Rajnesh vs. Neha (2020)

The case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (2020) is a battle over payment of Maintenance. The Court, presided by the Hon'ble Justice Indu Malhotra, while deciding the case, also framed guidelines related to different aspects of Maintenance in matrimonial cases. It addresses overlapping jurisdictions across various relevant acts and gives clear procedures for determination of interim and permanent alimony- including criteria that will be applied while determining the quantum of the maintenance. It also deals with the date from which the maintenance is to be granted and also makes provisions for the implementation of maintenance orders. 

Particulars Of The case

• Case: Rajnesh vs Neha

• Court: Supreme Court of India

• Date of the judgement: 04.11.2020

• Citation: AIR 2021 SC 569

• Parties: Rajnesh and Neha

• Judges: Indu Malhotra, R. Subhash Reddy JJ.

• Relevant laws: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) 

Facts

The instant appeal is against a criminal application filed by the respondent-wife and her minor son against the appellant-husband seeking interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The wife had left the matrimonial home in January 2013 within a month or so of the birth of the son.

In 2015, the Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000 to the wife every month from September 2013 and Rs. 5,000 every month to the son up to August 2015, and thereafter increased the amount to Rs. 10,000 every month from September 2015 onwards. The husband moved the Bombay High Court against the said order and the same was dismissed in 2018 by the High Court.

The present appeal, therefore, has been filed against the said order of the Bombay High Court. During the appeal, the Supreme Court passed several orders directing the husband (appellant) to pay the arrears of maintenance that had fallen due to his wife and son.

Arguments Of The Parties

Husband's Arguments:

• He was out of a job and could not continue to pay the remaining maintenance.

• Claimed that the Family Court had irrelevantly applied the outdated tax returns to calculate his financial position.

• He claimed to have paid his son's maintenance but had difficulty paying the maintenance of his wife.

• He alleged that Neha (his wife/respondent) had suppressed facts about him and misled his investments on purpose.

Wife's Arguments:

• Claimed that the quantum of maintenance granted for the son was too little as the son had grown older and required more money.

• Alleged that Rajnesh (her husband/appellant) had concealed his real income and was remitting the earned amount to his parents.

• Alleged that Rajnesh was having her "Streedhan" and had not complied with the earlier Court orders passed for its return.

• Mentioned the rising expenses and lack of any kind of support from the husband.

Issues Framed By The Court

Subsequent to the submissions, the Court framed the following issues:

• Overlapping jurisdiction: There exist overlapping jurisdictions since more than one statute Cr.P.C., HMA, HAMA, DV Act permits claims for maintenance. This leads to conflicting orders. The Court has explained how it has to be adequately streamlined in the case of such overlaps and has given directions for averting multiple conflicting proceedings.

• Delay in disposal of the application for Interim maintenance: Applications for interim maintenance themselves get delayed beyond the statutory period. Due to this, the very purpose of the provision is defeated. The Court has observed that pending cases and adjournments by parties are some of the reasons and emphasised that timely disposal is called for.

• Lack of standardised procedure for determination of interim maintenance: The existing procedure is too subjective and based on pleadings. This leads to incorrect awards being granted and permitting the misrepresentation of financials. The Court would also welcome a less cumbersome, objective procedure to ensure fair and realistic awards for maintenance.

• Inconsistency in the date from which maintenance Is to be paid: There is an inconsistency in the dates used by Courts from various parts of the country, with some using the date of the application, date of the order, or date of summons. The Court calls for uniformity in approach with the view to ensure fairness and consistency in determining the date from which maintenance is to be paid.

• Challenges in enforcement of maintenance orders: The enforcement of maintenance orders faces several challenges, such as delays in securing payments and in execution petitions. The Court examines the existing enforcement mechanisms and emphasises how important it is to enforce the order timely to accomplish the goals of social justice for which maintenance laws exist.

• Need for more comprehensible guidelines for permanent alimony: The Court indicates that permanent alimony may not be fair in automatically being given, especially when the marriage is brief. The Court suggests a nuanced approach where it looks at factors such as the length of the marriage, age, employability of each party, and their future needs.

Laws And Concepts Involved

This case is about interim maintenance, a very critical concept in Indian matrimonial laws. It is meant to work out financial provisions for spouses and children during separation or divorce cases. For ease of understanding, the following concepts are involved in the case. 

