Maintenance Laws in India: Protecting the Vulnerable

Maintenance is a critical legal tool that upholds the principle of social justice, ensuring that vulnerable sections of society are not left destitute. Its application and interpretation continue to evolve, reflecting changes in societal norms and judicial understanding.

Legal Insights: Maintenance

Maintenance as a concept finds its presence in almost all common law jurisdictions, and India is no different from that. Simply put, maintenance means providing financial support to individuals unable to sustain themselves for various reasons. Section 3(b) of the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act, 1956 defines maintenance as: -

Section 3(b) "maintenance" includes―
(i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment;
(ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage.

Maintenance, as a provision, finds its place in various laws in India, ranging from criminal law to family law; for instance, Section 24 of the Hindu Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides for maintenance pendente lite (temporary maintenance) and litigation expenses to either spouse during proceedings involving matrimonial disputes, provided that the seeking party lack sufficient means to support themselves.

Similarly, Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows for the grant of permanent alimony and maintenance to either spouse after the dissolution or judicial separation of marriage based on factors such as income, financial capacity, and other factors that could affect the parties' finances.

Further, Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provides that the wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband during her lifetime, provided she is living separately, and her husband is guilty of desertion, cruelty or any other reason as mentioned in the Act. Additionally, Section 20 of the same Act further obliges a Hindu father or mother to maintain their legitimate or illegitimate minor children and unmarried daughters, and Section 22 extends this obligation to heirs of a deceased Hindu to maintain his dependents under certain conditions.

Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005), states that the Magistrate has the power to award compensation to the women who have been the victim of domestic violence. The provision also allows the Magistrate to grant maintenance for the child if the custody of that child has been granted to the mother.

The court, in the case of Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar (2019), held that cohabitation between a man and a woman for an extended period leads to the presumption of marriage, entitling the woman and any children born to them to maintenance.

Similarly, Section 125 of the CrPC, now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (2023), states that the Magistrate can pass the order for maintenance to the person with sufficient means to maintain their wife (including a divorced wife not remarried), minor children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. The provision is secular and applies irrespective of the parties' religion, focusing solely on preventing destitution.

Under Muslim personal law, the wife is entitled to maintenance only for the Iddat period, which means a period of three mensuration cycles or if pregnant. It extends to the whole of pregnancy, which is observed by the Muslim woman after talaq (divorce). Further, the husband is only obliged to pay maintenance throughout iddat only. Once the iddat period is over, she can claim maintenance from the people who will inherit her property.

However, there are situations where a Muslim wife is not entitled to maintenance after divorce:

• If the marriage is dissolved due to defects in the wife.
• If the wife renounces Islam (apostasy).
• If the right to maintenance was suspended during the marriage for valid reasons.

The law also allows the wife to claim separate maintenance in circumstances where she has been poorly treated, showing her inability to live with another wife. It also must be noted that any agreement denying such a right is considered void.

The court in the case of Ishak Chandra v. Myamatbi & Ors. (1980), held that Section 125 of CrPC is supplementary and does not conflict with the rights granted under Muslim personal law.

These provisions were intended to provide additional remedies for divorced Muslim women, in the landmark case of Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985),  Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, while expanding the interpretation of maintenance rights, observed that a divorced Muslim woman falls very well within the definition of "wife" and is entitled to maintenance even beyond the Iddat period. Holding that denying maintenance beyond Iddat would be unjust and contrary to the principles of fairness.

Important Judgments

Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), is one of the notable judgments of the Supreme Court, where the court addressed some of the critical issues which revolve around the maintenance of matrimonial disputes; due to the lack of uniformity, parties in the past often faced complications with regards to the amount and the process, involving maintenance.

The Supreme Court, while answering the question of overlapping jurisdiction, relied on the case Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors (1970), which confirmed that there is no inconsistency between the CrPC and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The court held that a wife can claim maintenance under different statutes, including the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 125 CrPC. The wife must disclose any previous maintenance awarded to her. To avoid an excessive burden on the party, the court must consider the maintenance awarded earlier when determining the new maintenance amount.

As for the interim maintenance, as mentioned in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court held that parties should not hide the material information concerning the ongoing case. To make this possible, the court stated that parties must disclose their finances in the affidavit to prevent delays. The respondent has four weeks to provide this disclosure, and the court must adjudicate interim maintenance within four to six months.

While deciding so, the court put forward the following criteria to decide the amount of maintenance which is to be granted to the parties,

a) The status of the parties

b) Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children

c) The applicant's education, professional qualifications, and any independent income source

d) Is the applicant's income sufficient to maintain their lifestyle in the matrimonial home?

e) Employment status before and during the marriage, including any sacrifices made for family care

f) Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife

Additional relevant factors may include:

a) Age and employment status of the parties.

b) Right to residence in a shared household.

c) The wife's earnings.

d) Maintenance for minor children.

e) Severe disability or ill health.

While laying down this, the court observed that the balance must be struck between these factors, ensuring that the maintenance awarded is neither excessively burdensome on the husband nor insufficient for the wife, driving her to poverty. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316]

Similarly, the court, in the case of Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017), held that the grant of maintenance pendente lite should be judicious and can neither be arbitrary nor capricious but should be guided on sound principles of matrimonial law and be exercised within the statutory provisions having regard to the object of the Act.

While answering the question of the date the maintenance is to be awarded, the court held that maintenance should be awarded from the date of filing the maintenance application, as there are no specific provisions in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 125(2) CrPC allows the Magistrate to award maintenance from the date of the order or the date of application. The court emphasised that maintenance should be granted from the application date to ensure that dependents do not suffer financially during prolonged proceedings.

The court cited the Sahil Kumari Devi v. Krishnan Bhagwan Pathak (2008), stating that maintenance should not be left on the date of the disposal of the case, as it puts an undue financial burden on the dependents. The same was reiterated by the Supreme Court again in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015), where the delay caused by the payments by the husband goes against fundamental human rights and human dignity.

The rationale for this approach is to prevent neglect of the financially vulnerable party while the case is pending. The judgment reflects an understanding of the primary object of maintenance laws: to protect deserted spouses and dependent children from financial hardship. The court found that delays in litigation should not disadvantage the applicant; therefore, maintenance must date back to when the application was filed.

While the objective of the judgement is yet to be achieved, the Supreme Court, in the case of Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma (2023), commented that the courts are fixing either the interim or the final maintenance without following the directions by the court, the case in hand is not the isolated matter of such rather more of a regular issue.

Conclusion

While maintenance as a tool helps out people who are actually in need, the current scenario tells otherwise. The laws about the grant of maintenance are pretty clear, along with various judgments from the courts of this country. It has certainly not been used the way it should be. The courts have repeatedly expressed concern over the misuse of the laws that are made to ensure justice for both parties.

To realise its actual potential, the courts need to follow the guidelines as given by the Supreme Court and use their judicial wisdom while awarding maintenance to anyone so that the person who is paying such an amount does not feel financially burdened.

References

[1] Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 

[2] Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11 SCC 491

[3] Ishak Chandra v. Myamatbi & Ors. (1980) Cr.L 1180 Bomb.

[4] Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945

[5] Rajnesh v. Neha, Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020

[6] Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors, AIR 1970 SC 446

[7] Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316.

[8] Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801

[9] Sahil Kumari Devi v. Krishnan Bhagwan Pathak, AIR 2008 SC 3006

[10] Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353

[11] Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma, Criminal Appeal No(s). 3446 of 2023

[12] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023