Introduction
Interim maintenance is order by the court, directing any of thespouses to fulfil the monetary liabilities, for example, money for food, shelter, clothes, necessary expenses of the proceeding,and things necessary for sustainabilityin life for the time period until the divorce is granted. The concept of interim maintenance is to protect the dependent spouse so that he/she do not have to face any financial hardship. For a dependent wife concept of interim maintenance is important as well as necessary because when a divorce petition is pending before the court, which is filed by the wife only, then in this scenario, it is very obvious husband willneglect his wife, and then it becomes hard for the wife to sustain without proper means. In this article, we will examine what circumstances an interim maintenance can be denied by the courts to a wife.
Key provisions for the interim maintenance
- Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,states about the interim maintenance.
- Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of the old act and Section 144 of the BNSS (BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita), 2023 of the new act.
Cases where courts denied the interim maintenance
- [Damanreet Kaur Versus Indermeet Juneja & Anr] Crl.Rev.P. 344/2011
Fact of the case:Wife filed a complaint caseunder Section 12 of Protection of Women from DomesticViolence Act, 2005 along with an application for monetary relief under Section 23 of the Act. Her prayer for interim monetary relief was declined by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.Feeling aggrieved, she filed an appeal against the said order passed by the learnedMetropolitan Magistrate declining monetary relief to her. In appeal, the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge declined the prayer of interim monetary relief to the petitioner.However, partly allowed the appeal and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards contribution of the husband to maintain the child born out of wedlock of the parties.
Additional Sessions Judge reasoning for declining the interim maintenance to the wifeon the ground that she was well qualified, capable of maintaining herself and had the capacity to work and that she had also been actually earning in the past and was thus not entitled to get any maintenance from the husband. The wife has submitted that earlier she was working with Met Life Insurance Company.Wife appeals to Delhi High Court.
High court decision: The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly declined the interim monetary relief to the wife by holding that she was well educated lady earning Rs.50,000/- per month and had chosen not to work of her own will though had the capacity to work and find a suitable job for herself. Delhi High Courtupholds the Additional Sessions Judge decision.
- [Rupali Gupta Versus Rajat Gupta] Mat.App.(F.C.) 143/2014
Facts of the case: The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the order, whereby the learned Judge Family Court awarded a sum of ₹22,900/- per month towards maintenance to the two children of the parties, but declined to award interim maintenance to the wife as she is a qualified Chartered Accountant having sufficient means to maintain herself. Therefore, wife appeals to the Delhi High court.
Delhi high court decision: So far as refusal to award interim maintenance to the appellant/wife is concerned, we agree with the finding of learned JudgeFamily Court. The appellant/wife who is a qualified Chartered Accountant and in profession since the year 2003 need not be granted interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Also held since the learned Judge Family Court has taken a balanced view in the matter we do not find any ground to interfere with the learned family judge.
- [K N Versus R G] Mat.App(F.C.) 93/2018
Fact of the case:The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2018passed by the Family Court whereby an application filed by the appellant/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) claiming interim maintenance of Rs. 2,50,000/- per month has been dismissed.
Learned family judge reasoning for declining the interim maintenance on the ground that the appellant/wife is highly qualified and has been working in reputed MNCs and is even presently employed, with a good salary.
Respondent/husband argument has submitted that the application under Section 24 is an abuse of process of law. The appellant has failed to give any reason as to how she is entitled to Rs 2,50,000/- per month as maintenance. She is highly qualified, as she is PG Diploma in International Business from IGNOU and has a BA (Vocational) degree from Kamla Nehru College, University of Delhi. She was posted as Business Support Manager in Samsung Data Systems India Pvt. Ltd. since 02.05.2017 Her monthly salary after deductions was approximately Rs.70,000/ per month. Wife has sufficient jewellery and owns laptop etc. As per her own Income Affidavit, she is presently employed as Key Account Manager at APL Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon with net salary of Rs.1 Lac per month. Therefore, after the learned family judge declined the interim maintenance wife appeal to Delhi high court.
