Allahabad HC: Courts should not only look at the salary package of the parties when determining the amount of maintenance

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that courts should not look solely at the salary packages of the parties while determining the amount of maintenance to be awarded.

The court declined to interfere with the decision to award the wife permanent support that the family court had awarded her, finding that the husband had legally remarried and therefore had “additional obligations and financial liabilities.”

A bench of judges Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh observed, “While money can never be sufficient to meet all human needs, the courts do not necessarily consider the salary packages of the parties exclusively while determining the amount of maintenance to be awarded.”

Advocate Abha Gupta appeared for the appellants while Advocate Manish Tandon represented the respondent.

The wife had filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 challenging the judgment and order of the Family Court passing an order under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) providing a lump sum for maintenance. At the same time, the Family Court had fixed a certain amount for the daughter on the ground of cruelty in an earlier divorce decree under Section 13 of the HMA.

During the period of separation, the Family Court had passed an order under Section 125 of Cr.PC awarding maintenance to the wife and daughter (appellants). The amount of monthly maintenance was later revised under Section 127 of Cr.PC. The parties submitted before the Court that during the recovery proceedings, a compromise was reached between the parties.

The husband explained that he had remarried after the first appeal was rejected and that he had three children from his second marriage. He also had two siblings with special needs that he had to care for.

The High Court observed that the marriage of the parties had lasted only for three years and the husband was “burdened with the liabilities under Section 125 Cr.PC” and held that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court did not require any intervention.

The court observed, “In view of all the facts and circumstances, namely, that the marriage of the parties lasted only for three years and since then they have been living separately and taking into account the fact that the respondent has remarried under the Act thereby imposing further responsibilities and financial obligations on him and also the fact that the respondent was previously subjected to the obligations under Section 125 Cr.PC, we find no cogent ground to object to the order granting permanent maintenance in the first place.”

The court, however, allowed the appellants' argument that the Family Court had erred in deducting a certain amount from the permanent maintenance amount awarded to the wife. “Whatever was paid to the daughter of the two parties may not have been set off against the amount payable to appellant No. 1,” the court said.

The court then ordered: “The deposited amount may be released in favour of appellant No. 1 provided that both the appellants give an undertaking before the lower court to withdraw from all cases/proceedings initiated against the appellant including those seeking more money for maintenance or care. They also undertake not to initiate any further civil or criminal proceedings.”

Accordingly, the High Court partially allowed the appeal.

Case Title: Smt. X v Y (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:124957-DB)

Look:

Appellants: Attorneys Ram Gupta and Abha Gupta

Defendant: Lawyers Manish Gupta Manish Tandon

Click here to read/download the order