Relevant Statutes:

• Section 125 of Cr.P.C.: The said section allows a wife, children, or parents to claim maintenance against a person who has "Sufficient Means" and neglects the duty. The section applies irrespective of the religion followed by the parties in question and was meant to bring immediate economic benefit.

• The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: To be more precise, Sections 24 and 25 of the HMA apply to the instant case. Section 24 thus provides for maintenance pendente lite, that is, during litigation, and thus prescribes an order for maintenance to be paid by either spouse during the pendency of divorce litigation. Section 25 concerns itself with permanent alimony upon a divorce being granted. Importantly, the HMA applies only to Hindus and therefore provides a broader context of divorce proceedings.

• The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: A Hindu wife shall be entitled to receive maintenance from her husband during her lifetime, provided she lives separately under certain conditions, as mentioned in Section 18 of the Act. This Act pertains only to the rights and other liabilities of Hindu marriage and is different from divorce.

• The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act): Section 20 of the Act provides another forum to an aggrieved wife for claiming maintenance, especially under Section 20, which deals with monetary relief. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in contrast, operates within a narrower ambit than that of the D.V. Act and is designed to extend a variety of protections to women facing domestic violence.

Principal Legal Concepts:

• Conflicting jurisdiction: What this case portrayed was the challenge presented by so many laws on maintenance. The Supreme Court took the opportunity to advise on how to conduct themselves when a claim could come under several statutes. The Supreme Court indicated that conflicting orders needed to be avoided and invited the Courts to take into account any previous order granting maintenance while disposing of a later claim under another law.

• Interim maintenance: The case mainly deals with interim maintenance, in which the applicant- wife and the dependent children are provided with temporary financial support till the final decision on maintenance or alimony is decided. The judgement outlines the importance of such relief, more so in cases where an applicant has an inadequate financial position.

• Streedhan: Streedhan, in essence, is the property that a wife gets in the form of jewellery or gifts or property upon marriage. Neha's assertions had been upheld that Rajnesh had retained her Streedhan against Court orders and underlined its value as a financial resource that the Courts took into account while assessing maintenance claims and the conduct of the husband.

• Disclosure affidavit: A very critical procedural aspect in this case is that each party declares their assets, income, and liabilities through the Affidavit of Disclosure. This makes certain that clarity will be brought into the proceedings of maintenance matters and that the Courts, in setting the quantum of maintenance, will have to do so on clear and objective grounds.

• Maintenance orders: The judgement outlines the problems in enforcement, even when maintenance orders are granted. Delay in execution proceedings, ability of the husband to conceal his assets, and lack of effective machinery for securing payment render enforcement difficult. The Supreme Court discusses different methods of enforcement in light of the availability of provisions under the CPC to treat maintenance orders as civil decrees.

The “Rajnesh vs. Neha” case epitomises the fight and mess vis-à-vis the complexities of the maintenance law of India. Therefore, there is the need for a system that is efficient, effective, and fair to handle the issues at hand.

Judgement Of The Court

With respect to the specific orders against Rajnesh, it held thus,

• Maintenance already ordered: The Court sustained the order passed by the Family Court in 2015 and confirmed by the Bombay High Court in 2018 directing Rajnesh to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to Neha and Rs. 10,000/- per month for the maintenance of their son.

• Payment of arrears: Rajnesh shall pay all maintenance arrears due to Neha, which was Rs 15000 per month from the date of the impugned order, 2015, within a period of three months from this order passed by the Apex Court.

• Continuation of payment: Further, the order directed that Rajnesh would continue to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,000 every month as interim maintenance, without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties on the quantum of interim maintenance so awarded by the Family Court, until the main petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of before the Family Court.

• Enforcement directives: The judgement clarifies that, in case of default of payment orders by Rajnesh, Neha may approach the Court with a view to enforcement under Section 128 of the Cr.P.C., as also other legal remedies.

Apart from these pronouncements, the Supreme Court uses the “Rajnesh vs. Neha” case as a ground to lay down more directions regarding maintenance law, for resolving larger systemic problems:

• Overlapping of jurisdictions: In HMA, Cr.P.C., DV Act, HAMA, amongst others, the Court further realises the confusion if both parties initiate maintenance proceedings under different statutes simultaneously. It has informed the Courts that at the time of deciding the subsequent applications, the orders regarding maintenance passed earlier would be taken into consideration. Further, it has insisted that adjustments or modifications should be sought within the original proceedings rather than through new applications.

