date of 
application.  
 
60 2008 9 SCC 632. 
61 2015 6 SCC 353.

Source PDF page 49

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
49 
 
 The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds 
its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations , so a s to enable the 
wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the 
husband. Financial constraints of a dependant spouse hampers their capacity to 
be effectively represented before the Court.  In order to prevent a dependant from 
being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from 
the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the concerned 
Court.  
 In Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse 62 , the Supreme Court was 
considering the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held :  
“13.3. …purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of 
Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or 
hapless children or parents under this provisio n, the Court is dealing with 
the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve “social 
justice” which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the 
Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly 
signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to 
achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and 
fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, 
it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of the social 
justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is 
supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.” 
        (emphasis supplied) 
 
 It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about 
uniformity and consistency in the Orders passed by all Courts, by directing that 
maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before 
the concerned Court. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date 
of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance 
proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.  
 
   
  
 
62 (2014) 1 SCC 188.

Source PDF page 50

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
50 
 
V    Enforcement of orders of maintenance 
 Enforcement of the order of maintenance is the most challenging issue, 
which is encountered by the applicants. If maintenance is not paid in a timely 
manner, it defeats the very object of the social welfare legislation.  Execution 
petitions usually remain pending for months, if not years, which completely 
nullifies the object of the law. The Bombay High Court in Sushila Viresh 
Chhawda v Viresh Nagsi Chhawda63 held that : 
“The direction of interim alimony and expenses of li tigation under Section 24 
is one of urgency and it must be decided as soon as it is raised and the law takes 
care that nobody is disabled from prosecuting or defending the matrimonial 
case by starvation or lack of funds.” 
(i)  An application for execution of an Order of Maintenance can be filed 
under the following provisions : 
(a) Section 28 A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 r.w. Section 18 of the Family 
Courts Act, 1984 and Order XXI Rule 94 of the CPC for executing an Order 
passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (before the Family 
Court); 
(b) Section 20(6) of the DV Act (before the Judicial Magistrate); and 
(c) Section 128 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate’s Court. 
(ii)  Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that orders passed by 
the Family Court shall be executable in accordance with the CPC / Cr.P.C.  
(iii)  Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C provides that if the party against whom the 
order of maintenance is passed fails to comply with the order of maintenance, 
the same shall be recovered in the manner as provided for fines, and the 
Magistrate may award sentence of imprisonment for a term whi ch may extend 
to one month, or until payment, whichever is earlier.  
Striking off the Defence  
(i)  Some Family Courts have passed orders for striking off the defence of the 
respondent in case of non -payment of maintenance , so as to facilitate speedy 
disposal of the maintenance petition.  
 
63 AIR 1996 Bom 94.

Source PDF page 51

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
51 
 
In Kaushalya v Mukesh Jain 64, the Supreme Court allowed  a Family 
Court to strike off the defence of the respondent, in case of non -payment of 
maintenance in accordance with the interim order passed.  
(ii)  The Punjab & Haryana High Court  in Bani v. Parkash Singh 65 was 
considering a case where the husband failed to comply with the maintenance 
order, despite several notices, for  a period of over two years. The Court taking 
note of the power to strike off the defence of the respondent, held that :  
"Law is not that powerless as not to bring the husband to book. If the 
husband has failed to make the payment of maintenance and litigation 
expenses to wife, his defence be struck out."   
 
