Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the interim maintenance orders, directed payment of arrears, and held that maintenance must be awarded from the date of filing the application, while prescribing uniform guidelines to address overlapping jurisdiction, quantum determination, procedural requirements, and enforcement.

Summary

The husband appealed against a Family Court order granting interim maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month to his wife and Rs 10,000 per month to his son under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which was affirmed by the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' orders, directed the husband to pay the full arrears within 12 weeks and to continue compliance, and ordered the Family Court to dispose of the substantive maintenance petition within six months. In addition, the Court issued comprehensive guidelines to resolve overlapping jurisdiction among various maintenance statutes, to standardise the determination of quantum, to require mandatory disclosure of prior proceedings, and to prescribe that maintenance be awarded from the date of filing the application. The Court also laid down procedural rules for filing an affidavit of assets and liabilities, the role of marriage counsellors, and mechanisms for enforcement, including striking off the defence of a defaulting respondent. These directions aim to ensure uniformity, prevent destitution of dependants, and streamline maintenance proceedings across India.

Issues considered

Whether the orders of the Family Court and High Court granting interim maintenance should be affirmed.
How to resolve overlapping jurisdiction among Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Hindu Marriage Act, the Special Marriage Act, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
What criteria should be applied to determine the quantum of maintenance.
From which date maintenance should be awarded – the date of application, order, or service of summons.
What procedural safeguards, including mandatory affidavit of disclosure and counselling, should be imposed for interim maintenance applications.
How maintenance orders should be enforced, including the use of Section 128 Cr.P.C., striking off the defence, and contempt proceedings.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 51, s. 55, s. 58, s. 60, s. Order X, s. Order XI, s. Order XXI
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 125, s. 125(2), s. 125(3), s. 128
Family Courts Act, 1984s. 18, s. 5, s. 6, s. 9
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956s. 18, s. 20, s. 23
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 24, s. 25, s. 26
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 106, s. 165
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005s. 17, s. 19, s. 20, s. 26, s. 2(a), s. 2(f), s. 3
Special Marriage Act, 1954s. 36, s. 37, s. 4

Subjects

maintenanceinterim maintenanceSection 125 CrPCoverlapping jurisdictionFamily Courts ActProtection of Women from Domestic Violence ActHindu Marriage ActSpecial Marriage Actenforcementaffidavit of disclosuremarriage counsellorsocial justiceconstitutional law

