Karnataka High Court Issues Directions To Ensure Time Bound Disposal Of Maintenance Applications U/s 24 Hindu Marriage Act

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna felt the requirement to issue the directions noting that “Proviso to Section 24 directs that an application filed under Section 24 seeking maintenance should be disposed of as far as possible within 60 days. The term “as far as possible” is being interpreted that the Court can pass orders even after six months in some cases, two years, three years or even four years after filing the application.”

It added “This delay in considering those applications for maintenance would defeat the very soul of the provision which is to give succour to the wife who leaves or is made to leave the matrimonial house on myriad circumstances. Merely, because the provision directs disposal of the application, as far as possible within 60 days, it cannot be stretched to an extent by the Courts to an extent that the wife would not see the amount of maintenance for ages.”

Further it said “The concerned Court is to adhere to a timeline for disposal of the applications seeking maintenance at the hands of the husband when sought by the wife, so that the right to claim maintenance is not rendered illusory.”

Following which it issued the following timeline:

a. Notice on the application will be issued immediately. Service through Email / What’s App, shall also be valid service in the eye of law.

b. The concerned Court shall grant two months to the husband to file his objections to the application filed by the wife seeking interim maintenance under section 24 of the Act.

c. The wife also should be given the same two months to file statements of assets and liabilities. d. On the assets and liabilities so filed by the wife, the concerned Court shall consider the contentions of the parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders, within four months thereafter, if not earlier.

e. Therefore, the outer limit to decide any application seeking interim maintenance is six months from the date of its filing.

f. To achieve this timeline, the concerned Court should refrain itself from granting unnecessary adjournments to both the husband and the wife.

g. If the husband or the wife would not cooperate with the closure of the proceedings qua the application for interim maintenance the Court would be free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

h. Any delay beyond six months should be only on reasons recorded in writing in the order that would be passed.

The bench opined “It is made clear that the concerned Courts shall adhere to the aforesaid timeline, as the wife should not be made to wait for years together, to get a certain amount of maintenance from the hands of the husband. In many cases, the wife would be driven to penury, the moment she walks out of the matrimonial house on manifold reasons. To avoid the wife being driven to such impecuniosities, the aforesaid timeline should be strictly followed.”

The bench gave the directions while hearing a petition filed by one Pratibha Singh. The court noted that the wife had filed an application on 06-02-2020 under Section 24 of the Act. The husband filed his objections along with the assets and liabilities statement more than 19 months after the application was filed i.e., on 28.11.2021. Then the court decides the application on 26-08-2022 and directs payment to be made from the date of the application. Therefore, the Court 25 has decided the issue in the case at hand after 30 months of filing of the application.

On going through the records and relying on Supreme Court judgments, the bench allowed the petition filed by the wife. It thus enhanced the maintenance granted to the petitioner/wife from Rs 15,000 to Rs 50,000 and litigation expenses from Rs 50,000 to 1,00,000.

Case Title: Pratibha Singh And Vineet Kumar.

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.21852 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 50

Date of Order: 08-02-2023

Appearance: Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari for Advocate Rohan Kothari for petitioner.

Senior Advocate Udaya Holla for Advocate Vivek Holla for respondent.