(iii) The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mohinder Verma  v Sapna, 66 
discussed the issue of striking off the defence in the following words :  
“8. Section 24 of the Act empowers the matrimonial court to award 
maintenance pendente lite and also litigation expenses to a needy and 
indigent spouse so that the proceedings can b e conducted without any 
hardship on his or her part. The proceedings under this Section are 
summary in nature and confers a substantial right on the applicant during 
the pendency of the proceedings. Where this amount is not paid to the 
applicant, then the very object and purpose of this provision stands 
defeated. No doubt, remedy of execution of decree or order passed by the 
matrimonial court is available under Section 28A of the Act, but the same 
would not be a bar  to striking off the defence of the spouse who violates 
the interim order of maintenance and litigation expenses passed by the 
said Court. In other words, the striking off the defence of the spouse not 
honouring the court's interim order is the instant rel ief to the needy one 
instead of waiting endlessly till its execution under Section 28A of the Act. 
Where the spouse who is to pay maintenance fails to discharge the 
liability, the other spouse cannot be forced to adopt time consuming 
execution proceedings for realising the amount. Court cannot be a mute 
spectator watching flagrant disobedience of the interim orders passed by 
it showing its helplessness in its instant implementation. It would, thus, be 
appropriate even in the absence of any specific provision to that effect in 
the Act, to strike off the defence of the erring spouse in exercis e of its 
inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read 
with Section 21 of the Act rather than to leave the aggrieved party to seek 
its enforcement through execution as execution is a long and  arduous 
procedure. Needless to say, the remedy under  Section 28A  of the Act 
regarding execution of decree or interim order does not stand obliterated 
or extinguished by striking off the defence of the defaulting spouse. Thus, 
where the spouse who is directed to pay the maintenance and litigation 
 
64  Criminal Appeal Nos. 1129-1130 / 2019 decided vide Judgment dated 24.07.2019. 
65  AIR 1996 P&H 175. 
66  MANU/PH/3684/2014.

Source PDF page 52

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
52 
 
expenses, the legal consequences for its non-payment are that the defence 
of the said spouse is liable to be struck off.” 
       (emphasis supplied) 
 
(iv) The Delhi High Court i n Satish Kumar v Meena67 held that the Family 
Court had inherent powers to strike off the defence of the respondent, to ensure 
that no abuse of process of the court takes place. 
 The Delhi High Court in Smt. Santosh Sehgal v Shri Murari Lal Sehgal,68 
framed the following issue for consideration : “Whether the appeal against the 
decree of divorce filed by the appellant-wife can be allowed straightway without 
hearing the respondent -husband in the event of his failing to pay interim 
maintenance and litigation expenses granted to the wife during the pendency of 
the appeal.” 
 The reference was answered as follows :  
“5.The reference to the portion of the judgment in Bani's case extracted here -
in-above would show that the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Orissa 
Page 2216 High Court have taken an unanimous view that in case the 
husband commits default in payment of interim maintenance to his wife and 
children then he is not entitled to any matrimonial relief in proceedings by 
or against him. The view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in 
Bani's case has been followed by a Single Judge of this Court in  Satish 
Kumar v. Meena  . We tend to agree with this view as it is in consonance 
with the first principl e of law. We are of the view that when a husband is 
negligent and does not pay maintenance to his wife as awarded by the 
Court, then how such a person is entitled to the relief claimed by him in the 
matrimonial proceedings. We have no hesitation in holding that in case the 
husband fails to pay maintenance and litigation expenses to his wife granted 
by the Court during the pendency of the appeal, then the appeal filed by the 
wife against the decree of divorce granted by the trial court in favor of the 
husband has to be allowed. Hence the question referred to us for decision 
is answered in the affirmative.” 
 The Court concluded that if there was non-payment of  interim 
maintenance, the defence of the respondent is liable to be struck off, and the 
appeal filed by the appellant-wife can be allowed, without hearing the 
respondent.  
 
67 2001 (60) DRJ 246. 
68 AIR 2007 Delhi 210.

Source PDF page 53

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
53 
 
(v)        The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurvinder Singh v Murti & Ors. 69 
was considering a case where the trial court stuck off the defence of the husband 
for non-payment of ad-interim maintenance. The High Court set aside the order 
of the trial court, and held that instead of following the correct procedure for 
recovery of interim maintenance as provided u/S.  125 (3) or Section 421 of the 
Cr.P.C., the trial court erred in striking off the defence of the husband. The error 
of the court did not assist in recovery of interim maintenance, but rather 
prolonged the litigation between the parties. 
(vi) The issue whether defence can be struck off in proceedings under Section 
125 Cr.P.C. came up before the  Madhya Pradesh High Court in Venkateshwar 
Dwivedi v Ruchi Dwivedi.70 The Court held that neither Section 125(3) of the 
Cr.P.C, nor Section 10 of the Family Courts Act either expressly or by necessary 
implication empower the Magistrate or Family Court to strike off the defence. A 
statutory remedy for recovery of maintenance was available , and the power to 
strike off defence does not exist in a proceeding u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. Such power 
cannot be presumed to exist as an inherent or implied power. The Court placed 
reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Davis v Thomas,71 and held 
that the Magistrate does not possess the power to strike off the defence for failure 
to pay interim maintenance. 
Discussion and Directions on Enforcement of Orders of Maintenance 
 The order or decree of maintenance may be enforced like a decree of a 
civil court, through the provisions which are available for enforcing a money 
decree, including civil detention, attachment of property, etc. as provided by 
various provisions of the CPC , more particularly  Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read 
with Order XXI. 
 
