RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN MAINTENANCE LAWS DISHA GUPTA BASICS OF LAW Thu, Aug 01, 2019, at ,12:06 PM Maintenance in family law refers to alimony or spousal support. Maintenance is an order of a court for the support of one spouse by the other spouse. State law, which varies by state, governs the award of maintenance to a spouse. Section 3(b) of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act 1955 reads about the things included in maintenance. It reads as follows- “In all cases, provisions for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment; in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses of an incident to her marriage.” There are four different types of provisions regarding maintenance. They are as follows- Section 24 (temporary maintenance) and Section 25 (permanent maintenance and alimony) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 18 (maintenance of wife), Section 19 (maintenance of widowed daughter in law), and Section 23 (amount of maintenance) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 Section 20 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 RECENT JUDGEMENTS: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HC ORDERS TO PROVIDE RICE, GHEE AND CLOTHES TO WIFE AS MAINTENANCE. CASE: AMIT MEHRA V. MANJU In the case of Amit Mehra v Manju, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the husband who is unemployed to provide basic necessities like rice, ghee, and clothes to his wife in maintenance. The husband contended before the court that he can’t provide the monetary sum to his estranged wife and he is ready to provide his wife’s daily necessities and monthly ration. The judge directed the husband to provide with all monthly ration along with milk to his wife as maintenance and submit the affidavit in this regard on or before the date fixed. DELHI HC DIRECTS THE HUSBAND TO PAY MAINTENANCE FOR CHILDREN IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS WIFE’S EARNING CASE: FAROOQ AHMED SHALA V. MARIE CHANEL GILLER In this case, the petitioner is Muslim while the respondent was Christian who performed Nikah on 28th November 2004. They registered their marriage under the Special Marriage Act and a marriage certificate dated 30th May 2006 was issued. These parties filed for divorce and got separated in March 2015. The petitioner husband had performed a marriage before this marriage and had two daughters from the first wife. He also had two daughters from his second marriage. It was evident that the respondent wife took care of the three minor daughters and the elder one, who has attained majority, lived with the petitioner out of her own wish. The respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, alleging domestic violence. In this case, the trial court held and estimated that the petitioner’s income would not be less than Rs. 2 lakh and accordingly awarded Rs. 60,000 to the respondent as interim maintenance, as she took care of three daughters of the petitioner. The bench led by Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that “A child for her upbringing does not only require money. A lot of time and effort goes in the upbringing of the child. A mother who has the custody of a child not only spends money but also spent substantial time and effort in the upbringing of a child.” The court further held that “the mere fact that respondent-wife is earning does not absolve the petitioner of his responsibility to maintain the three minor daughters”. The court also found that the petitioner has not been truthful in disclosure and concealed his income and expenditure for the purpose of avoiding to pay any maintenance to the minor daughters. The court also stated that “petitioner has a legal, social and moral responsibility to not only maintain his wife but also children. Even if assuming that the respondent is earning, the same cannot be the reason for the petitioner to avoid his responsibility and duty to maintaining minor daughters.” The apex court referred to the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015)6 SCC 353 has held that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a women who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provisions so that some suitable arrangements can be made in the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. Referring to the above-undisclosed facts by the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner husband was dismissed contending that mere earning condition of wife is not enough for her to bear all expenses of three minor daughters. SUPREME COURT HELD THAT STRICT PROOF OF MARRIAGE NOT REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.PC CASE: KAMALA AND ORS. VS. M.R. MOHAN KUMAR The Supreme Court in this recent case has reiterated the settled principle of law that unlike other matrimonial proceedings, a strict proof of marriage is not essential in claim of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.PC and that when the parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are legally married couple for claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC. The Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in view of the evidence and material available on record allowed the appeal holding that there was a valid marriage between the parties and moreover a strict proof of marriage was not a pre-requisite for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.PC.