LexYAGWATI @ POONAM versus GHANSHYAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1100 : 2024 INSC 76 Yagwati @ Poonam v. Ghanshyam (Civil Appeal Nos.1318-1319 of 2024) 29 January 2024 [Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Maintenance granted to the appellant by the Family Court, enhanced by High Court. If to be enhanced further. Headnotes Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – s.18 – Maintenance – Enhancement – Parties having three children were residing separately – Respondent-husband was residing with the two major children and the appellant-wife was residing with the minor child – Ex-parte decree of divorce was passed in favour of the Respondent whereafter he re-married – In the interregnum, the Appellant sought maintenance u/ss.18, 20, application was allowed by the Family Court – Later, ex-parte order decreeing the divorce in favour of the Respondent was set aside; and the application u/s.13, Hindu Marriage Act filed by the Respondent was restored – Cross-appeal(s) filed against the Order of the Family Court – Maintenance granted was enhanced by High Court – Appellant sought further enhancement contending that the Respondents’ salary had increased significantly, relying upon an RTI application filed with BSNL revealing that the Respondent was last drawing a salary of Rs.1,05,871/- per month serving as Assistant Manager, BSNL – Respondent submitted that he has since attained the age of superannuation and no longer receives the said salary and is only drawing pension from BSNL: Held: In view of the position of the parties and the totality of circumstances, the monthly maintenance payable u/s.18 enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- per month to Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of the pronouncement of the present Order – Furthermore, the arrears payable in respect of the maintenance due to the Appellant be payable in equal instalments by the Respondent in addition to the regular maintenance as quantified – Directions issued to the Family Court. [Paras 11-13] [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1101 Yagwati @ Poonam v. Ghanshyam List of Acts Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Maintenance; Monthly maintenance; Maintenance enhancement; Family Court. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.1318-1319 of 2024. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2016 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCMA Nos.2834 of 2009 and 1514 of 2010. Appearances for Parties Sonal Jain, Ajay Veer Singh, Ms. Divya Garg, Uday Ram Bokadia, Shubham Singh, Atit Jain, Ajay Jain, Ms. Deepika Jain, Advs. for the Appellant. Puneet Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Satish Chandra Sharma, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal(s) culminate out of a common order dated 11.11.2016 whereunder the High Court of Rajasthan (the “High Court”) enhanced the award of maintenance granted to the Appellant by the Family Court at Jaipur under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (the “Act”) from Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month to (i) Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) from the date of filing the application before the High Court i.e., 16.05.2009 up until 31.12.2005; and (ii) Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month from 01.01.2006 onwards (the “Impugned Order”). 3. The Appellant herein seeks an enhancement of maintenance awarded by the High Court on the ground that the maintenance awarded by the High Court is inadequate and does not reflect the true financial capacity of the Respondent. 1102 [2024] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 4. The marriage between the Appellant and Respondent came to be solemnized on 27.04.1982, thereafter 3 (three) children came to borne out of the wedlock i.e., (i) Abhishek; (ii) Aashish; and (iii) Nikki. Subsequently in 1998, the marriage encountered complications which led to the parties residing separately. Pertinently, the Respondent chose to reside with 2 (two) of his major children, namely (i) Abhishek; and (ii) Aashish. Accordingly, the Respondent left the Appellant and Nikki i.e., a minor, to fend for themselves. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Respondent filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the “HMA”) seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties. Vide an order dated 31.05.2005, an ex-parte decree came to be passed in favour of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.