MANISH JAIN versus AKANKSHA JAIN

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 702 · Decided: 30-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
. B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 702 
MANISH JAIN 
v. 
AKANKSHA JAIN 
(Civil Appeal No. 4615 of2017) 
MARCH 30, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s.24 - Maintenance pendente 
lite and expenses of proceedings - Reduction of - Respondent-wife 
filed application u/s.24 claiming interim main(enance during 
pendency of divorce petition - Application dismissed by Lower 
court - High Court directed appellant-husband to pay interim 
maintenance of Rs. 60, 000/- p. m. in addition to amount directed to 
be paid to the respondent-wife in proceeding under D. V. Act - On 
appeal, held: An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of 
the proceedings is conditional on· t~e circumstance that wife or 
husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent income 
sufficient for her/his s.upport or to meet the necessary expenses of 
the proceedings - In the instant case, at the time of claiming 
maintenance pendente I ite, the respondent-wife did not have sufficient 
income capable of supporting herself, and therefore, the High Court 
was justified in ordering maintenance - Howeve1; amount ordered 
by_the High Court is on the higher side and in the interest of justice 
same reduced to Rs.25,0001-p.m. (in addition to amount paid under 
the proceedings of the D. V. Act). 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 
empowers the Court in any proceeding .under the Act, if ifappears 
to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may 
be, has no independent income suffic~ent for her or his support 
and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the 
application of any one of them order the other party to pay to the 
petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and monthly 
maintenance as may seem to be reasonable during the proceeding, 
having regar.d to also the income of both the applicant and the 
respondent. Heading of Section 24 of the Ad is "Maintenance 
pendente lite and(Eixpenses of proceedings". The Section, 4owever, 
. 
702 
. 
MANISH JAIN v. AKANKSHA JAIN 
does not use the word "maintenance"; but the word "support" 
can be interpreted to mean as Section 24 is intended to provide 
fo_r maintenance pe11de11te lite. [Para 14) (708-G-H; 709-A] 
2. An .order for maintenance pell{/e11te life or for costs of 
the proceedings is conditional on the circu111stance that the wife 
or husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent 
. income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the necessary 
expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer to a claim of 
maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. 
Likewise, the financial position of the wife's parents is also 
immaterial. The Court must take into consideration the status of 
the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance 
and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient 
for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon 
factual situation; the Court should, therefore, mould the claim 
for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors 
brought before the Court. (Para 15) [709-B-C] 
3. In the present case, at the time of claiming maintenance 
pe11de11te lite when the respondent-wife had no sufficient income 
capable of supporting herself, the High Court .was justified in 
ordering maintenance. However, the maintenance amount of 
Rs.60,000/- ordered by the High Court (in addition· to 
Rs.10,000/- paid under the proceedings of the D.V. Act) appears 
to be on the higher side and in the interest of justice, the same is 
reduced to Rs.25,000/- per month. The maintenance pell{/e11te 
lite of Rs.25,000/- is to be paid to the respondent-wife by the 
appellant-husband (in addition to Rs.10,000/- paid under the 
proceedings of the D.V. Act). [Para 16) (709-D-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4615 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2014 of the·High Court 
. of Delhi at New Delhi in CM (M) No. 910 of2010. 
Jayant Mehta, Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Neha Sangwan, Ms~ Sarika, 
Advs. for the Appellant. 
S. B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., San jay Bansal, G. K. Bansal, Advs. for 
the Respondent. 
703 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
704 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
·G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
.R. BANUMATHI, J. I. Leave granted. 
[2017) 3 S.C.R. 
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband 
against the order dated 2 l.02.2014 passed by the High 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.