In significient observation, the Bombay High Court has allowed husband to take maintenance from wife in view ofSection 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The single-judge bench ofJustice Bharati Dangredismissed the petition of wife challengingmaintenance ordercontendingthat since their marriage has been ended, the husband has no righ on monthly maintenance.
Refusing the above contention, theCourt directedthewife, working as a teacher, to pay ₹3,000 maintenance to her husbandrelying on Section 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, The Court stated that the said sections confer a right on the needy spouse to claim interim or permanent alimony, where a decree of restitution of conjugal rights or divorce has been passed.
Facts of the Case
The marriage between the petitioner and respondent ended after 23 years in 2015 after the petitioner-wife approached the court alleging cruelty and desertion. Upon divorce, the respondent-husbandfiled a petition seeking perpetual alimony of ₹15,000 per month from the wife.
He claimed that he didn't have any source of income while his wife is educated andemployed at a University. He cited how he supported her in obtaining the degree by managing the house, doing house-chorus and keeping at home, sidelining his own ambition. He further averred that that he suffered humiliation and harassment in the marital relationship as the petitioner-wife, with a malafide and dishonest intention, filed petition for divorce, which was decreed. He alsocited his ill health, possession of no immovable properties.
Counsel for the respoondent-husband submitted thatthe provision contained in Section 25 of the Act of 1955 don't depend upon the outcome of the relationship subsequent to divorce, since the section use the word “at any time subsequent thereto” and therefore, the embargo that the applicant as the husband, after dissolution of marriage cannotbe denied, the benefit flowing from Section 25 of the Act of 1955.
The wife, however, argued that the husband owns an autorickshaw which he leases out for income and also runs a grocery shop. Opposing strongly, the present plea, the wife denied that the husband is dependent upon her and rather its their daughter who lives with her.
The Counsel of the wife also submitted that by directing the wife to pay maintenance to the husband after dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, would amount to traversity of justice and once the relationship between the husband and wife is severed by a decree of divorce, there cannot be any claim made by anyone of them against each other.
High Court's Analysis
The Court at the outset noted that Section 24 and 25 of the Act of 1955 are enabling provisions and confer a right on the indigent spouse to claim maintenance either pendente lite or in the nature of permanent alimony and maintenance.
"The term used “at any time subsequent thereto” cannot be made redundant, by giving constricted meaning to the words “wife or husband”, applied in Section 25 of the Act of 1955 and this can be said so, in the wake of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 25, which empower the court to vary, modify or rescind the amount of permanent alimony and maintenance as awarded under sub-section (1) and, on existence of thecirc*mstances set out in sub-section (3), order granting permanent alimony and maintenance can be varied and modified or rescinded as the court may deem just and proper."
The Court stated that sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 25 are thus indicative of the fact that if at the time of decree, an application is made or at any subsequent time of the passing of the decree, an application is made, claiming maintenance by either of the spouse, the court is empowered to grant the claim, which is just and proper and the payment can be secured if necessary, by creating charge on the immoveable property of the respondent.
If sub-section (1) is given a restrictive meaningthen the words used “at any time subsequent thereto” would become redundant, which cannot be the intention of the legislature, the Court remarked.
"The legislature does not use the words in vacuum and when it specifically permits the exercise of power of granting permanent alimony and maintenance on the court exercising jurisdiction under the Act, at the time of passing of the order or at any time subsequent thereto, it is open for the court to grant such maintenance at the time of passing the decree or even subsequent to the decree being passed. The provision cannot be read to constrict it, if the relationship between the husband and the wife is severed and as per Mr. Thombre, on divorce, they no longer remainhusband and wife."
Section 25 is not only restricted to a decree of divorce, but the decree can also be for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9, the decree can also be for judicial separation under Section 10 or the decreecan also be for divorce under Section 13 or the decree can also be for a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B, the Court observed.
"In the contingency other than the one covered by a decree of divorce, the parties are still husband and wife, when a decree for restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation is passed. The scope of Section 25, therefore, cannot be restricted by holding that on divorce / dissolution of marriage, the wife or the husband cannot bring such proceeding."
Referring to Smt. Chand Dhawan Vs. Jawaharlal Dhawan, 1993 Latest Caselaw 298 SC, the Court observed:
"The provision of maintenance / permanent alimony being a beneficial provision for the indigent spouse, the said section can be invoked by either of the spouse, where a decree of any kind governed by Sections 9 to 13 has been passed and marriage tie is broken, disrupted or adversely affected by such decree of the court. The scope of Section 25 of the Act of 1955 cannot be constricted by not making it applicable to a decree of divorce being passed between the husband and wife."
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :
Picture Source : https://www.vakilno1.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/maintenance.jpg
Sheetal Joon
