Introduction
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Smt. Shikha v. Avaneesh Mahodya[i] reaffirmed the established principles governing maintenance. While reducing the maintenance amount granted to the wife, the Court held that beneficial provisions for maintenance should not create an army of idle spouses who, despite being capable, rely on such maintenance payments from their (ex)spouse.
Factual Background
The criminal revisions were filed by the husband and wife ('Appellants') under s. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC'). Both Appellants were aggrieved by the maintenance order passed under s. 125 of the CrPC by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore. Hence, the High Court jointly heard and decided the revisions.
The Appellant-wife, aggrieved by the maintenance amount awarded by the Ld. Trial Court filed the present appeal seeking an enhancement of the maintenance amount. She claimed it was insufficient to meet her needs, especially considering the high-profile, well-paying job of the Appellant-husband working in Dubai and earning in Dirhams.
The Appellant-husband had, however, filed the present appeal praying for the reduction of the maintenance amount in light of the following considerations: (i) the Appellant-wife had left the matrimonial house without any justified cause or reason, (ii) due to false complaints filed by the Appellant-wife, he lost his high-profile job and was compelled to relocate to Singapore, where he earned significantly less, (iii) the Appellant-wife was well qualified and capable of earning, and she was already earning well by running a coaching centre and parlour in Indore, (iv) the aged parents of the Appellant-husband were entirely dependent on him for their physical and medical well-being, and most importantly, (v) an amount of Rs. 21.75 lakhs had already been paid to the Appellant-wife as permanent alimony in 2022.
Held
The High Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant-wife and partly allowing the appeal filed by the Appellant-husband, reduced the amount of maintenance awarded in favour of the Appellant-wife from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 40,000 per month.
Following the precedence set by the Apex Court, the High Court reasoned its decisions based on the income and liability limitations of the Appellant-husband and the ability and qualification of the Appellant-wife, which were sufficient to fetch her own bread.
Our Analysis
The Madhya Pradesh High Court's order aligns with established principles governing maintenance jurisprudence. In several instances, frivolous and/or mala fide litigation/cases extinguish the purpose of beneficial statutory provisions like maintenance. It is crucial to reaffirm the intelligible differentia governing such principles.
Maintenance provisions were included to prevent women from destitution and vagrancy at the hands of their husbands, not to create an army of idle spouses who are rotting off on their spouse’s money. Courts have taken time to strike a balance between beneficial statutory provisions and the personal rights of the spouse who is receiving (rather than paying) maintenance.
While it is understandable that marriage is a sanctum in our society, it cannot be used as a tool to extract money by using legitimate provisions to fulfil illegitimate needs and wants. It has been reiterated in multiple instances by the Supreme Court and various High Courts that the maintenance so awarded should not be extravagant to the extent that it becomes oppressive and unbearable for the person obligated to pay the same. Maintenance is not awarded to punish either of the spouses, i.e., it ought not to be so meagre that the receiving spouse is compelled to live in penury, nor is it so fanciful that it leads to the paying spouse’s impoverishment.
End Note
[i]Â Criminal Revision No. 3028 of 2019, order dt. 10.09.2024.
Authored by Anshi Bhatia, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
Komentarze