Delhi High Court decision:The Family Court in our view has rightly dismissed the application under Section 24 and we find no infirmity in the impugned order.We, therefore, uphold the order of the Family Court.
- [GURPREET DHARIWAL Versus AMITJAIN] MAT. APP. (F.C.) 311/2019
Facts of the case:Ms. Gurpreet Dhariwalaggrieved by the order which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court (South), Delhi has declined to grant pendente lite interim maintenance claimed in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- per month besides litigation expenses at the rate of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
The respondent/husband contested the application by filing a detailed reply. It was explained by husband that the appellant/wife was working with EXL where she was drawing a salary of Rs. 38,000/- per month.
Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, vide the impugned order, observed that the appellant/wife was highly qualified, having done her MCA, PGDM and was admittedly working. A lady having capacity to work cannot be allowed to sit idle and be a burden on her husband for demanding maintenance and litigation expenses. It was concluded that the appellant/wife can very well earn and support herself and declined to grant any maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, 1955. Therefore, wife appealed to the Delhi High Court.
Delhi High Court uphold the decision of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court (South), Delhi.
- [MONIKA WADHWA versus SANJAY WADHWA] MAT.APP. (F.C.) 87/2023
Facts of the case:The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the appellant/wife to set aside the impugned Order whereby the application seeking interim maintenance has been denied by the learned Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini Courts.
The appellant/wife, in support of her assertions, had filed her detailed Income Affidavit giving the details of her monthly expenses and also reaffirmed that she was not earning. The appellant/wife disclosed her qualification as Graduate and claimed that her general monthly expenses were Rs. 40,000/- per month.
The learned Judge, Family Court denied the maintenance at the interim stage by observing that the appellant/wife is not forthcoming with her actual resources and at that stage, there were reasons to believe that she was having sufficient means to maintain herself. Hence, wife appealed to the Delhi High Court.
Delhi High Court held that we find that the Judge, Family Court has rightly denied the maintenance to the appellant/wife at the interim stage considering that she was not forthcoming in disclosing her actual resources.
- [MEGHA KHETRAPAL versus RAJAT KAPOOR] CRL.REV. P. 273/2023
Facts: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) [now under Section 528 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”)] read with Sections 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/wife seeking setting aside of the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, wherein the learned Principal Judge has declined the interim maintenance to the petitioner under Section 125 of the CrPC.
It is submitted that the quantum of maintenance sought by the petitioner is excessive and unjustified, as a demand of ₹3,25,000/- per month is disproportionate to the lifestyle the petitioner previously had in India. Evidence was adduced showing the petitioner/wife previous employment as an Audit Associate at KPMG Dubai, subsequent work as a Human Resources Manager in her father’s business, and an entrepreneurial venture importing semi-precious jewellery. The respondent/husband referred to her LinkedIn profile confirming her employment history and the learned Principal Judge noted that while the petitioner simply mentioned “Graduate” and “Post Graduate in her affidavit without specifying details, she concealed her professional qualifications and previous employment history.
Delhi High Court observed that it has been rightly observed by the learned Principal Judge that while the petitioner/wife claims that she cannot sit idle and is trying to search for a job, she has not placed any evidence on record regarding her efforts to secure employment or resume her business activities either before the Court below or before this Court. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the mere assertion of job-seeking, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to establish genuine efforts at self-sufficiency.
This Court is unable to comprehend the fact as to why, despite being able-bodied and well qualified, the petitioner has remained to choose idle since her return to India. Thus, it is held that the learned Principal Judge rightly passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner herein is not entitled to grant of interim maintenance considering the peculiar facts.
Conclusion
After scrutinizing all the cases mentioned above, we found the grounds where courts may deny the interim maintenance to the wife. If the wife is educated or has the potential to earn, or she is working/earning on these grounds Courts may deny the interim maintenance to the wife.
Author Name- Inder Singh Mahara, Final year law student. Pursuing LLB at (Central University of Uttarakhand) S.R.T. campus.
