Bombay High Court Allows Wife's Petition Against Maintenance Order to Husband, Sets Aside Impugned Order on Grounds of Wife's Unemployment and Lack of Income. The court held that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a spouse must have independent income to be liable to pay maintenance, and the wife's unemployment and lack of income disentitled the husband to interim maintenance.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 54
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner wife challenged an order dated 7 September 2015 passed by the Family Court, Pune, directing her to pay interim maintenance to the respondent husband at varying rates from 2004 to 2010 and thereafter until final disposal of the divorce petition. The wife had filed a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty. The Family Court directed the wife to pay maintenance to the husband. The wife contended that she was unemployed, had no independent income, and was dependent on her parents. She also had to maintain her aged parents and unemployed brother. The husband, on the other hand, was employed and earning. The High Court held that the Family Court had failed to consider the wife's unemployment and lack of income. The court noted that the wife had no means to pay maintenance and that the husband was capable of maintaining himself. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was allowed. The court also directed that any amount deposited by the wife be refunded to her.

Headnote

A) Family Law - Maintenance - Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Interim Maintenance - Wife directed to pay maintenance to husband - Held that the Family Court erred in directing the wife to pay interim maintenance to the husband without considering that the wife was unemployed and had no independent income - The order was set aside as the wife had no means to pay maintenance (Paras 1-13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Family Court was justified in directing the wife to pay interim maintenance to the husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when the wife was unemployed and had no independent income.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The impugned order dated 7 September 2015 passed by the Family Court, Pune, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Any amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim orders shall be refunded to her.

Law Points

  • Maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act
  • 1955
  • Section 24
  • Interim maintenance
  • Wife's liability to pay maintenance to husband
  • Unemployment as a factor
  • No income no maintenance
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (02) 45

Writ Petition No. 10406 of 2015

2016-02-03

M. S. Sonak, J.

Mr. P. M. Bopardikar for Petitioner, Mr. Prashant Kshirsagar – Respondent No. 1 present in person

Meenakshi Prashant Kshirsagar

Prashant Tukaram Kshirsagar & Anr.

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging Family Court order directing wife to pay interim maintenance to husband.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner wife sought to set aside the order dated 7 September 2015 passed by the Family Court, Pune, directing her to pay interim maintenance to the respondent husband.

Filing Reason

The Family Court directed the wife to pay interim maintenance to the husband despite the wife being unemployed and having no independent income.

Previous Decisions

The Family Court, Pune, passed an order on 7 September 2015 directing the wife to pay interim maintenance to the husband. On 19 October 2015, ad interim relief was granted subject to deposit of 50% of the amount. On 18 December 2015, the respondent was permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- without prejudice.

Issues

Whether the Family Court was justified in directing the wife to pay interim maintenance to the husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when the wife was unemployed and had no independent income.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner submitted that she is unemployed, has no independent income, and is dependent on her parents. She also has to maintain her aged parents and unemployed brother. The husband is employed and earning. Respondent husband argued in support of the Family Court order.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a spouse can be directed to pay maintenance to the other spouse only if the paying spouse has independent income. The wife being unemployed and having no income cannot be directed to pay maintenance to the husband, especially when the husband is capable of maintaining himself.

Judgment Excerpts

The Family Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner is presently unemployed. The petitioner has no independent income and is dependent on her parents.

Procedural History

The petitioner wife filed a divorce petition (Petition No. A-199 of 2002) on grounds of cruelty. The respondent husband filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court, Pune, allowed the husband's application by order dated 7 September 2015, directing the wife to pay interim maintenance. The wife challenged this order by way of writ petition. On 19 October 2015, ad interim relief was granted subject to deposit of 50% of the amount. On 18 December 2015, the respondent was permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- without prejudice. The High Court finally disposed of the petition on 3 February 2016, setting aside the Family Court order.

Acts & Sections

  • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 24
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Wife's Petition Against Maintenance Order to Husband, Sets Aside Impugned Order on Grounds of Wife's Unemployment and Lack of Income. The court held that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a spouse must have in...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal by Occupier in Company Liquidation - Licence Created After Winding Up Petition is Void. Official Liquidator Entitled to Recover Possession from Trespasser Despite Deemed Tenancy Decree.