Rajnesh Vs. Respondent: Neha and Ors

Case Name: Rajnesh Vs. Respondent: Neha and Ors

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT THAT STANDARDIZED THE LAW OF MAINTENANCE.

Case Citation: Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (India).

Court: Supreme Court of India

Decided on: 04.11.2020

Appellants: Rajnesh Vs. Respondent: Neha and Ors

Bench: Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ

INTRODUCTION

The case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and ors[1] is a landmark judgement decided by Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020). The case began as an individual matrimonial dispute over maintenance. The respondent 1- wife after leaving her matrimonial house asked for interim maintenance for herself and her minor child. The case started in Family court which was upheld by High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench and later reached the Supreme Court as criminal appeal. The judgement given by the Supreme Court is celebrated for setting up uniform and comprehensive guidelines for maintenance that bought efficiency and clarity in the maintenance proceedings by setting a benchmark.

FACTS OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The case of Rajnesh v. Neha[2], reached the Supreme Court as a criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020) (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)  that arose out of an application of interim maintenance.

In this case, the Respondent No.1 that is the wife left the matrimonial household in January 2013, shortly after giving birth to her son.

FAMILY COURT

On 02.09.2013, the wife filed an application for an interim maintenance in the family court, under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure[3] (Section 144 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023[4]) on behalf of herself and the minor son. The Family Court through a detailed order passed on 24.08.2015 granted interim maintenance of Rs. 15000 per month to wife (Respondent 1) from 1.09.2013. An interim maintenance of Rs. 5000 per month was awarded for the minor son (Respondent 2) from 1.09.2013 to 31.08.2015. The court also ordered Rs. 10,000 per month from 1.09.2015 till further notice.

HIGH COURT APPEAL

The husband challenged the decision of the family court through writ petition (No. 875/2015), which was filed before the Bombay High court, Nagpur bench. The High Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 14.08.2018 and upheld the decision of the Family Court.

SUPREME COURT APPEAL

The appellant husband, filed a criminal appeal in front of the Supreme Court in the year 2018. The court issued notice to the wife and asked the appellant husband to file his Income Tax Returns and Assessment Orders for the period from 2005-2006 till date along with photocopy of his passport on record. Later, the court also suggested mediation that failed. There were arguments between the wife and the husband where the appellant husband stated that he did not have financial means to comply with the order of maintenance and had taken loans from his father regarding the same. The wife argued that husband had made investments in the in real estate projects, and other businesses and these facts are hidden from the court by him. Finally, the Supreme Court in its final rulings reaffirmed the judgement passed by the Family Court which was later upheld by the Bombay High Court. The husband was directed to pay the entire arrears of maintenance. Also, if the husband fails to comply with the orders of the court, then the respondent was allowed to make the order enforced under Section 128 of Code of Criminal Procedure[5].

LEGAL ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

1. The issue of overlapping jurisdiction
2. Payment of interim maintenance
3. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance
4. Date from which Maintenance is to be awarded
5. Enforcement of orders of maintenance

JUDGEMENT, DIRECTIONS AND GUIDELINES

The guidelines were passed by the Supreme Court while exercising their powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India[6].

1. The issue of overlapping jurisdiction

The court acknowledged that the parties can approach the courts under different enactments and statues as it provides distinct remedies. It was made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceedings and the orders passed to avoid double benefit. Also, if the order passed in the previous proceedings required any modification or variations, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.

2. Payment of interim maintenance

Through the judgement, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of interim maintenance for the financial support of the dependant party and also to prevent them from falling into destitution. The court said that the legal proceedings can sometimes take a considerable long period of time which is not under the control of either of parties. Hence, it is very essential that the party does not suffer any financial hardship during that tenure. Also, the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities should be filed by both the parties in all the maintenance proceedings.

3. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance

The objective behind granting the maintenance is that the dependant party doesn’t suffer from financial hardship but at the same time it does not mean to act as a punishment for another spouse. The court emphasized that there is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance awarded. The factors which would determine the court decision depends upon the status of the party, reasonable need of the wife and dependant children. whether the Applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the Applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the Applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.[7] But the aforementioned factors are not exhaustive and the concerned court should make their own judgement after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which is a subjective matter.

