High Court of Judicature at Bombay Allows Wife's Appeal for Maintenance Under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Non-entitlement to maintenance by trial court was erroneous given evidence of cruelty and desertion, entitling wife to Rs.750 per month under Section 18 from date of application.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 12
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay arose from the judgment of the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, which had partly allowed a petition under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on 6 May 1996 and had a daughter, Priyanka, born on 18 July 1999. According to the wife, the husband subjected her to frequent quarrels, doubted her character, assaulted her, and imposed severe restrictions. After a particularly violent episode on 9 September 2000, the husband dropped the wife and the child at her parents' house and never maintained them since. The wife thus sought maintenance for herself and the child. The Family Court, by its order dated 17 July 2004, granted maintenance of Rs.1000 per month to the child but rejected the wife's claim, awarding only litigation expenses. Aggrieved, the wife preferred the present appeal seeking maintenance for herself and enhancement of the child's maintenance. Before the High Court, the wife argued that she was driven out due to cruelty and desertion and was entitled to maintenance; the husband contended that she left voluntarily and refused to cohabit. The husband did not file any petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The High Court found that the trial court had erred in denying maintenance to the wife, as the evidence showed cruelty and desertion. It held that the wife was entitled to maintenance under Section 18 from the date of the original application. Considering the husband's salary at the time and the passage of time, the Court awarded Rs.750 per month to the wife from June 2001, to be paid by the 10th of each month, with arrears to be cleared within three months. The maintenance to the wife was made effective till her remarriage, and to the child till marriage or self-earning. The Court clarified that the wife could apply for enhanced maintenance on changed circumstances. The appeal was partly allowed, and costs were awarded to the wife.

Headnote

A) Family Law - Maintenance of Wife - Entitlement Under Section 18 - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 18 - The wife was forced to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty and assault, and the husband failed to file for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial court erroneously denied maintenance. Held that the wife is entitled to maintenance from the date of application. (Paras 7-10)

B) Family Law - Maintenance of Child - Future Enhancement - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 20 - The trial court awarded Rs.1000 per month for the minor child. The wife can file a separate application for enhanced maintenance on proof of changed circumstances. Held that the existing child maintenance is sustained, but further applications will be considered on merits. (Paras 5, 11)

C) Family Law - Maintenance - Quantum and Duration - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 18 - Considering the husband's salary and the long separation, the court awarded maintenance of Rs.750 per month to the wife from June 2001, payable till her remarriage, and maintenance to the child till she marries or earns. Held that the impugned order is modified accordingly, with costs. (Paras 9, 12)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and whether the maintenance amount for the minor child should be enhanced.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Family Court Appeal No.17 of 2005 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order is modified: husband to pay maintenance of Rs.750 per month to wife from June 2001. Rest of trial court order sustained. Costs awarded to wife. Arrears to be paid within three months, monthly maintenance by 10th. Maintenance to wife effective till remarriage; maintenance to daughter till marriage or earning.

Law Points

  • Maintenance under Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act
  • 1956
  • cruelty and desertion as grounds for maintenance
  • wife's entitlement despite no divorce
  • enhancement of maintenance on changed circumstances
  • maintenance quantum considerations
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (02) 72

Family Court Appeal No.17 of 2005

2013-02-08

Naresh H. Patil, A. R. Joshi

2013:BHC-AS:3303-DB

Mr. V.S. Kapse for the Appellant, Mr. Machindra Patil for the Respondent

Shobha Sanjay Jadhav

Sanjay Ramchandra Jadhav

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal by wife against Family Court order rejecting her maintenance claim while granting maintenance to minor child.

Remedy Sought

Wife sought maintenance for herself and enhancement of maintenance for minor child, and litigation costs.

Filing Reason

Wife filed original petition alleging cruelty and desertion by husband, who dropped her and child at her parents' house and did not maintain them.

Previous Decisions

Family Court No.3, Bandra, Mumbai, by order dated 17.7.2004, rejected wife's maintenance claim but awarded Rs.1000 per month to minor child and Rs.1000 litigation expenses to wife.

Issues

Whether the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956? Whether the maintenance amount for the minor child should be enhanced?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant-wife contended that she was subjected to cruelty, assault, and desertion, and thus entitled to maintenance under Section 18. Respondent-husband contended that the wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily and refused cohabitation, and was not entitled to maintenance.

Ratio Decidendi

The wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, if she proves cruelty or desertion; the husband's failure to seek restitution of conjugal rights supports desertion claim. The trial court's denial of maintenance to wife was erroneous.

Judgment Excerpts

the trial Court had erred in coming to the conclusion as to nonentitlement of the wife for getting maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. (Para 9) In our considered view, there is definitely a case made out on behalf of the wife to interfere in the impugned judgment and order so far as the aspect of maintenance to the wife. (Para 10)

Procedural History

Marriage on 6 May 1996; child Priyanka born on 18 July 1999; wife and child dropped at her parents' house on 9 September 2000; maintenance petition filed in June 2001; Family Court order on 17 July 2004 granting child maintenance but rejecting wife's claim; present appeal filed in 2005; heard and reserved on 4 February 2013; judgment delivered on 8 February 2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: 18, 20
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Arbitration Petition Under Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 — Dispute Over Price Variation Clause in Construction Contract Referred to Arbitrator. The court held that the dispute regarding the interpretation of Clause 13...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay Allows Wife's Appeal for Maintenance Under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Non-entitlement to maintenance by trial court was erroneous given evidence of cruelty and desertion, entitling wife to Rs.750 per...