Amit Khanna V. Priyanka Khanna and Ors. [2010 (119) Drj 182]

Facts in Brief:

Through specific appeals, the parties i.e., the couple have berated an order given on 26/10/2009, by the Hon’ble Additional Sessions Judge in his decision. Miss Priyanka Khanna had filed a petition before the Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005[1] and also filed an interim appeal for housing, security and maintenance during the time being.

The Magistrate assessed the husband’s salaries in the years between 2004 and 2008. It was inferred that the husband’s income for the most recent fiscal year was roughly 3.5 Lakhs not including the tax deduction. From this, it was deduced that per month, the husband’s salary was about 28,000 rupees. Based on the same, the wife was awarded per month, a maintenance of  15,000 rupees.

During the next appeal, the Assistant Sessions Judge further increased the overall maintenance to 45,000 rupees when it was learnt that the husband was earning 41,000 rupees per month. The reasoning given by the Judge for doing so was on the belief that the husband held a reputable status and as the owner of a massive number of movable and immovable assets, it was highly likely that the party not unlike most parties, he was hiding the true value of his salary which is not reflected in the Income Tax Returns. The wife was unemployed and is residing with her parents who are dependent on her.

Issued Raised

Based on the arguments presented by the counsels, two issues were created and deliberated upon by the Supreme Court:

Whether the Court can pass an order of maintenance beyond the means of the husband?

It is apparent from the Assistant Sessions Judge’s order that he had not cited the massive number of movable and immovable assets alleged to be in the husband’s ownership. Scant allegations made by the wife stating that her spouse held a high status and owned a large number of movable and immovable assets are not sufficient jurisdiction for the Court to adjudge the value of maintenance to be beyond the means of the husband. Such allegations, regardless of either passing an interim or permanent maintenance order, ought to be verified through documentary evidence.

Whether properties belonging to the relatives of the spouse can be considered as the properties of the spouse?

The assets existing under the possession of the husband’s sister or parents cannot be deemed as that of the husband as well. Otherwise, the same can be applicable for the wife where her siblings’ or parents’ assets may as well be called hers in light of which the court can rule that the wife has sufficient possessions  and is not in need of maintenance.

Therefore, properties of the immediate relatives of the husband cannot be a basis for deciding maintenance. A man’s status is not gleaned from the status of his siblings or parents. There may be many cases where a man is egoistic and does not wish to seek assistance or aid from his family members, and hence, does not share the same status as them.

Rule of Law

Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973[2]

Maintenance is defined as money that someone must pay regularly to a former wife, husband or partner, especially when they have had children together. It is the obligation of every person to maintain his wife, children and aged parents, who are not able to live on their own. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code dwells upon ‘Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

• In the case of Chanmuniya v Virendra Singh, the Supreme Court defined the term ‘wife’ stating that it includes even those cases where a man and woman have been living together for a reasonably long period of time. Strict proof of marriage need not be a precondition of maintenance.[3]
• In the case of Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v Ranantrao Shivram Adhav, the Supreme Court held that marriage of women in accordance with Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is totally null in the eyes of law and she is not entitled to benefit under Section 125.[4]
• In the case of Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan, the Supreme Court held that maintenance can be allowed to the wife when her husband is impotent.[5]
• In the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum, Supreme Court pronounced a judgement in favour of maintenance being given to an aggrieved divorced Muslim woman.[6]
• In the case of Abdulmunaf v Salima, it was held that the wife who is healthy and is sufficiently educated to earn for herself but refuses to do so in order to claim maintenance would disentitle her to get the total amount of maintenance.

A wife can claim and procure maintenance from her husband if: she is divorced by her husband; gets divorced from her husband; does not remarry; or is unable to sustain herself. A wife cannot claim and secure maintenance if: she engages in adultery; refuses to live with her husband without justification; or lives separately by mutual consent.

Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955[7]

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 lays down the provision regarding permanent maintenance. Under this arrangement, if the court is convinced that the wife does not have an independent source of deriving wages, then it may direct the husband, by way of an order to pay routine maintenance to the wife.

The aim of this is to prevent any discrimination as both spouses ought to be treated equally before the courts of law.

