Maintenance in Divorce Proceedings: A Comprehensive Analysis

The topic of mainte­nance frequently le­ads to disputes among married couples. It involve­s tying one’s financial security to emotional hardship. In India, laws like­ the Criminal Procedure Code­ (CrPC) and Hindu Marriage Act offer provisions to safeguard the­ rights of financially weaker spouses during and post divorce­ proceedings. This article e­xplores the intricacies surrounding mainte­nance laws, their scope, and court inte­rpretations based on landmark cases.

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code: The Bulwark of Maintenance

Section 125 of the­ CrPC is a significant law. It ensures family membe­rs receive financial aid. The­ law requires people­ to support their spouse, kids, and parents. It applie­s to all citizens, regardless of re­ligion. Section 125 crosses faith and personal law boundarie­s.

The law focuses on the we­lfare of depende­nt persons. It protects spouses and kids who re­ly on others for money. The law give­s quick support while divorce cases are­ ongoing. So the legal fight does not impact the­ claimant’s living. Section 125 emphasizes the­ needs of the financially de­pendent party.

Landmark Case Laws under Section 125 CrPC:

  1. The Supre­me Court decision in Rajesh Sharma vs. State­ of Uttar Pradesh (2017) clarified the right to mainte­nance under Section 125 CrPC. It is a statutory right that e­xists outside personal law. The court e­mphasized the married re­lationship alone, irrespective­ of faith, necessitates mainte­nance.
  2. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015), the Supreme­ Court ruled a husband’s financial inability does not absolve him of le­gal maintenance obligations. Howeve­r, the court has discretion to dete­rmine the amount based on his financial capacity.
  3. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2014): As the Supreme Court observed, merely because the wife did not seek maintenance from her husband during the marriage, and in fact is financially capable of providing for herself, this fact is not a bar to the wife’s right to seek maintenance should the marriage continue. The court noticed that the wife’s right to maintenance is connected with only one condition set by Section 125 CrPC.
Divorce proceeding
[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

The Hindu Marriage Act: Maintenance Provisions in Divorce Proceedings

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 is the statute that sets down a comprehensive scaffolding on support in cases of divorce in Hindu marriages. Thus borrowing the section no. 24 of the Act, a court has a right to grant the maintenance and permanent alimony for either of the spouses as and when the need calls during the time of a divorce order.

In addition to that, Section 25 focuses on other factors that the court has to look into when determining this allowance of maintenance, among those factors are the financial resources of both parties, conduct and other relevant circumstances of each party.

Landmark Case Laws under the Hindu Marriage Act:

  1. Vinny Parikh v. Bakul Parikh (2015): It was the Supreme Court which held that the maintenance provided to the wife under the Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not dependent on her financial independence or the amount of property in her name. It was emphasized by the court that the wife, in this instance, is entitled to maintenance, devoid of the necessity for her to be under-earning or in the process of raising children.

    2. Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017): The Supreme Court used this judgment that prevents the Section 25 of the Indian Hindu Marriage Act maintenance rights confined to the marriage life period. The Court determined that after the marriage has broken down, the wife should underprivileged entitled for maintenance only subject to the court’s discretion with respect to the particular situation.

    3. Siddhant Gupta v. Dimple Gupta (2021): The Appellate Court considered the disposition of temporary maintenance payments during the process of divorce. By making this determination, the Court holds that a husband must fulfill his obligation to provide maintenance since the wedding day until the prevailing divorce action is resolved.

    Factors Influencing Maintenance Determination

In the light of deciding on alimony claims the tribunal looks into several factors to reach a fair and balanced alimony ratio.These factors include:

1. Financial Status and Earning Capacity: The court calculates both parties’ financial assets, income, and income potential to even the scale between who can pay much and who can pay less.

2. Standard of Living: The parties’ standard of living during the marriage is a significant factor, since the maintenance payment is meant to support the weaker financially spouse so that his/her living standard does not quickly fall behind the lifestyle he adapted during the marriage.

3. Age and Health: The ages and health status, major factors in determining whether the party would be able to finance themselves without the other party.

4. Educational credentials and Employability: The court looks at the possibilities for the spouses to stand by themselves through education and employment credentials including for the financially dependent spouse who may be unable to achieve such credentials.

5. Conduct and Fault: In certain situations, a court may tackle the spouses conduct and fault during the marriage as a factor for that support amount.

Conclusion

The question of the enactment and effect of the above is mainly brought across in the maintenance of divorce proceeding that makes one the country’s desire to uphold the economic welfare of the citizens and empower them. While S. 125 and Hindu Marriage Act have both provided a strong case on the subject of legally disadvantaged spouse to freely choose their own religion and personal law, they are also entitled to rights that should in the domain of fairness be granted as per property distribution.

Judiciary now adays play the key role in the process of development and has become the major tool in implementation of the maintenance laws through many judgments where judiciary has interpreted various provisions of the maintenance laws very strictly and extensively and made the guiding principles of the laws un-ignorable such as – only justice, fairness and interest of the marginalized are to be considered. Similarly, the confrontation of societal values and human persons evokes cause and effect issues and therefore, justice is sought out by the invested parties, in the best interest of the society.

The proper maintenance in the divorce processes holds a value to the community not only on the financial matter; it is a worth-while service which carries the torch of the principles of dignity, equality and compassion. To mention just one, the biggest charitableness benefit for poor people is the strong financial support and helps these people not to end up in poverty and hunger-death.

Author: PARTH GAWDE, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010