REEMA SALKAN versus SUMER SINGH SALKAN

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 350 · Decided: 25-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · 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
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12  S.C.R.
REEMA SALKAN
v.
SUMER SINGH SALKAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1220 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125 – During the
pendency of the application u/s.125, issue of interim maintenance
travelled upto Supreme Court which granted appellant-wife
Rs.20,000/- p.m as interim maintenance commencing from 1st Nov.
2014 – However, Family Court fixed the final maintenance amount
@ Rs.10,000/-p.m. starting from 17th July, 2003 till 8th Dec. 2010 –
No maintenance was granted with effect from 8th Dec. 2010 –
Revision petition filed by appellant, partly allowed by High Court
directing respondent to pay Rs. 9,000/- p.m  from 9th Dec. 2010
onwards – Held: Family Court held that the respondent neglected
to maintain the appellant – Such finding of fact has been upheld by
the High Court – Both the Courts have concurrently found that, in
law, the respondent was obliged to maintain the appellant – However,
principle invoked by the High Court for determination of monthly
maintenance amount on the basis of notional minimum income of
the respondent as per current minimum wages in Delhi is untenable
– Regard must be had to the living standard of the respondent and
his family, his past conduct in successfully protracting the disposal
of the maintenance petition filed in the year 2003, until 2015;
coupled with the fact that a specious and unsubstantiated plea was
taken by him that he was unemployed from 2010, despite the fact
that he is highly qualified and an able-bodied person; his monthly
income while working in Canada in the year 2010 was over
Rs.1,77,364/- – At this distance of time, keeping in mind the spiraling
inflation rate and high cost of living index today, to do complete
justice between the parties, respondent shall pay Rs.20,000/- p.m
to the appellant with effect from January 2010 and at the rate of
Rs.25,000/- per month with effect from 1st June, 2018 until further
orders – Impugned judgment of the High Court modified.
[2018] 12  S.C.R. 350
                                                 350
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
351
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Family Court unambiguously held that the
respondent neglected to maintain the appellant, for the elaborate
reasons recorded in its judgment dated 28th January, 2015. That
finding of fact was upheld by the High Court. The Family Court
has also found as a fact that the appellant was unemployed, though
she is an MA in English and holds a Post-graduate Diploma in
Journalism and Mass Communication and is also a Law Graduate
enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi. The High Court has not
disturbed that finding recorded by the Family Court. Resultantly,
both the Courts have concurrently found that, in law, the
respondent was obliged to maintain the appellant.  [Para 9]
[356-G-H; 357-A-B]
1.2 During the pendency of the maintenance application filed
by the appellant on 16th July, 2003, the respondent’s father filed
a civil suit which, according to the appellant, was intended to
prevent attachment of the family property of the respondent from
execution of the order in her favour passed in the maintenance
proceedings. The suit for declaration filed by the respondent’s
father was dismissed on 30th August, 2003, after a full-fledged
trial but to prevent attachment of land/family property in interim
maintenance case, he moved an application for restoration of the
suit. Further, despite the injunction order passed by the Delhi
High Court dated 28th October, 2004, which was operating against
the respondent, he approached the courts in Canada and obtained
an ex-parte divorce allegedly to escape the liability to pay the
maintenance amount and also adopted delaying tactics in the
progress of the subject maintenance proceedings.  [Para 12] [357-
G-H; 358-A-B]
1.3 The High Court took into account all the relevant
aspects and justly rejected the plea of the respondent about
inability to pay maintenance amount to the appellant on the finding
that he was well educated [B.Com, M.A (Economics) & MBA
from USA] and an able-bodied person. Therefore, it was not open
to the respondent to extricate from his liability to maintain his
wife. The view so taken by the High Court is unassailable. [Para
13] [358-D-E; 360-F]
1.4 The principle invoked by the High Court for
determination of monthly maintenance amount payable to the
REEMA SALKAN v. SUMER SINGH SALKAN
A
B
C

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