Judgment

[2020] 13 S.C.R. 1093 1093

RAJNESH A
v.
NEHA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 04, 2020 B
[INDU MALHOTRA AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 125 – Interim maintenance – For wife and minor child –
Awarded by Family Court – Affirmed by High Court – Appeal to C
Supreme Court – Held: Orders passed by Courts below affirmed –
Husband is directed to pay entire arrears of maintenance and to
continue to comply with the same, during the pendency of the
proceedings u/s. 125.
Family Laws: D
Maintenance/ interim maintenance – Maintenance laws have
been enacted as a measure of social justice which fall within
constitutional sweep of Art. 15(3) reinforced by Art. 39 of the
Constitution – Guidelines framed in exercise of power u/Art. 142 –
On the issues of maintenance which would cover overlapping E
jurisdictions under different enactments for payment of maintenance;
payment of interim maintenance; criteria for determining quantum
of maintenance; the date from which the maintenance is to be
awarded and enforcement of orders of maintenance – Constitution
of India – Arts. 15(3), 39 and 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – F
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Disposing of the appeal and issuing general directions/
guidelines, the Court.
G
HELD: A. In the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the Judgment and order passed by the Family Court, affirmed
by High Court, for payment of interim maintenance @
Rs. 15,000/- p.m. to respondent No.1-wife, and Rs.10,000 p.m.
to respondent No.2-son, is affirmed. The husband is directed to
H
1093
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A pay the entire arrears of maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- p.m., within
a period of 12 weeks from the date of this Judgment, and continue
to comply with this order during the pendency of the proceedings
u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court. If the appellant-husband
fails to comply with the aforesaid directions, it would be open to
the respondents to have the order enforced u/s.128 Cr.P.C., and
B
take recourse to all other remedies which are available in
accordance with law. The proceedings for payment of interim
maintenance u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. have been pending between the
parties for a period of over 7 years. It would be appropriate that
the Family Court decides the substantive application u/s. 125
C Cr.P.C., in the light of the general directions/ guidelines issued in
the present judgment, within a period of 6 months’ from the date
of the judgment. [Part A (x)][1111-F-H; 1112-A-C]
B. Guidelines / Directions on Maintenance
1.1. Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of
D social justice to provide recourse to dependant wives and children
for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into
destitution and vagrancy. Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of
the Constitution of India, which envisages a positive role for the
State in fostering change towards the empowerment of women,
E led to the enactment of various legislations from time to time.
[Part B][1112-G-H; 1113-B]
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v Mrs. Veena
Kaushal & Ors. (1978) 4 SCC 70 : [1978] 3 SCR 782 -
relied on.
F 1.2 There are different statutes providing for making an
application for grant of maintenance / interim maintenance, if any
person having sufficient means neglects, or refuses to maintain
his wife, children, parents. The different enactments provide an
independent and distinct remedy framed with a specific object
G and purpose. Inspite of time frames being prescribed by various
statutes for disposal of interim applications, in a vast majority of
cases, the applications are not disposed of within the time frame
prescribed. To address various issues which arise for
consideration in applications for grant of maintenance / interim
maintenance, it is necessary to frame guidelines to ensure that
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1095

there is uniformity and consistency in deciding the same. [Part A A
(iii)][1108-G-H; 1109-A-C]
1.3 The legislations which have been framed on the issue
of maintenance are the Special Marriage Act 1954 (“SMA”),
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 1973; and the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“D.V. Act”) which provide a B
statutory remedy to women, irrespective of the religious
community to which they belong, apart from the personal laws
applicable to various religious communities. [Part B][1113-E-F]
1.4 It would be appropriate to frame guidelines on the issue
of maintenance, which would cover overlapping jurisdiction under C
different enactments for payment of maintenance, payment of
Interim Maintenance, the criteria for determining the quantum
of maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be awarded,
and enforcement of orders of maintenance. [Part B][1112-F-G]
Issue of Overlapping Jurisdiction: D
2.1 Maintenance may be claimed under one or more of the
afore-mentioned statutes, since each of these enactments
provides an independent and distinct remedy framed with a specific
object and purpose. While it is true that a party is not precluded
from approaching the Court under one or more enactments, since E
the nature and purpose of the relief under each Act is distinct
and independent, it is equally true that the simultaneous operation
of these Acts, would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and
conflicting orders. This would have the inevitable effect of
overlapping jurisdiction. This process requires to be streamlined,
so that the respondent / husband is not obligated to comply with F
successive orders of maintenance passed under different
enactments. [Part B Para I][1113-G; 1114-F-G]
Nanak Chand v Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors.
(1969) 3 SCC 802 : [1970] 1 SCR 565 - relied on.
G
2.2 To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and
avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it is
directed that: (i) where successive claims for maintenance are
made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider

H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A an adjustment or set- off, of the amount awarded in the previous
proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is
to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding; (ii) it is made
mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding
and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;
(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any
B
modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the
same proceeding. [Part B Para VI (a)][1162-E-H; 1163-A]
Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993) 3 SCC
406 : [1993] 3 SCR 954; Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha
Chaudhary (1997) 11 SCC 286 – relied on.
C
RD v. BD 2019 VII AD (Delhi) 466; Tanushree & Ors.
v. A.S.Moorthy 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7074 -
approved.
Ashok Singh Pal v. Manjulata AIR 2008 MP 139;
D Mohan Swaroop Chauhan v. Mohini (2016) 2 MP LJ
179; Sujit Adhikari v. Tulika Adhikari (2017) SCC
OnLine Cal 15484; Chandra Mohan Das v. Tapati Das
2015 SCC OnLine Cal 9554 – not approved.
Panditrao Chimaji Kalure v. Gayabai (2002) 2 Mah
E LJ 53; Abhilasha v. Parkash & Ors. 2020 AIR 4355;
Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (1975) 2 SCC 386 : [1975]
2 SCR 483; Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai (2008) 2 SCC 316 :
[2007] 12 SCR 577; Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
& Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 353 : [2014] 8 SCR 858;
Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr.
F (2011) 1 SCC 141 : [2010] 12 SCR 223; Kamala &
Ors. v. M.R. Mohan Kumar (2019) 11 SCC 491 : [2018]
13 SCR 505; Hiral P. Harsora & Ors. v Kusum
Narottamdas Harsora & Ors. (2016) 10 SCC 165 :
[2016] 9 SCR 515; D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal
G (2010) 10 SCC 469 : [2010] 13 SCR 706; Indra Sarma
v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755 : [2013] 14 SCR
1019; Satish Chander Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja C.A. No.
2483/2020; S.R.Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC
169 : [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 1206; Rakesh Malhotra v.

H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1097

Krishna Malhotra (2020) SCC OnLine SC 239; A
Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma (2014) 14 SCC 452 :
[2013] 2 SCR 426 – referred to.
Payment of Interim Maintenance:
3.1 The proviso to Section 24 of the HMA (inserted vide Act
49 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001), and the third proviso to Section B
125 Cr.P.C. (inserted vide Act 50 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001)
provide that the proceedings for interim maintenance, shall as far
as possible, be disposed of within 60 days’ from the date of service
of notice on the contesting spouse. Despite the statutory
provisions granting a time-bound period for disposal of C
proceedings for interim maintenance, applications remain pending
for several years in most of the cases. The delays are caused by
various factors, such as tremendous docket pressure on the
Family Courts, repetitive adjournments sought by parties,
enormous time taken for completion of pleadings at the interim
stage itself, etc. Pendency of applications for maintenance at the D
interim stage for several years defeats the very object of the
legislation. [Part B Para II (i)][1138-G-H; 1139-A-B]
3.2 The issue of interim maintenance is decided on the basis
of pleadings, where some amount of guess-work or rough
estimation takes place, so as to make a prima facie assessment E
of the amount to be awarded. It is often seen that both parties
submit scanty material, do not disclose the correct details, and
suppress vital information, which makes it difficult for the Family
Courts to make an objective assessment for grant of interim
maintenance. While there is a tendency on the part of the wife to F
exaggerate her needs, there is a corresponding tendency by the
husband to conceal his actual income. [Part B Para II (ii)][1139-
C-D]
3.3. In the first instance, the Family Court in compliance
with the mandate of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act 1984, G
must make an endeavour for settlement of the disputes. For this,
Section 6 provides that the State Government shall, in consultation
with the High Court, make provision for counsellors to assist a
Family Court in the discharge of its functions. Given the large
and growing percentage of matrimonial litigation, it has become
H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A necessary that the provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the Family
Courts Act are given effect to, by providing for the appointment
of marriage counsellors in every Family Court, which would help
in the process of settlement. If the proceedings for settlement
are unsuccessful, the Family Court would proceed with the matter
on merits. [Part B Para II (iii)][1139-F-H; 1140-A]
B
3.4 The party claiming maintenance either as a spouse, or
as a partner in a civil union, live-in relationship, common law
marriage, should be required to file a concise application for
interim maintenance with limited pleadings, alongwith an Affidavit
of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned court,
C as a mandatory requirement. On the basis of the pleadings filed
by both parties and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the Court would
be in a position to make an objective assessment of the
approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the
interim stage. [Part B Para II (iv) (v)][1140-B-D]
D Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney ILR (2012) I
Delhi 73; Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma
(2014) 214 DLT 493; Kusum Sharma III MANU/DE/
2406/2017; Kusum Sharma IV 2017 – (2018) 246 DLT
1; Kusum Sharma V Decided by Delhi High Court vide
E judgment dated 06.08.2020 – referred to.
3.5 The Affidavit to be filed by parties residing in urban areas,
would require to be entirely different from the one applicable to
rural areas, or tribal areas. For this purpose, a comprehensive
Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities is attached as
F Enclosure I and II to this judgment. The Meghalaya State Legal
Services Authority that the State of Meghalaya has a predominantly
tribal population, which follows a matrilineal system of society. The
declaration in Meghalaya be made in the format enclosed with this
judgment as Enclosure III. [Part B Para II (ix & x)][1141-G-H; 1142-
C-D]
G
3.6 Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of
Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in
maintenance proceedings, in exercise of powers under Article
136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, guidelines
are framed as: (a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1099

Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, A
as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance
proceedings, including pending proceedings before the
concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrate’s Court, as
the case may be, throughout the country; (b) The applicant making
the claim for maintenance will be required to file a concise
B
application accompanied with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets;
(c) The respondent must submit the reply alongwith the Affidavit
of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The Courts
may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the
Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent.
If the respondent delays in filing the reply with the Affidavit, and C
seeks more than two adjournments for this purpose, the Court
may consider exercising the power to strike off the defence of
the respondent, if the conduct is found to be wilful and
contumacious in delaying the proceedings. On the failure to file
the Affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may
D
proceed to decide the application for maintenance on basis of the
Affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record.
[Part B Para II (xi)][1142-D-H; 1143-A-C]
3.7 The above format may be modified by the concerned
Court, if the exigencies of a case require the same. It would be
left to the judicial discretion of the concerned Court, to issue E
necessary directions in this regard. If apart from the information
contained in the Affidavits of Disclosure, any further information
is required, the concerned Court may pass appropriate orders in
respect thereof. If there is any dispute with respect to the
declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party F
may seek permission of the Court to serve interrogatories, and
seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party
under Order XI of the CPC. On filing of the Affidavit, the Court
may invoke the provisions of Order X of the C.P.C or Section
165 of the Evidence Act 1872, if it considers it necessary to do
so. The income of one party is often not within the knowledge of G
the other spouse. The Court may invoke Section 106 of the
Evidence Act, 1872, if necessary, since the income, assets and
liabilities of the spouse are within the personal knowledge of the
party concerned. [Part B Para II (xi)][1143-C-H]
H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A 3.8 If during the course of proceedings, there is a change in
the financial status of any party, or there is a change of any relevant
circumstances, or if some new information comes to light, the
party may submit an amended/ supplementary affidavit, which
would be considered by the court at the time of final determination.
[Part B Para II (xi)][1144-A-B]
B
3.9 The pleadings made in the applications for maintenance
and replies filed should be responsible pleadings; if false
statements and misrepresentations are made, the Court may
consider initiation of proceeding u/s. 340 Cr.P.C., and for contempt
of Court. [Part B Para II (xi)][1144-B-C]
C
3.10 In case the parties belong to the Economically Weaker
Sections (“EWS”), or are living Below the Poverty Line (“BPL”),
or are casual labourers, the requirement of filing the Affidavit
would be dispensed with. The concerned Family Court / District
Court / Magistrate’s Court must make an endeavour to decide
D the application for Interim Maintenance by a reasoned order, within
a period of four to six months at the latest, after the Affidavits of
Disclosure have been filed before the court. A professional
Marriage Counsellor must be made available in every Family
Court. [Part B Para II (xi)][1144-C-E]
E Payment of Permanent alimony
4.1 Parties may lead oral and documentary evidence with
respect to income, expenditure, standard of living, etc. before
the concerned Court, for fixing the permanent alimony payable
to the spouse. In contemporary society, where several marriages
F do not last for a reasonable length of time, it may be inequitable
to direct the contesting spouse to pay permanent alimony to the
applicant for the rest of her life. The duration of the marriage
would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration for
determining the permanent alimony to be paid. Provision for grant
G of reasonable expenses for the marriage of children must be made
at the time of determining permanent alimony, where the custody
is with the wife. The expenses would be determined by taking
into account the financial position of the husband and the customs
of the family. If there are any trust funds / investments created
by any spouse / grandparents in favour of the children, this
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1101

