In Dev Raj Dev vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J. K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 2-page long order dated September 9, 2025 after condoning the delay and allowing application for exemption from filing official translation. The Court's order reads: "we find that an IAS officer who is from the batch of 1999 has shown his salary only Rs.90,000/- per month. Thus, the Court awarded the maintenance of Rs.34,000/- per month only to the wife as well as the daughter. The Court has further granted liberty to the petitioner that he may take recourse applying under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Being dissatisfied, the present special leave petition has been filed. In view of the above, the instant Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner is not entertainable on his insistence."
The Court observed:"we are also of the view that maintenance, as allowed by the High Court, does not appear to be adequate. Therefore, notice to show cause be issued to the petitioner as to why the amount of the maintenance may not be enhanced. Let reply be filed by the petitioner along with an affidavit as required by the judgment in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 324 within six weeks from today. Notice be also issued to the petitioner as well as the respondents returnable in six weeks from today." The affidavit is required in compliance of the judgment in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 324 in a format provided in the enclosures in the judgement.
The 66-page long landmark judgment dated November 4, 2020 in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 delivered by the Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy has reshaped maintenance proceedings across the country. The judgement has settled the date from which maintenance should be awarded in matrimonial disputes. It has established a uniform rule that maintenance must be awarded from the date of filing the application. The three enclosures in the judgement are at page 57-66. Enclosure I is Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities for Non-Agrarian Deponents, Details for Affidavit for Agrarian Deponents (Krishi) and Affidavit for the State of Meghalaya.
The special leave petition (criminal) arose out of impugned 5-page long final order dated November 25, 2024 in CRR No. 280/2021 passed by the Patna High Court in a case from Banmankhi, Purnia in Dev Raj Dev vs. The State Of Bihar & Ors. (2024). The other two respondents were: Smt. Pritam Choudhary and Manas Raj. Justice Jitendra Kumar of the High Court observed: "6. I find that undisputedly O.P. No.2 is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and two sons, namely, Manas Raj (O.P. No.3) and Yash Raj are born out of the wedlock. Yash Raj had become major at the time of passing the impugned order and hence, he was denied the maintenance by learned Court below. However, O.P. No.3/Manas Raj is minor son who has been given maintenance by the impugned order. I further find that after marriage, the marriage started running in rough weather and ultimately O.P. No.2/ wife lodged Criminal Complaint Case bearing No. 2222 of 2013 for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner/husband and his family members which is still pending adjudication. It further transpires that in the Divorce Petition bearing No. 201 of 2012 filed by the petitioner/husband, O.P. No.2/wife filed counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights. As per oral submission of learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that a divorce petition of the petitioner/husband was dismissed and counter claim of the restitution of conjugal rights was decreed and on the same day, this impugned order for maintenance was passed by learned Family Court."
The petitioner's counsel had informed the High Court that as of November 25, 2024 O.P. No.3/Manas Raj has already had become major and he was not entitled to get maintenance. Justice Kumar observed: "In this regard, it may be pointed out that for such relief, the petitioner is also at liberty to move appropriate application before Family Court under Section 127 of Cr.P.C on the basis of change of circumstance.
The criminal revision petition in the High Court was preferred against the final order dated March 5, 2020 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea in Maintenance Case No. 208 of 2013 whereby maintenance was allowed to O.P. No.2/ Pritam Choudhary (wife of the petitioner) and O.P. No.3/Manas Raj (minor son of the petitioner) @ Rs. 17,000/-per month each.
The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order was not sustainable in the eye of law because the O.P. No.2/Pritam Choudhary (wife) left the matrimonial home of the petitioner/husband without any rhyme and reason. He also submitted that she was also cruel towards the petitioner as long as she lived at the matrimonial home of the petitioner and that is why, one Matrimonial Case bearing No. 201 of 2012 was also filed for dissolution of marriage with O.P. No.2 (wife).
Justice Kumar observed: "In view of dismissal of the Divorce Petition and decree of counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and pendency of criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code shows that O.P. No.2/wife has reasonable cause to live separately from the matrimonial home of the petitioner/husband and on such count, impugned order cannot be faulted. I further find that the petitioner/husband is in Indian Administrative Service of Tamilnadu Cadre and his monthly income at the time of passing the order was found to be above Rs.90,000/- per month. From the impugned order, it also transpires that the parents of the petitioner/husband have also landed property and in the strict sense of the term, the parents may not be held dependent upon the petitioner. However, despite only two dependents wife and minor son upon the petitioner, learned Family Court has awarded maintenance to the wife and the minor son @ Rs. 17,000/- per month each. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the quantum of maintenance @ Rs. 17,000/- to the wife/O.P. No.2 and minor son/O.P. No.3 each cannot be held to be excessive, particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner has not led any evidence in support of the claim that the O.P. No.2/wife has also property and her own source of income."
Justice Kumar had concluded: "...I find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting any interference by this Court. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed."
Supreme Court has noted that maintenance, allowed by the Patna High Court is not adequate in view of the decision in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021), wherein, as part of a Division Bench, Justice Indu Malhotra concluded-"....we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:
(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction
To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:
(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding;
(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;
(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.
(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance
The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance
For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B – III of the judgment. The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded
We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B – IV above.
(e) Enforcement / Execution of orders of maintenance
For enforcement / execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI."
Supreme Court had directed that ''A copy of this judgment be communicated by the Secretary General of this Court, to the Registrars of all High Courts, who would in turn circulate it to all the District Courts in the States. It shall be displayed on the website of all District Courts / Family Courts / Courts of Judicial Magistrates for awareness and implementation.'' Patna High Court's order seems to be non-compliant with the letter and spirit of the judgement.
No comments:
Post a Comment