4. Date from which Maintenance is to be awarded

There is no provision in the Hindu Marriage Act[8] with the respect to the date from which the maintenance should be awarded. Similarly, even the Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act[9] does not provide a clear date from which maintenance should be awarded. Section 125(2) Code of Criminal Procedure[10] is the only statutory provision which provides that the Magistrate may award maintenance either from the date of the order, or from the date of application. Through all these statutes, it was observed that there was no uniformity which led to vast variance in the practise adopted by Family Courts. To avoid this and bring uniformity and clarity in awarding the maintenance the court held two views. First view: – It was made clear by the Supreme Court that maintenance should be awarded from the date of application. Second view: – That the maintenance to be awarded from the date of order. This view is based on the interpretation of Section 125(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the court emphasized this view to be used only in exception.

5. Enforcement of orders of maintenance

It was laid down by court that for the purpose of enforcement or execution of the order of maintenance, it can be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956[11], Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act[12] and Section 128 of Code of Criminal Procedure[13] as may be applicable from case to case. The order of maintenance can also be enforced as money decree of civil court as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure[14], more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60.  

THE FINAL DECISION OF SUPREME COURT

The husband was ordered to pay the entire arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15000, from the date of the date of the judgement and had to comply with the order at the time of pendency of the proceedings. The court also emphasized that if the appellant husband failed to comply with the orders of the Court, then the respondent can make the order enforced under Section 128 of Code of Criminal Procedure and can take all the remedies made available by law. The Family Court was also directed to decide the substantive application within a period of 6 months from the date of the judgement as it was pending and going on since a long period of 7 years.

SIGNIFICANCE AND IMAPCT OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. The judgement provided with comprehensive guidelines that ensured clarity, unification and efficiency among the various statues and case proceedings.
2. It provided financial stability by the means of interim maintenance to the dependant party which often suffers due to legal delay.
3. Also, the guidelines laid down by the Court also promotes the idea of social justice under Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution.[15]

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

This case is one of the landmark cases that gave comprehensive guidelines on the matrimonial issue of maintenance. But there are some practical shortcomings of the same.

1. Gap in implementation- Although the Supreme Court had laid down comprehensive guidelines but there are still some implementation gaps. A major critique of the same was the non-adherence of the guidelines by the lower courts.
2. Potential for misuse- Many critics from men’s side have argued that the guidelines can be used an exploitive tool by the greedy women.
3. Verification Difficulties- Although, the judgement asks and mandates income affidavits but still determining the real income remains difficult and there is still scope for manipulation of facts.

CONCLUSION

This case is one of the landmark judgements given by the Supreme Court. It stands as one of the most important cases on maintenance setting up guidelines making the proceedings of the maintenance related issues efficient, uniform and clear. The Supreme Court enhanced access to justice for the dependant spouse and minor children by awarding interim maintenance and the right to approach to various courts under various statues in order to seek remedies. This case has become a pillar and a great precedent for all the contemporary maintenance related issues in the courts. This case laid down clear mandate and comprehensive guidelines on maintenance proceedings. Also, the judgement, laid emphasis on the domain of social justice stating that providing maintenance is important so that the dependant party do not suffer from financial hardships or reach the level of destitution.

REFERENCE(S):

1. Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (India).
2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46 of 2023, § 144, India Code (2023).
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 128, India Code (1974).
4. India Const. art. 142.
5. Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 of 1955, India Code (1955).
6. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, No. 43 of 2005, § 12, India Code (2005).
7. Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 125(2), India Code (1974).
8. Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 of 1955, § 28A, India Code (1955).
9. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, No. 43 of 2005, § 20(6), India Code (2005).
10. Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 128, India Code (1974).
11. Code of Civil Procedure, No. 5 of 1908, India Code (1908).
12. India Const. art. 15(3).
13. Code of Civil Procedure, No. 5 of 1908, India Code (1908).
14. Rajnesh v. Neha, MANU/SC/0833/2020, ¶ B–III(i) (India Sup. Ct. Nov. 4, 2020).

[1] Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (India).

[2]Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (India).

[3] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §125.

[4] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46 of 2023, § 144, India Code (2023).

[5] Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 128, India Code (1974).

[6] India Const. art. 142.

[7] Rajnesh v. Neha, MANU/SC/0833/2020, ¶ B–III(i) (India Sup. Ct. Nov. 4, 2020).

[8] Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 of 1955, India Code (1955).

[9] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, No. 43 of 2005, § 12, India Code (2005).

[10] Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 125(2), India Code (1974).

[11] Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 of 1955, § 28A, India Code (1955).

[12] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, No. 43 of 2005, § 20(6), India Code (2005).

[13] Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 128, India Code (1974).

[14] Code of Civil Procedure, No. 5 of 1908, India Code (1908).

[15] India Const. art. 15(3).