would also be taken into consideration while deciding the final A
child support. [Part B Para II (xi)][1144-F-H]
4.2 The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities
annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be
applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance
proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned B
Family Court/ District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may
be, throughout the country. [Part B Para VI (b)][1163-B-C]
Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance:
5.1 The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia
are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and C
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 D
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. Maintenance is dependent upon
factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance E
based on various factors brought before it. [Part B Para III (i)][1145-
D-F; 1146-B]
Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801 : [2017]
3 SCR 702 – relied on.
F
Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors.
(1997) 7 SCC 7 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 529; Vinny
Paramvir parmar v. Paramvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC
112 : [2011] 9 SCR 371 – referred to.
5.2 The financial capacity of the husband, his actual income,
G
reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family
members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if
any, would also be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive
at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. A careful and

H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. [Part B
Para III (i & ii)][1146-C, E-F]
Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC
303 : [2018] 12 SCR 350; Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008)
2 SCC 316 : [2007] 12 SCR 577– relied on.
B 5.3 Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with
respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance.
Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief
granted to the aggrieved woman and / or the children must be
adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of
C living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to, in
her matrimonial home. [Part B Para III (iii & iv)][1147-A, C-D]
5.4 Apart from the aforesaid factors, certain additional factors
would also be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance
payable, such as age and employment of parties, right to residence,
D where wife is earning some income, Maintenance of minor children
and serious disability or ill heath of the spouse, child / children from
the marriage / dependant relative who require constant care and
recurrent expenditure. The aforesaid factors are however not
exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to
consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance
E in the facts and circumstances of a case. [Part B Para III (vi) and VI
(c)][1148-B; 1163-D]
Bharat Hedge v. Smt. Saroj Hegde 140 (2007) DLT 16;
Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199; Sunita
Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715;
F Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705 :
[2015] 4 SCR 137 - relied on.
Satish Chander Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja Civil Appeal No.
2483/2020 decided vide Judgment dated 15.10.2020;
Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316 : [2007] 12
G SCR 577; Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale
(2020) SCC Online Bom 694; Chander Prakash
Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash AIR 1968 Delhi
174 – referred to.

H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1103

Date from which Maintenance to be awarded: A
6.1 There is no provision in the HMA with respect to the
date from which an Order of maintenance may be made effective.
Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. 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. [Part B Para B
IV][1151-D-E]
6.2 In the absence of a uniform regime, there is a vast variance
in the practice adopted by the Family Courts, with respect to the
date from which maintenance must be awarded. The divergent views
taken by the Family Courts are : first, from the date on which the C
application for maintenance was filed; second, the date of the order
granting maintenance; third, the date on which the summons was
served upon the respondent. [Part B Para IV][1151-E-F]
6.3 Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the
Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or D
from the date of the order in s. 125(2) Cr.P.C., it would be appropriate
to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including
Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the practical working of the provisions relating
to maintenance, there is significant delay in disposal of the
applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would
therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance E
is awarded from the date of the application. [Part B Para IV][1155-G-
H; 1156-A-B]
6.4 The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of
application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance
legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch F
which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints
of a dependant spouse hampers their capacity to be effectively
represented before the Court. In order to prevent a dependant from
being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is
awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is G
filed before the concerned Court. [Part B Para IV][1156-D-F]
6.5. It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to
bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all