69 Gurvinder Singh v Murti & Ors. I (1990) DMC 559.  
70 II (2018) DMC 103 MP. 
Karnataka High Court affirmed this view in Ravindra Kumar v Renuka & Anr. 2009 SCC OnLine Kar 
481. 
71 2007(4) ILR (Kerala) 389. 
See also Sakeer Hussain T.P. v Naseera & Ors., 2016 (4) ILR (Kerala) 917.

Source PDF page 54

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
54 
 
 Striking off the defence of the respondent is an order which ought to be 
passed in the last resort, if the Courts find default to be wilful and contumacious, 
particularly to a dependant unemployed wife, and minor children. 
 Contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience may be initiated before the 
appropriate Court.

Source PDF page 55

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
55 
 
VI     Final Directions 
 In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B – I to V of this 
judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of 
our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India : 
(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction  
 To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting 
orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue 
directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed 
by the Family Courts/Dis trict Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the 
country. We direct that: 
(i)  where successive claims for maintenance  are made  by a party 
under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or set -
off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceedin g/s, while 
determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the 
subsequent proceeding; 
(ii)  it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous 
proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;   
(iii)  if the order passed in the previous proceeding /s requires any 
modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same 
proceeding.  
(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance  
 The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as 
Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed 
by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending 
proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates 
Court, as the case may be, throughout the country. 
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance  
 For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the 
Court shall take into account  the criteria enumerated in Part B – III of the 
judgment.

Source PDF page 56

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
56 
 
 The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned 
Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be 
necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case. 
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded 
 We make it clear that maintenance in all cases  will be awarded from the 
date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B – IV above.  
(e) Enforcement / Execution of orders of maintenance 
 For enforcement / execution of orders of maintenance,  it is directed that 
an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 
of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced 
as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CP C, more 
particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI. 
  
 Before we part with this judgment, we note our appreciation of the 
valuable assistance provided by the Ld. Amici Curiae Ms. Anitha Shenoy and 
Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocates in this case. 
 A copy of this judgment be communicated by the Secretary General of 
this Court, to the Registrars of all High Courts, who would in turn circulate it to 
all the District Courts  in the State s. It shall be displayed on the website of all 
District Courts / Family Courts / Courts of Judicial Magistrates for awareness 
and implementation.  
         
 
        .………………………. 
        (INDU MALHOTRA, J.) 
 
 
New Delhi,       …………………………. 
November 4, 2020                    (R. SUBHASH REDDY J.)

Source PDF page 57

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
57 
 
Enclosure I 
Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities for Non-Agrarian Deponents 
 
 I _________, d/o _______ or s/o    , aged  about ______years,  resident of 
  , do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 
A. Personal Information 
1. Name: 
2. Age/Sex: 
3. Qualifications (Educational and Professional): 
4. Whether the Applicant is staying in the matrimonial house / parental home / 
separate residence. Please provide the current residential address of matrimonial 
home or place of residence and details of ownership of residence, if owned by other 
family member.   
5. Date of marriage: 
6. Date of separation: 
7. General monthly expenses of the Applicant (rent, household expenses, medical 
bills, transportation, etc.):  
B. Details of Legal Proceedings and Maintenance being paid 
1. Particulars of any ongoing or past legal proceedings with respect to maintenance  
or child support between the Applicant and Non-Applicant. 
2. Whether any maintenance has been awarded in any proceeding arising under the 
D.V.Act, Cr.P.C., HMA, HAMA, etc.? If yes, provide details of the quantum of 
maintenance awarded in the proceedings. 
3. If so, provide particulars thereof, alongwith a copy of the Order/s passed. 
4. Whether the Order of maintenance passed in earlier proceedings has been complied 
with. If not, arrears of maintenance. 
5. Whether any voluntary contribution towards maintenance has be en made/ will be 
made in the future? If yes, provide details of the same. 
C. Details of dependant family members 
1. Details of Dependant family members, if any. 
a. Relationship with dependants: 
b. Age and sex of dependant/s:

