Increase in the amount of Maintenance by the Supreme Court

Recent Supreme Court decision in Vinay Paramvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar Civil Appeal Nos. 5831-5833 of 2011, a issue has come out pertaining to divorce decree and thereafter demand of maintenance by the wife. Governed by Hindu Law, divorce was decreed in relation to Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Family Court fixed 20,000/- as the amount of maintenance to be provided to the wife, and this was followed by an appeal in the High Court which affirmed the Family Court decision. Altering the judgments of both High Court and Family Court, Supreme Court increased the amount of maintenance from 20,000/- to 40,000/- per monthafter bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case. In addition to the decision of Family Court, High Court (Bombay) asked husband to pay up a permanent alimony of Rs. 20 lakhs to the wife referring to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was alleged by the appellant, i.e. wife that the income of respondent is much higher in comparison to the maintenance amount fixed by the court, and hence it should be increased. Contrary to this, it was contended by the respondent that the income as alleged by the appellant was not his actual income, and it would amount to what has been alleged only after accumulating the allowances and other benefits, and the contention of the respondent was acknowledged by the court.

Court, referred to its judgement in Shri Bhagwan Dutt vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and Anr. (1975) 2 SCC 386, where it was held by the court, while referring to section 488 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 that

“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.”

Another judgment which was referred by the Supreme Court was of Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, where it referred to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and opined that

“Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC."

Returning to the judgment of this particular case, it would be interesting to note that while ascertaining the property so as to determine the amount to be paid as maintenance/alimony, income, property along with other sources of incomes ought to be taken into account before decreeing in favour of anyone. Amount which should be provided has not been provided in any of the acts, and amount would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It would be obligatory on the part of the court to look into the state which wife was living in before divorce as a married woman. And the amount needed to maintain her would certainly be such, as would be sufficient for her to maintain herself by living under habitual conditions. There would be no mandate on the part of the husband to provide her a luxurious life once divorce has been decreed. Notion of equity has to be kept in mind, and it would certainly be necessary to see whether husband would be able to provide the amount which wife is demanding, and court would not force him to live in an abysmal state after devoting a major part of his income to his former wife. Here in this case, it was husband which had to provide maintenance but it is not mandatory that a husband cannot receive maintenance in case his wife’s condition is much better than that of him, and without her assistance it would not be possible for him to maintain himself. So, the wording should be read as “either husband and wife” and the same has been provided under Hindu Marriage Act.

But, in this case wife had been working in Cathay Pacific Airlines and was also earning some additional amount before marriage. Subsequently after marriage, she resigned from the post after her husband asked her to do so. Thereafter, she had no source of income and was living with her husband before divorce and with her sister after divorce. Considering all these circumstances, it was held by the Supreme Court that the amount of maintenance should be increased from Rs. 20,000/ to Rs. 40,000/- per month.