H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A Courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on
which the application was made before the concerned Court. The
right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the
application, since the period during which the maintenance
proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the
applicant. [Part B Para IV][1157-C-D]
B
Shail Kumari Devi and Ors. v. Krishnan Bhagwan Pathak
(2008) 9 SCC 632 : [2008] 11 SCR 386; Bhuwan Mohan
Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353 : [2014] 8 SCR 858;
Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1 SCC 188 :
[2013] 10 SCR 259 – relied on.
C
Susmita Mohanty v. Rabindra Nath Sahu 1996 (I) OLR
361; Kanhu Charan Jena v. Smt. Nirmala Jena 2001 Cri
LJ 879; Arun Kumar Nayak v. Urmila Jena (2010) 93
AIC 726 (Ori); Ganga Prasad Srivastava v. Additional
District Judge, Gonda & Ors. 2019 (6) ADJ 850; Bina
D Devi v State of U.P (2010) 69 ACC 19; Amit Verma v.
Sangeeta Verma & Ors. CRR No. 3542/2019, decided by
the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide Order dated
08.01.2020; S. Radhakumari v. K.M.K. Nair AIR 1983
Ker 139; Samir Banerjee v. Sujata Banerjee 70 CWN
E 633; Gouri Das v. Pradyumna Kumar Das 1986 (II) OLR
44; Kalpana Das v. Sarat Kumar Das AIR 2009 Ori 133
– referred to.
Enforcement of orders of maintenance:
7.1 Enforcement of the order of maintenance is the most
F challenging issue, which is encountered by the applicants. If
maintenance is not paid in a timely manner, it defeats the very
object of the social welfare legislation. Execution petitions usually
remain pending for months, if not years, which completely nullifies
the object of the law. [Part B Para V][1157-E]
G 7.2 An application for execution of an Order of Maintenance
can be filed under (a) Section 28 A of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1956 r.w. Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Order
XXI Rule 94 of the CPC for executing an Order passed under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (before the Family Court);
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1105

(b) Section 20(6) of the DV Act (before the Judicial Magistrate); A
Section 128 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate’s Court. [Part B Para
V (i)][1157-G-H; 1158-A]
7.3 Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that
orders passed by the Family Court shall be executable in accordance
with the CPC / Cr.P.C. Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C provides that if B
the party against whom the order of maintenance is passed fails to
comply with the order of maintenance, the same shall be recovered
in the manner as provided for fines, and the Magistrate may award
sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month,
or until payment, whichever is earlier. Some Family Courts have
passed orders for striking off the defence of the respondent in case C
of non-payment of maintenance, so as to facilitate speedy disposal of
the maintenance petition. [Part B Para V (ii & iii)][1158-B-D]
7.4 It is directed that the order or decree of maintenance may
be enforced like a decree of a civil court, through the provisions
which are available for enforcing a money decree, including civil D
detention, attachment of property, etc. as provided by various
provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60
read with Order XXI. Striking off the defence of the respondent is
an order which ought to be passed in the last resort, if the Courts
find default to be wilful and contumacious, particularly to a dependant E
unemployed wife, and minor children. Contempt proceedings for
wilful disobedience may be initiated before the appropriate Court.
[Part B Para V][1162-A-D]
Sushila Viresh Chhawda v. Viresh Nagsi Chhawda AIR
1996 Bom 94; Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain Criminal Appeal F
Nos. 1129-1130 / 2019 decided vide Judgment dated
24.07.2019; Bani v. Parkash Singh AIR 1996 P&H 175;
Mohinder Verma v. Sapna MANU/PH/3684/2014; Satish
Kumar v. Meena 2001 (60) DRJ 246; Smt. Santosh Sehgal
v. Shri Murari Lal Sehgal AIR 2007 Delhi 210; Gurvinder
Singh v Murti & Ors. (1990) DMC 559; Venkateshwar G
Dwivedi v. Ruchi Dwivedi (2009) SCC OnLine Kar 481 –
referred to.

