Supreme Court Guidelines in Matrimonial Cases for Compensation and Maintenance

Supreme Court Guidelines in Matrimonial Cases for Compensation and Maintenance 

The Supreme Court on 4th November, 2020 by division bench judges comprising of Hon'ble Justices Indu Malhotra and R Subhash Reddy, laid down guidelines for payment of interim compensation and quantum of maintenance to be paid in cases of matrimonial for the matter between Rajnesh vs Neha.

The Apex court laid down directions which are to be followed by family courts, district courts and magistrate courts present in the country to address the issue of overlapping justification and to avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings in the same matter and held that the right to claim maintenance under all enactments must be awarded from the date of filing application.

The primary question before the court related to maintenance of a wife and son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was dealt with. Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Anitha Shenoy were appointed as amicus curiae in order to assist the court in framing guidelines on payment of interim maintenance.

The Apex Court majorly dealt with five aspects namely, payment of interim maintenance, criterion for determining quantum of maintenance, overlapping jurisdiction, date from which the maintenance is to be awarded and lastly enforcement of orders of maintenance.

The court further noted that Section 125(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables the Magistrate may award maintenance either from the date of the order or from the date of application. It was noted that there was no provision in Hindu Marriage Act or the Domestic Violence Act which provided for the date from which the maintenance is to be awarded.

The court observed, "even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in S. 125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 CrPC In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application."

The Court stated that the rationale behind of granting maintenance from the date of application found its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband.

To this, the Apex Court added, "Financial constraints of a dependant spouse hampers their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. In order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the concerned Court. The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband."

Therefore, the court felt it was necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the Orders passed by all Courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the concerned Court. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.

The Court observed that an order of maintenance may be enforced/executed under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage act, Section 20(6) of the Domestic Violence Act or Section 128 of CrPC. Hence an order for maintenance may be enforced as a monetary decree under the Code of Civil Procedure.