• In Dr Kulbhushan v. Raj  Kumari and Anr., the court ruled that the value of maintenance is decided while taking into account the facts of the case and that the court is justified in choosing to alter the value of the maintenance. It was also observed that depending on the case, it would not be inappropriate to award the wife a quarter of her husband’s income as maintenance.[8]
• In Rani Sethi v. Sunil Sethi, the court directed the wife to give maintenance of a total of 30,000 rupees to her husband as well as a vehicle for the personal use of the husband. On appeal to the High Court, it was ruled that as the husband was capable of deriving income indecently, he cannot move an application for seeking maintenance.
• The same was upheld in the case of  Yashpal Singh Thakur v. Smt. Anjana Rajput where husband had himself incapacitated by halting to collide into an auto-rickshaw and as he did so with the intention, he lost the benefit of filing a petition for being awarded with maintenance.[9]

Judgement Analysis

It is apparent from the Assistant Sessions Judge’s order that he had not cited the massive number of movable and immovable assets alleged to be in the husband’s ownership. Scant allegations made by the wife stating that her spouse held a high status and owned a large number of movable and immovable assets are not sufficient jurisdiction for the Court to adjudge the value of maintenance to be beyond the means of the husband. Such allegations, regardless of either passing an interim or permanent maintenance order, ought to be verified through documentary evidence.

The assets existing under the possession of the husband’s sister or parents cannot be deemed as that of the husband as well. Otherwise, the same can be applied for the wife where her siblings’ or parents’ assets may as well be called hers in light of which the court can rule that the wife has sufficient possessions and is not in need of maintenance.

Therefore, the properties of the immediate relatives of the husband cannot be a basis for deciding maintenance. A man’s status is not gleaned from the status of his siblings or parents. There may be many cases where a man is egoistic and does not wish to seek assistance or aid from his family members, and hence, does not share the same status as them.

In the case of Manpreet Singh Bhatia v. Sumita Bhatia, the courts referred to Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 while determining the amount of maintenance owed by the husband to his wife and some of the factors taken into consideration were the husband’s status as well as that of the wife; the validity of wife’s appeal for maintenance; living conditions of the wife and reasonability of the same; properties already belonging to the wife; and personal expenses of the husband.[10]

Similarly, in the present case, one such condition taken into assessment was that of the initial intention of the parties before going into marriage. It was highlighted that the couple’s marriage was not an arranged one, and rather it was borne out of love after dating for nearly a decade. In light of this fact, it was opined that the intention of the wife to marry had never been mainly caused by the status of the husband’s relatives and hence, it must be assumed that love for the husband and not for his or his relatives’ assets is to be taken into consideration when adjudging upon adequate maintenance. Therefore, when the salary of the husband is 41,000/- per month, directing him to pay maintenance worth 45,000/- is simply not just. The order given by the Assistant Sessions Judge was deemed to be contradictory to the established law and was, therefore, set aside.[11]

Conclusions

Generally, the courts mandate that the proof provided by the spouse who accuses the other spouse of a marital offence ought to be cross-verified. However, either way cannot be withheld from adjudging upon an issue based on an uncorroborated statement of the wife. In Bipin Chandra v. Prabhawati, the Apex Court ruled that corroboration of evidence still ought to be ensured as a precaution if it can be accounted for the sake of satisfying the court.

In the present case, not only was the wife’s claim of her husband having a bountiful stake on the properties of his family uncorroborated but even if it were true, merely belonging to a family having opulent or sufficient assets is not an adequate element to stipulate a maintenance which is more than the monthly income of the husband. To pass an order directing the husband to pay far beyond and in excess of his means, simply on the presumption that he may possess the properties owned by his parents or siblings is unreasonable and unjustified.

The conditions and factors to be taken into consideration while assessing or deciding upon the amount of maintenance to be awarded can be gleaned from Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under which there is no mention of treating the accused party’s family’s wealth as an element which is to be examined.

Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairness, it is imperative to refer to this precedent and wholly understand the delicate process of adjudging upon the value of maintenance payable in different cases depending upon the relevant and crucial facts.[12]

---

References:

[1] Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 2005, (India).

[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Act No. 2 of 1974, § 125.

[3] (2011) 1 SCC 141.

[4] 1988 AIR 644 1988.

[5] 1981 AIR 1972 1982 SCR (1) 695.

[6] 1985 AIR 945 1985.

[7] The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Act No. 25 of 1955, § 24.

[8] 1971 AIR 234, 1971 SCR (2) 672.

[9] AIR 2001 MP 67.

[10] AIR 2017 Delhi 70.

[11] Amit Khanna v. Priyanka Khanna And Ors. 2010 (119) Drj 182.

[12] Diva Rai, Concept of Maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, BLOGIPLEADERS (Jun., 2019) https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-of-maintenance-in-hindu-marriage-act-1955/.