Source PDF page 58

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
58 
 
2. Disclose if any independent source/s of income of the dependants, including 
interest income, assets, pension, tax liability on any such income and any other 
relevant details.  
3. The approximate expenses incurred on account of the dependant.  
D. Medical details if any, of the Deponent and/or dependant family members 
 
1. Whether either party or child /children  is suffering from any physical / mental 
disability, or any other serious ailment. If yes, produce medical records. 
2. Whether any dependant family member has serious disability, requiring continuous 
medical expenditure. If yes, produce disability certificate and approximate medical 
expenditure incurred on such medical treatment. 
3. Whether either party or child/children or any other dependent family member is 
suffering from life-threatening diseases, which would entail expensive and regular 
medical expenditure? If yes, provide details of the same along with summary of 
previous details of hospitalisation/medical expenses incurred. 
E. Details of Children of the parties 
1. Number of children  from the existing marriage / marital relationship / previous 
marriage 
2. Name and age of children 
3. Details of the parent who has the custody of the children.   
4. Expenditure for maintenance of dependant children. 
a. Towards food, clothing and medical expenses 
b. Towards expenses for education, and a summary of general expenses 
c. Towards expenses, if any, of any extra educational, vocational or professional / 
educational course, specialised training or special skills programme of 
dependent children.  
d. Details of any loan, mortgage, charge incurred or instalment plan (being paid or 
payable), if any, on account of any educational expenses of children.   
5. Whether any voluntary contribution by either of the parties is being made towards 
these educational expenses. If yes, provide details of the same. Also provide an 
estimate of any additional contribution that may be required.  
6. Whether any financial support is being provided by a third party for the educational 
expenses of the children?

Source PDF page 59

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
59 
 
F. Details of Income of the Deponent 
1. Name of employer: 
2. Designation: 
3. Monthly income: 
4. If engaged in Government Service, furnish latest Salary Certificates or current Pay 
Slips or proof of deposit in bank account, if being remitted directly by employer.  
5. If engaged in the private sector, furnish a certificate provided by the employer 
stating the designation and gross monthly income of such person, and Form 16 for 
the relevant period of current employment. 
6. If any perquisites, benefits, house rent allowance, travel allowance, dearness 
allowance or any other service benefit is being provided by the employer during 
the course of current employment.  
7. Whether assessed to income tax? 
If yes, submit copies of the Income Tax Returns for the periods given below :  
(i) One year prior to marriage 
(ii) One year prior to separation 
(iii) At the time when the Application for maintenance is filed 
8. Income from other sources, such as rent, interest, shares, dividends, capital gains, 
FDRs, Post office deposits, mutual funds, stocks, debentures, agriculture, or 
business, if any, alongwith TDS in respect of any such income. 
9. Furnish copies of Bank Statement of all accounts for the last 3 years. 
G. Assets (movable and immovable) owned by the Deponent  
1. Self-acquired property, if any: 
2. Properties jointly owned by the parties after marriage: 
3. Share in any ancestral property: 
4. Other joint properties of the parties (accounts/ investment s/ FDR/ mutual funds, 
stocks, debentures etc.), their value and status of possession: 
5. Status of possession of immovable property and details of rent, if leased: 
6. Details of loans taken or given by the Deponent 
7. Brief description of jewellery and ornaments of parties acquired during /after 
marriage

