Anu Kaul vs Rajeev Kaul [(2009) 13 SCC 209]

Brief Facts:

The appellant’s wife and the respondent’s husband decided to get married and gave birth to a baby girl named Karmistha Kaul. As time passed, they decided to get separated, and hence the appellant filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the application, there was a demand for interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- and a litigation expense of Rs. 22,000/-. The application was approved by the Court on its order dated 23.08.2006, providing the amount of Rs. 10,000 / – in respect of legal costs and the amount of Rs. 2,000 / – to support the minor child he lives with. The Appeal Application was again rejected by the Court on its order dated 21.03.2007, leaving it open to the applicant or applicant to apply for interim maintenance before the relevant Court in the capacity of Child Guardian.

Issue Raised

Whether it is required to get more maintenance when the custody of the child is in the mother’s hand?

Arguments from Appellant and Respondent

Confirmation of the applicant in the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that the respondent acts as the Chief Executive of Mukund Steel Ltd., with its head office in Mumbai and deducting Rs. 40,000 / – per month and is entitled to claim the educational benefits of his or her children.

In the application, the applicant acknowledges that he or she is employed and deducts a salary of Rs.9,000 / – per month. However, he says he has to pay an amount of Rs.3,000 / – in the form of a lease at the current lease due to lies between organizations. He also pointed out that Kumari Karmisatha Kaul is now older and studying at the Senior School, and due to lack of funds, her education is being disrupted.

Rule of Law

According to Hindu Marriage Act, the maintenance of divorce is about a man who provides financial assistance to his wife’s living expenses. Generally, not only the wife but her children and parents have the same right to financial assistance from the father/husband/son-in-law.

There are certain rules that give a wife the right to claim maintenance from her husband.  For neglected people seeking maintenance, especially an Indian wife, a practical solution was provided under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973.

The law sets out certain rules that must be followed when providing a certain amount of maintenance, which applies to the terms and conditions.

Maintenance Rights of a Divorced Woman in India

Maintenance rules and regulations vary from religion to religion. The amount of maintenance prepared by the Court depends on the husband’s monthly income, the wife’s salary, her financial status, and so on. India being a democratic country, provides its citizens with various laws that are important to their livelihood. A woman is considered a valid “Wife” of a man only if their marriage has not proved in vain. From right to her husband’s living quarters to have an equal share in that property, a legally married wife has many rights.

According to the terms of maintenance and rights, it is the husband’s duty to pay the wife a lump sum or monthly payment, known as maintenance, in which maintenance without divorce or after divorce must be paid. The amount of maintenance can be determined by cohabitation or by order of a court order. It is the right of women after divorce in India.

Legal Rights of a Wife

Streedhan Right: Streedhan property acquired by a woman during her marriage is different from Dowry in that the voluntary gifts given to the wife before or after her marriage are not compulsory. The courts clearly state that women will have full rights to their Streedhan, whether it is placed in the hands of their husband or in-laws.

Husband’s right to maintenance: Under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a Hindu wife has the right to claim maintenance from her husband if he is guilty of abuse, polygamy, or genital mutilation, thus violating her divorce rights. Under Section 25 of this Act, we provide Alimony and Permanent Care for Wife and Child. This section allows any court that has jurisdiction under this Act to issue an order upon receipt of a request from an aggrieved spouse ordering the respondent to pay the applicant for support and care.

The right to a dignified and dignified life: A wife has the right to live a dignified life and to have the same lifestyle as her husband and in-laws. You have the right to live free from any mental or physical abuse.

The right to child support: Husband and wife must take care of their young child. If the wife is unable to earn a living, then the husband should provide her with financial support.

Maintenance under Hindu law

According to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a divorced woman has the right to claim maintenance under the Hindu Act.

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, if in any proceedings of this Act, the Court concludes that the spouse does not have separate sources of income sufficient for their support, he or she may order the payment of monthly maintenance to the applicant by the respondent.

Comparison of the law of India with other Nations

South Africa

South Africa’s divorce law is incorporated into the Divorce Act, 1979. The law provides for a fair divorce in terms of an irreversible breakdown of military relations. Courts may accept any relevant evidence, but the law explicitly stipulates annual segregation, adultery, and common crimes as indicators of irreparable corruption. Divorce can also be obtained on the basis of a chronic mental illness for two years or ignorance for six months.

Muslim Societies

Innocent divorce is allowed in Muslim communities, or usually only with the consent of the husband. If the wife wants to divorce, she must go to Court, give evidence that her husband has been abused, her financial failure, her lack of sexual power, or her dislike of appearance. The husband may be given time to sort things out, but the judge will grant a divorce if he fails.

Similar Cases

Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna [1]

The applicant in RPFC 501/13 is the husband who has dismissed this Court against the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court. At the same time, another application is lodged by the wife and son-in-law of the applicant who wishes to strengthen maintenance. The applicant is said to be working as a pastor, and in a marital dispute between him and his first responding wife, the Family Court ordered him to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000 / – to his wife and Rs.10,000 / – per month person. According to the applicant’s advice, the first respondent also works as a teacher and earns.

However, according to the advice representing the first respondent, there is no evidence that income is generated, and he has no permanent source of income. Accordingly, you have sought the rejection of the application by the applicant and to improve the maintenance provided by him. Considering that the wife is also able to earn, she can be given Rs.6,000 / – per month, and the son is rewarded with Rs.6,000 / – per month and properly instructed. The deposit amount can be adjusted for future arrears and future payments. The deposit amount will be released in favor of the respondent’s wife and child, as per the converted amount.

Sanju Devi v. the State of Bihar [2]

The applicant had applied for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The trial judge had granted maintenance of Rs.4,000 / – per month. Submitted by an attorney who has been instructed by the respondent-husband that there has already been a legal separation and in terms of Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is not entitled to maintenance. We consider this argument to be objectionable only because we find nothing in this argument. If a divorced woman is entitled to maintenance, there is no reason why a legally divorced woman is not eligible for maintenance.

We also cannot register the opinion of the High Court that because the Tribunal did not grant the finding that the applicant is unable to take care of himself, therefore, he is not entitled to care. The High Court is required to consider the question of whether the applicant is entitled to maintenance or not and, if so, the amount of maintenance. As the High Court deviated from the issues before us, we set aside the contested decision, and the order dated 17.12.2014 referred the matter to the High Court for reconsideration. It is said by a study counselor to the applicant that no maintenance has been paid for the past nine years. We ask the High Court to keep this in mind when deciding the petition. Special vacation requests are missing.

Judgment’s Analysis

The Court ruled that the applicant would be granted a provisional grant of Rs.10,000 / – and R5,000 / – for a minor in his or her studies. Since then, the complainant is employed and deducts a salary of Rs.9,000 / – per month, so there will be no need to improve the interim adjustment. The Court made it very clear to the appellant and the respondent that only a certain amount of interim maintenance would be provided to the applicant.

Conclusion

From the Court’s decision, it is very clear that maintenance will only be provided to a person who has not been able to meet their basic needs or has no source of income to survive. In this case, the complainant was earning a salary of Rs.9,000 / – enough for the two people to earn a living. Therefore, the passerby was given sufficient maintenance to support himself.

---

References:

• [1] Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199
• [2] Sanju Devi v. State of Bihar (2018) R.C.R. (Criminal) 196
• Anu Kaul vs Rajeev Kaul,  Indiankanoon, (23 March, 2009), Anu Kaul vs Rajeev Kaul on 23 March, 2009 (indiankanoon.org)
• Interim Maintenance, Matrimonial Advocates, https://matrimonialadvocates.com/interim-maintenance/