Maintenance Amount Awarded By Family Court Must Be Realistic & Reasonable; Order Should Be Clear & Reasoned: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court must be realistic and reasonable and that the order passer by such Courts must be clear and well reasoned- indicative of the facts, controversy and reasoning of it's conclusion.

Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh also observed that the objective of granting interim or permanent maintenance to a spouse is to ensure that they are not reduced to financial constraints due to the failure of their marriage.

The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by a wife challenging a Family Court order by way of which her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was decided. 

The Family Court had granted maintenance of Rs. 30,000 per month to the appellant wife and Rs. 15,000 per month each in respect of the two minor children, aged 8 years and 12 years respectively. The defendant-husband's income was stated to be Rs. 4,00,000/- per month.

Perusing the said order, the Court was of the view that there was hardly any discussion undertaken by the Judge while passing the impugned order and had only recorded the submissions of the parties.

"We are also conscious of the fact that a certain amount of guess work is required to grant maintenance as none of the parties disclose their true and correct income in their income affidavits, but we cannot forget or ignore the purpose of "Adjudication" by a Court of competent jurisdiction," the Court said. 

It added that the purpose of an adjudication is that the parties get to know the material, reasoning and thought process which has weighed with the Court while passing the order.

"After an order is passed, it should be clear as to what were the facts of the case, what was controversy that arose in the matter and ultimately the reasoning due to which the court came to its conclusion and decision," the Court opined. 

Accordingly, the Court was of the view that the impugned order failed to meet the test of adjudication and the need of a reasoned order.

The Court therefore remanded back the matter to the Family Court for re-hearing and for passing a detailed and reasoned order.

"In the meantime, the respondent shall not only continue to pay maintenance as fixed by the Family Court but shall also pay the entire school fee of the children," it added.

A request was also made to the Family Court to expedite the hearing of the application under Section 24 as well as the consideration of the aspect whether there were any arrears pending or not.

Case Title: SHEETAL JOSHAN ROY v. SOUMYAJIT ROY

Click Here To Read Order