Wives & Children Struggle To Face Matrimonial Proceedings Due To Financial Crisis, Husbands Exploit Their Situation: Allahabad HC

“In a matrimonial proceeding, the wife and children are pitted against the husband or the father, as the case may be and in most of the cases they are not on equal footing. Some gets financial support from their parents, brothers and sisters and also some work and earn, in exceptional cases. However, in all cases, the women and children are unable to face the onslaught of matrimonial proceedings because of their financial crisis, which tends to be exploited by the husbands,” a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed.

The Court added that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act [Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings] aims to balance this very financial disparity in matrimonial proceedings by providing pendent-lite maintenance to the wife during the pendency of the case arising out of matrimonial dispute. The Court noted that this provision provides for survival of the wife as long as the matrimonial proceedings are pending.

“The said provision tends to create a fiction of equality, wherein the wife is tried to brought equally, atleast financially along with the husband, so that the matrimonial case initiated is pursued by both the parties suitably & equally,” the Court observed.

The Court also noted that the importance of maintenance orders under this provision is highlighted because such orders are enforceable like Civil Court decrees under Section 51 and Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and that these orders are temporary and end once the matrimonial proceedings are concluded.

The case in brief

The Court made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by a husband challenging an order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, under Section 24 of the 1955 Act directing him to pay a one-time Rs. 50K as “legal activities (litigation expenses)” to his wife (the opposite party).

He was also directed to pay a one-time Rs.10K as litigation costs and Rs.500/—per hearing within 30 days from the order date.

The family court has passed this order (in September this year) in the application moved by the wife seeking pendent-lite maintenance in connection with the divorce suit filed by the husband under Section 13 of the 1955 Act.

Assailing the order, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the Family Court failed to consider that the respondent-wife is living separately from the appellant-husband without any valid justification.

It was also contended that the family court overlooked that the husband's department had already directed him to pay Rs. 67K in instalments for his family's maintenance, which the court should have factored into, while allowing the wife's application.

High Court's observations

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court, at the outset, noted that the family court had merely granted the expenses which the wife will make in the divorce suit before the Family Court.

Thus, the Court added that if any amount was being under the orders of the Department for maintenance of children, the same does not in any manner impact the expenses which the wife is required to make in the suit before the Family Court.

The Court also opined that a husband's obligation to maintain his wife arises on marriage, whereas such an obligation towards the children arises on their birth, and these obligations were imposed on him by operation of law.

The Court further stressed that it is a sacred duty of an ably-bodied husband or father, as the case may be, towards his wife and children to maintain in all circumstances.

Importantly, underscoring the importance of the provision contained under Section 24 of the 1955 Act, especially for a wife, the Court noted that the paramount interest of the wife is to be adjudged on the parameters given in this provision, which is whether she has independent and sufficient income for her upkeep or not.

In view of this, observing that no material was brought on record to point out that the wife has no independent source of income for her sustenance and that the husband is a colonel in the Indian Army and draws a handsome salary, the court upheld the family court's order and dismissed the husband's appeal.