In Multiple Matrimonial Proceedings, Plea Claiming Higher/ Highest Maintenance Must Be Decided First: Allahabad High Court
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision on multiple deductions towards maintenance amount, the Allahabad High Court has said that in matrimonial disputes if there are multiplicity of maintenance proceedings under different legislations, the plea claiming the highest maintenance must be decided first by the concerned court.
The observation came in an army personnel's plea who claimed that though money was being directly deducted towards maintenance from his salary under an army order, however the wife had gone on to again seek maintenance under two separate proceedings–one under the Hindu Marriage Act and the other under the Domestic Violence Act. As this was allowed by the family court through two different orders, the man approached the high court.
Supreme Court's firm rule against multiple deductions towards interim/final maintenance
Referring to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha & Anr.(2021), a division bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh in its order said that the judgment clearly lays down a "firm rule against multiple deductions or recoveries, towards interim/final maintenance allowance".
It said, "Without a doubt, award of maintenance allowance, made under one law (here Service law), would always satisfy the recovery of maintenance allowance for an equal or lesser amount, directed under any order passed by any Court or authority, under any other statutory law (here Hindu Marriage Act, 1955). Thus, no (further) recovery may be made pursuant to any order/s providing for equal or less monthly interim/final maintenance allowance, so long as an equal or higher sum of maintenance allowance has been or is being paid under another order providing for equal or higher interim/final maintenance allowance".
"To that extent, recoveries arising under any other order/s (providing for equal or lesser interim/final maintenance allowance), would remain subject to the payment/recovery already made under the order providing for equal or higher interim/final maintenance allowance, irrespective of the statutory law under which that provision for higher maintenance allowance may be made. In such cases the payer spouse – often the husband, is required to produce before the Court or authority seeking recovery of such amount - proof of deposit/deduction/payment/recovery made, of equal or higher interim/final maintenance allowance. On that proof arising, the Court/authority concerned shall not pursue (further), separate recovery of that equal or less amount of interim/final maintenance allowance," the high court added.
Courts must be pragmatic, decide highest/higher maintenance claim first
With respect to multiple orders arising from more than one application filed by a claimant under different enactments, the bench said that the respective Courts must act with "pragmatism". It said that in such a situation the application claiming the highest/higher maintenance must be decided first. It was held that though different applications for the same time period are permissible, the Court ought to decide the higher/ highest demand and dispose of the rest of the applications accordingly.
The Court held that recovery under the equal/lessor order for maintenance can only be made when the other side has failed to pay the equal or higher maintenance under the earlier award. It was held that the fact that higher amount has been paid/ deducted in earlier proceedings though under service law is a valid ground for defence.
“Where the subsequent order may provide for a equal or higher amount of maintenance allowance than awarded under earlier order/s (under any law), the actual amount to be paid/recovered under that later order would depend on the status of payment/recovery of the equal or lesser amounts (under the earlier order/s). Similarly, where in a case equal or less amount of maintenance allowance awarded under the later order gets paid/recovered first i.e. before recovery being made under the earlier order, the payer spouse would be entitled to claim benefit of that recovery in the recovery proceedings under the earlier order/s,” the bench said.
Effort be made to award wholesome, adequate and reasonable maintenance
The Court held that applying the law laid down in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr., the Court hearing the maintenance application must make an effort to award a "wholesome, adequate and reasonable" interim/ final maintenance allowance. It was held that once just amount is awarded to the claiming spouse, it raises the chances of peaceful settlement of the matrimonial discord between the parties raises, thereby saving Court's precious time.
Observing that often estranged spouse is a homemaker dependent on the other spouse, the Court observed:
“In that fragile state, the financially vulnerable spouse experiences inequality, oppression and humiliation besides the hard pinch of financial subjugation. Correspondingly, in such situations, the other spouse (mostly male) asserts his financial independence/earning, to leverage settlement on his terms and in any case, he retains the house (all most always). Often, the situation together with the community/societal responses cause – adding salt to injury, effect. Perhaps that motivates the suffering spouse to seek retribution, in the most cost-effective way”.
It said that the most matrimonial disputes which reach the police, the complainant is the lady–i.e. the "despised spouse" with no or less financial independence and therefore the one who has suffered the "indignity of being forced out of her own home".
Noting that since civil remedy is a long drawn and slow process, it can be addressed by applying the law laid down in Rajnesh Vs Neha & Anr., efficiently and effectively.
"Prompt provision of wholesome, adequate and reasonable interim/final maintenance allowance made, on sound judicial principles may help stabilize the matrimonial boat of the parties to the dispute and prevent it from rolling over...It may prevent the fire of matrimonial discord from billowing into an inferno that may destroy a whole family – the building block of any society. To us, a stitch in time saves nine - if not for all, at least some. Even where marriages may not be saved, civility may be. That itself would not be a mean achievement for the parties (in particular) and society, in general," the bench emphasized.
Background
The appellant–a Lance Naik/Sipahi in the Indian Army has a salary of Rs. 50,000 per month. In a matrimonial dispute, a deduction of 22% of the appellant's salary was payable to the wife as per the Army Order pertaining to Payment of Maintenance Allowance to Wives and Children of Army Personnel under the Army Act.
Though deductions were being directly made from the salary of the appellant, the wife applied for maintenance during pendency of the divorce proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Respondent-wife also instituted proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 wherein she again sought maintenance.
By two separate orders, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 11000/- per month to the wife.
Counsel for appellant-husband argued that the wife sought maintenance in multiple proceedings as a result of which the deduction from appellant's salary pursuant to the Army Order were stopped. It was stated that there was no order of the Court directing that the amount awarded be adjusted from the deductions. Further, appellant showed that he had been paying Rs. 11000/- to the respondent.
It was pleaded that higher amount was being paid to the wife through the deductions as per Army Order. The multiple proceedings for maintenance was to harass the appellant and waste of his time and money. Further, it was stated that once higher amount was already being paid, then there was no need for the Family Court to award same or lesser award under different provisions, ignoring the Army Order. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr., it was argued that the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court are binding in nature.
Per contra, counsel for respondent-wife submitted that a criminal revision had been filed by her for enhancement of maintenance and that the appellant did not make regular payments. It was argued that the deductions as per the Army Order was separate from maintenance under other enactments.
Findings
The Court observed that the Family Courts have continued to provide separate interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 etc. even after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr., where specific guidelines had been laid down by the Apex Court regarding maintenance to be awarded.
It said that in the last three months it had come across a "steady flow of similar proceedings" coming to the high court by way of statutory appeals involving multiple orders providing for interim/final maintenance allowance, passed by different Family Courts in the State.
"Insofar as such orders were found existing in old appeals arising from orders passed before the law was declared by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. (supra), the same did not call for any special notice by this Court," the court said. It however said that Supreme Court's decision, this trend has continued unabated.
Observing that there is no room with the Family Courts to not apply that law laid down in Rajnesh v Neha "strictly", the bench called for communication of its order to the all Principal Judges of the Family Courts in the State of U.P. with a direction comply with the Supreme Court judgment, as well as the bench's order.
The court further called for communication of its order to the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training under the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India to consider and frame appropriate Rules/Norms/Guidelines to provide for payment of maintenance allowance to estranged spouses of all employees of Government of India and institutions etc. falling under the control of Government of India on such criteria as may be required and at such scale/rate as may be specified.
With respect to the case at hand, the bench said the concerned court should have first considered if the deduction provided under the Army Order was sufficient to take care of the claim made before it. Holding that the deductions made from the salary of the husband were not lesser than the award of the interim maintenance, the High Court held that the proceedings ought have been disposed of in terms of that only.
Case Title: X v. Y