Source PDF page 60

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
60 
 
8. Details of transfer deeds or transactions of alienation of properties previously 
owned by the applicant, executed during the subsistence of the marriage. Also 
provide brief reasons for such sale or transaction, if any. 
H. Details of Liabilities of the Deponent 
1. Loans, liabilities, mortgage, or charge outstanding against the Deponent, if any.  
2. Details of any EMIs being paid. 
3. Date and purpose of taking loan or incurring any such liability: 
4. Actual amount borrowed, if any, and the amount paid upto date of filing the 
Affidavit: 
5. Any other information which would be relevant to describe current liabilities of the 
Deponent. 
I. Self-employed persons / Professionals / Business Persons / Entrepreneur  
1. Brief description of nature of business/profession /vocation/self-employed/work 
activity. 
2. Whether the business/profession/ self -employment is carried on as an individual, 
sole proprietorship concern, partnership concern, LLP, company or association of 
persons, HUF, joint family business or any other form? Give particulars of 
Applicant’s share in the partnership/business/ professional association/self -
employment. In case of partnership, specify the share in the profit/losses of the 
partnership. 
3. Net Income from the business/profession/ partnership/self-employment. 
4. Business/partnership/self-employment liabilities, if any, in case of such activity. 
5. In case of business of company, provide brief details of last audited balance sheet 
to indicate profit and loss of the company in which such party is in business in the 
company. 
6. In case of a partnership firm, provide details of the filings of the last Income Tax 
Return of partnership.  
7. In case of self -employed individual, provide the filings of the l ast Income Tax 
Return from any such professional/business/vocational activity. 
J. Information provided by the Deponent with respect to the income, assets and 
liabilities of the other Spouse 
1. Educational and professional qualifications of the other spouse:

Source PDF page 61

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
61 
 
2. Whether spouse is earning? If so, give particulars of the occupation and income of 
the spouse. 
3. If not, whether he/she is staying in his/her own accommodation, or in a rented 
accommodation or in accommodation provided by employer/business/partnership? 
4. Particulars of assets and liabilities of spouse as known to the deponent, alongwith 
any supporting documents. 
 
K. Details of Applicant or the other Spouse, in case parties are Non-Resident Indians, 
Overseas Citizens of India, Foreign Nationals or Persons living abroad outside 
India.   
1. Details of Citizenship, Nationality and current place of residence, if the Applicant 
or other spouse is residing abroad outside India, temporarily or permanently.  
2. Details of current employment and latest income in foreign currency of such 
applicant/spouse, duly supported by relevant documentation of employment and 
income from such foreign employer or overseas institution by way of employment 
letter or testimonial from foreign employer or overseas institution or latest relevant 
bank statement.   
3. Details of household and other expenditure of such applicant/spouse in foreign 
jurisdiction.  
4. Details of tax liability of applicant/other spouse in foreign jurisdiction.  
5. Details of income of applicant/other spouse from other sources in India/foreign 
jurisdiction.  
6. Details of expenses incurred or contribution made on account of spousal 
maintenance, child support or any other educational expenses, medical treatment 
of spouse or children.  
7. Any other relevant detail of expenses or liabilities, not covered under any of the 
above headings and any other liabilities to any other dependant family members in 
India or abroad.

Source PDF page 62

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
62 
 
Declaration 
1. I declare that I have made a full and accurate disclosure of my income, 
expenditure, assets and liabilities from all sources. I further declare that I have no 
assets, income, expenditure and liabilities other than as stated in this affidavit. 
2. I undertake to inform this Court immediately with respect to any material change 
in my employment, assets, income, expenses or any other information included 
in this affidavit. 
3. I understand that any false statement in this affidavit, apart from being contempt 
of Court, may also constitute an offence under Section 199 read with Sections 
191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment upto seven 
years and fine, and Section 209 of Indian Penal Code punishable with 
imprisonment upto two years and fine. I have read and understood Sections 191, 
193, 199 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
 
DEPONENT 
Verification 
 
Verified at ___on this _____day of _____ that the contents of the above affidavit 
are true to my personal knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has 
been concealed therefrom, whereas the contents of the above affidavit relating to 
the assets, income and expenditure of my spouse ar e based on information 
believed to be true  on the basis of record . I further verify that the copies of the 
documents filed along with the affidavit are the copies of the originals. 
 