• Standardisation of interim maintenance: The Court has made it binding upon the parties that in all cases for maintenance, "Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities" be filed by both. This attempts to bring in a sense of objectivity in the matter of maintenance, with total transparency, where parties are under oath declaring their financial status right up-front.

• Date of filing application to be deemed the starting point for maintenance: Coming across the diversity in the dates taken as a starting point for maintenance, the Court holds that in all cases, maintenance is to be granted from the date of filing. The direction will go a long way to bring fairness and quick relief to the applicant.

• Criteria to be used for determining the maintenance: It outlined guidelines with respect to income, lifestyle, financial condition, and expenses of both husband and wife to be considered while determining the quantum of maintenance​.

• Emphasis on robust enforcement: The Supreme Court, keeping in mind practical difficulties faced in the enforcement of maintenance orders, identifies different means of enforcement, including treating the order as a civil decree enforceable under the CPC. This allows the Courts, inter alia, to strike down the action brought by the respondent against the order as a last step in cases of willful non-payment of the maintenance allowance, more so when it affects a dependent spouse and children.

• Disposal by Family Court: The Supreme Court expresses its concern for the long litigation on the part of the respondent. It thus directs the Family Court to decide the substantive application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. within a period of 6 months from this judgement.

This judgement is a landmark judgement in Indian maintenance law. The Supreme Court, while laying down elaborate guidelines on this particular case, has tried to bring in an effective, equitable, and enforceable system throughout India for the resolution of disputes relating to maintenance.

Analysis 

The judgement of the Supreme Court in “Rajnesh vs. Neha” represents a landmark development in the maintenance law of India. While resolving the immediate dispute between the parties, the Court takes the opportunity to address systemic issues and provide much-needed clarity on several aspects of maintenance law.

• Overlapping jurisdictions: The judgement directly addresses the various problems arising from the presence of multiple legislations on maintenance in India. In this context, it acknowledges that when there is more than one statute providing for maintenance, say, for instance, Cr.P.C., HMA, and the DV Act, there could well be conflicting orders when a party claims maintenance from the other party. The Court addresses this “overlapping jurisdiction” by laying down an important guideline. It held that in determining a subsequent application for maintenance, Courts must take into account any previous order for maintenance made under other legislation. It is this guideline that testifies to the need for coordination so as not to place one spouse under multiple, separate maintenance burdens. The Court requires that applicants, throughout further applications, declare all former maintenance processes and decisions. This requirement facilitates transparency and helps the Courts make better judgments.

• Smoothening interim maintenance: The Court has recognised the sufferings of economically dependent spouses who have to wait for years for a final decision on maintenance, and interim maintenance. For the first time, the judgement provides significant procedural reform by making use of standardised “Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities” compulsory in all maintenance cases in India. It will bring in objectivity and transparency in the determination of interim maintenance. Instead of relying solely upon incomplete or misleading pleadings, Courts will henceforth have a much clearer view from the outset of each party's financial position. That should facilitate the process and enable the Court to make a much fairer interim maintenance determination.

• Ensuring prompt and fair awards: The Court has articulated its view on two key aspects of maintenance awards, namely, the date from which it would operate and its enforcement. It has laid down in the judgement that in all cases, maintenance must be awarded from the date of the application. The clarity and uniformity that this dictum introduces have the effect of ensuring that a dependent spouse does not face a financial disadvantage during the long litigation period. The Court realises that the mechanisms for enforcement before it are often weak and stresses that there is a real need for enforcement to be timely and effective.

• More than just details: A broader impact of the “Rajnesh vs. Neha” judgement goes way beyond the specifics of the case at hand. The Court has tried to lay down clear guidelines with respect to overlapping jurisdiction, procedure for interim maintenance, and enforcement to bring about reforms in the existing structure of the Indian maintenance law. This holistic judgement on both substantive and procedural aspects may bring much-needed clarity, consistency, and- most importantly- timely justice for thousands of people who are part of the intricacies of the maintenance law in India.

  <