H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A Case Law Reference
[1978] 3 SCR 782 relied on Part B
[1970] 1 SCR 565 relied on Part B Para I (i)
[1993] 3 SCR 954 relied on Part B Para I (c)
B 2020 AIR 4355 referred to Part B Para I (c)
[1975] 2 SCR 483 referred to Part B Para I (d)
[2007] 12 SCR 577 referred to Part B Para I (d)
[2014] 8 SCR 858 referred to Part B Para I (d)
C
[2010] 12 SCR 223 referred to Part B Para I (d)
[2018] 13 SCR 505 referred to Part B Para I (d)
[2016] 9 SCR 515 referred to Part B Para I (e)
[2010] 13 SCR 706 referred to Part B Para I (e)
D
[2013] 14 SCR 1019 referred to Part B Para I (e)
[2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 1206 referred to Part B Para I (e)
[2013] 2 SCR 426 referred to Part B Para I (e) (iii)
(1997) 11 SCC 286 relied on Part B Para I (e) (iv)
E
[1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 529 referred to Part B Para III (i)
[2011] 9 SCR 371 referred to Part B Para III (i)
[2017] 3 SCR 702 relied on Part B Para III (i)

F [2018] 12 SCR 350 relied on Part B Para III (i)
[2007] 12 SCR 577 relied on Part B Para III (ii)
(2018) 12 SCC 199 relied on Part B Para III
[vi (c)]
G [2007] 12 SCR 577 referred to Part B Para III
[vi (c)]
(2014) 16 SCC 715 relied on Part B Para III
[vi (c)]
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1107

[2015] 4 SCR 137 relied on Part B Para III A
[vi (c)]
[2008] 11 SCR 386 relied on Part B Para IV
[2014] 8 SCR 858 relied on Part B Para IV
[2013] 10 SCR 259 relied on Part B Para IV B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
730 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition
C
No. 875 of 2015.
Anurag Gharote, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Satyajit A. Desai, Satya
Kam Sharma, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Advs. for the appearing parties.
JUDGMENT
INDEX D

PART A Order passed in Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020
PART B General Guidelines and Directions
I. Issue of Overlapping Jurisdictions
E
II. Payment of interim maintenance
III. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance
IV. Date from which Maintenance to be awarded
V. Enforcement of orders of maintenance
F
VI. Final Directions
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
PART A
G
(i) The present Criminal Appeal arises out of an application
for Interim Maintenance filed in a petition u/S. 125 Cr.P.C.
by the Respondent-wife and minor son. The Respondent
No.1-wife left the matrimonial home in January 2013, shortly
after the birth of the son-Respondent No.2. On 02.09.2013,
H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A the wife filed an application for interim maintenance u/S.
125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of herself and the minor son. The
Family Court vide a detailed Order dated 24.08.2015
awarded interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month to
the Respondent No.1- wife from 01.09.2013; and Rs.5,000
per month as interim maintenance for the Respondent No.
B
2-son from 01.09.2013 to 31.08.2015; and @ Rs. 10,000
per month from 01.09.2015 onwards till further orders were
passed in the main petition.
(ii) The Appellant-husband challenged the Order of the
Family Court vide Criminal Writ Petition No.875/2015 filed
C before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High
Court dismissed the Writ Petition vide Order dated
14.08.2018, and affirmed the Judgment passed by the Family
Court.
(iii) The present appeal has been filed to impugn the Order
D dated 14.08.2018. This Court issued notice to the wife and
directed the Appellant-husband to file his Income Tax Returns
and Assessment Orders for the period from 2005-2006 till
date. He was also directed to place a photocopy of his
passport on record. By a further Order dated 11.09.2019,
E the Appellant-husband was directed to make payment of
the arrears of Rs.2,00,000 towards interim maintenance to
the wife; and a further amount of Rs.3,00,000, which was
due and payable to the wife towards arrears of maintenance,
as per his own admission. By a subsequent Order dated
14.10.2019, it was recorded that only a part of the arrears
F had been paid. A final opportunity was granted to the Appellant-
husband to make payment of the balance amount by
30.11.2019, failing which, the Court would proceed under
the Contempt of Courts Act for wilful disobedience with the
Orders passed by this Court.
G In the backdrop of the facts of this case, we considered
it fit to frame guidelines on certain aspects pertaining to the
payment of maintenance in matrimonial matters. There are
different statutes providing for making an application for grant
of maintenance / interim maintenance, if any person having
H sufficient means neglects, or refuses to maintain his wife,
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1109
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