          
         DEPONENT

Source PDF page 63

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
63 
 
    Enclosure II 
Details for Affidavit for Agrarian Deponents (Krishi)  
 
1. Total extent of the rural land/s owned, or the specific share holding in the same 
land: 
2. Jamabandis / Mutations to show ownership 
3. Location of the land owned by the party. 
4. Nature of land : whether wet land or dry land. 
5. Whether such land is agricultural land or non-agricultural land: 
6. Nature of agriculture / horticulture : 
7. Nature of crops cultivated during the year : 
8. If rural land is not cultivable, whether the same is being used for business, leasing 
or other activity :  
9. Income generated during the past 3 years from the land.  
10. Whether any land is taken on lease /battai (or any other term used for a lease in the 
local area of the concerned jurisdiction where rural /agricultural land is located.) 
11. (a) Whether owner of any livestock, such as buffaloes, cows, goats, cattle, poultry, 
fishery, bee keeping, piggery etc., the nu mber thereof and Income generated 
therefrom? 
(b) Whether engaged in dairy farming, poultry, fish farming or any other livestock 
activity. 
12. Loans, if any obtained against the land. Furnish details of such loans. 
13. Any other sources of income : 
14. Liabilities, if any 
15. Any other relevant information :

Source PDF page 64

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
64 
 
Declaration 
1. I declare that I have made a full and accurate disclosure of my income, 
expenditure, assets and liabilities from all sources. I further declare that I have no 
assets, income, expenditure and liabilities other than as stated in this affidavit. 
2. I undertake to inform this Court immediately with respect to any material change 
in my employment, assets, income, expenses or any other information included 
in this affidavit. 
3. I understand that any false statement in this affidavit, apart from being contempt 
of Court, may constitute an offence under Section 199 read with Sections 191 and 
193 of the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment upto seven years and 
fine, and Section 209 of Indian Penal Co de punishable with imprisonment upto 
two years and fine. I have read and understood Sections 191, 193 , 199, and 209 
of the Indian Penal Code,1860. 
 
           
         DEPONENT 
 
Verification 
 
Verified at ___on this ___day of_____that the contents of the above affidavit are 
true to my personal knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been 
concealed therefrom. I further verify that the copies of the documents filed along 
with the affidavit are the copies of the originals. 
         
         DEPONENT

Source PDF page 65

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
65 
 
Enclosure III 
Affidavit for the State of Meghalaya 
1. Whether the woman is the youngest daughter of the family. 
2. Whether the woman is staying with her husband in her family property. 
3. Whether she has any maternal uncle, who plays a very important role in their family 
matters, which includes settlement of matrimonial disputes. The woman should also 
disclose her clan and her lineage. 
4. The woman should disclose if her children have adopted the surname of her mother, 
in as much as Khasi has been defined as “a person who adopts the surname of his 
or her mother”. 
5. The woman should disclose if she gets any financial assistance from her clan or 
family member. 
6. The woman should disclose if her parents are alive more specificall y, her mother, 
and how many siblings she has. 
7. In event of a woman not being the youngest daughter, she has to disclose who the 
youngest daughter is. 
8. The woman should disclose if she has any movable or any immovable property, 
self-acquired or inherited from her clan. 
9. The woman should disclose if she is married to tribal or non-tribal 
The above format may be modified or adapted by the concerned Court, as may 
be considered appropriate.

Source PDF page 66

View this page in the original PDF
    
 
66 
 
Declaration 
1. I declare that I have made a full and accurate disclosure of my income, 
expenditure, assets and liabilities from all sources. I further declare that I have 
no assets, income, expenditure and liabilities other than as stated in this 
affidavit. 
2. I undertake to inform this Court immediately with respect to any material change 
in my employment, assets, income, expenses or any other information included 
in this affidavit. 
3. I understand that any false statement in this affidavit, apart from being contempt 
of Court, may also constitute an offence under Section 199 read with Sections 
191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment upto seven 
years and fine, and Section 209 of Indian Penal Code punishable with 
imprisonment upto two years and fine. I have read and understood Sections 191, 
193, 199, and 209 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
 
DEPONENT 
Verification 
 
Verified at ___on this _____day of _____ that the contents of the above affidavit 
are true to my personal knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has 
been concealed therefrom, whereas the contents of the above affidavit relating to 
the assets, income and expenditure of my spouse are based on information 
believed to be true  on the basis o f record. I further verify that the copies of the 
documents filed along with the affidavit are the copies of the originals. 
 
          
         DEPONENT