In the rajnesh v neha case, the Supreme Court bench established guidelines on the subject of maintenance. These guidelines address areas such as overlapping jurisdiction under various enactments for maintenance payment, payment of interim maintenance, the standards for calculating the amount of maintenance, the date on deciding which maintenance needs to be done and carrying out maintenance orders.
rajnesh v neha Case Facts
- Following the birth of their son in January 2013, respondent no. 1, the wife, departed the marital residence. On behalf of herself and her young son, she submitted an application for interim maintenance under section 125 of the crpc on September 2, 2013.
- The family court granted the following interim maintenance orders: Rs 10,000 per month starting on September 1, 2015; Rs 5,000 per month for the boy from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2015; and Rs 10,000 per month starting on September 1, 2015.
- On behalf of the appellant-husband, the Family Court order was contested before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision and denied the Writ Petition.
- Within 12 weeks of the judgment date, the spouse was mandated to pay the whole amount of arrears for maintenance, at a rate of Rs. 15, 000 per month.
- He was instructed to keep up these payments while the Family Court’s section 125 of the crpc proceedings were pending. The respondents had the right to enforce the order under section 128 of the crpc in the event that they failed to follow these instructions. For more than seven years, section 125 of the crpc interim maintenance proceedings had been ongoing.
- Then, in an attempt to challenge the Bombay High Court’s Order, the appellant-husband moved to the Apex Court.
- The Hon’ble High Court decided that it was appropriate for the Family Court to make a definitive decision about the substantive application under section 125 of the crpc in the current petition within six months of the date of this judgment, taking into account the directives and guidelines provided in the given order.
rajnesh v neha Issues
- Problem of the several maintenance provisions in the Indian legal system having conflicting authorities.
- There is uncertainty regarding the maintenance amount award: should it start from the application date, the order date, or another date?
- How long will the permanent alimony be granted, and what variables will be taken into account while determining its amount?
- What standards ought to be applied to ascertain the Quantum of maintenance?
- Is it possible to strike down the defense as a remedy if the respondent has not been paying maintenance?
Contentions by the Parties
Appellant:
- In an oral declaration, the spouse claimed he lacked the resources to follow the maintenance orders.
- He added that he had to ask his father for loans.
- In addition, he stated that he had a job at the time, was the sole owner of one active bank account, and did not possess any real estate.
- He further argued that in establishing the amount of support due in 2013, the Family Court had incorrectly relied on the Income Tax Returns of 2006.
Respondent:
- When the son was 2 ½ years old in 2015, the wife claimed that he was given maintenance of Rs. 10,000. The mentioned sum was now woefully insufficient to cover the costs of a developing seven and a half-year-old boy who attends school, plus the son’s outstanding fees.
- She stated that her husband was not providing any support, and she was feeling overwhelmed by the mounting bills.
- She also disclosed the husband’s business ventures and real estate investments, which he had been keeping a secret from the court.
- She further claimed that her husband had unlawful possession of her Streedhan and that he had refused to follow court instructions to comply with domestic violence act procedures.
rajnesh v neha Judgment
- The respondent may enforce the order under Section 128 CRPC and pursue other legal remedies if the appellant fails to pay the arrears of interim maintenance within the 12-week period from the date of the judgment, as directed by the SC.
- The SC ruled that since the appellant brought the current case, the respondent should go to the Family Court in order to increase the son’s maintenance.
In this case, the court reasonably established all the standards for determining the amount of maintenance, the date that maintenance will be awarded, and the enforcement of maintenance orders. It also covered the overlapping jurisdiction provided under various laws for the payment of maintenance and interim maintenance.
The Court ruled that the date of filing the maintenance application is the basis for the claim to maintenance under all major enactments. Given that both parties have a tendency to conceal their true income, the Bench mandated that all maintenance proceedings, including those that are currently pending before the relevant Family Court, District Court, or Magistrates Court, require the parties to voluntarily disclose their assets and liabilities in the form of an affidavit.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