children, parents. The different enactments provide an A
independent and distinct remedy framed with a specific object
and purpose. Inspite of time frames being prescribed by
various statutes for disposal of interim applications, we have
noticed, in practice that in a vast majority of cases, the
applications are not disposed of within the time frame
B
prescribed. To address various issues which arise for
consideration in applications for grant of maintenance /
interim maintenance, it is necessary to frame guidelines to
ensure that there is uniformity and consistency in deciding
the same. To seek assistance on these issues, we have
appointed Ms. Anitha Shenoy and Mr. Gopal C
Sankaranaryanan, Senior Advocates as Amici Curiae, who
have graciously accepted to assist this Court.
(iv) By a further Order dated 17.12.2019, the Appellant was
directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,45,000 to the Respondent
no.1-wife within a period of 45 days. D
On the issue of framing guidelines, the National Legal
Services Authority was directed to elicit responses from the
State Legal Services Authorities of various States.
(v) By a subsequent Order dated 05.08.2020, it was
recorded that an Affidavit of Compliance had been filed on E
04.08.2020 by the Appellant-husband, wherein it was stated
that arrears of Rs.1,45,000 till 11.09.2019 had been paid by
him in January, 2020. However, he had made no further
payment to the wife thereafter. With respect to the amount
of Rs.10,000 p.m. payable for the minor son, the Order had F
been complied with till July 2020. A statement was made by
the Counsel for the Appellant that he was not disputing the
payment of maintenance for his son, and would continue to
pay the same. A direction was issued by this Court to pay
the entire arrears of maintenance to the wife @
Rs.15,000 p.m. as fixed by the Family Court, and continue G
to pay the said amount during the pendency of proceedings.
(vi) By the Order dated 25.08.2020, it was noted that the
Appellant had filed an Affidavit dated 23.08.2020 wherein
he had admitted and acknowledged that an amount of
H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A Rs.5,00,000 was pending towards arrears of maintenance
to the Respondent No.1-wife. The Appellant was directed
to pay 50% of the arrears within a period of 4 weeks to the
Respondent No.1, failing which, he was directed to remain
present before the Court on the next date of hearing. The
Counsel for the husband placed on record a chart of various
B
proceedings pending between the parties. Taking note of the
aforesaid facts, we considered it appropriate to refer the
matter for mediation by Mr. Shridhar Purohit, Advocate, a
well-known Mediator in Nagpur, to resolve all disputes
pending between the parties, and arrive at an overall
C settlement.
(vii) On 08.10.2020, we were informed that the mediation
had failed. The husband appeared before the Court, and
made an oral statement that he did not have the financial
means to comply with the Order of maintenance payable to
D the Respondent No.1-wife, and had to borrow loans from
his father to pay the same. He however stated that he had
paid the maintenance awarded to the son, and would continue
to do so without demur. Both parties addressed arguments
and filed their written submissions.
E (viii) We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and perused
the written submissions filed on their behalf.
The husband has inter alia submitted that he was
presently unemployed, and was not in a position to pay
maintenance to the Respondent No.1-wife. He stated that
F he did not own any immovable property, and had only one
operational bank account. The husband declined to pay any
further amount towards the maintenance of his wife. It was
further submitted that the Family Court had erroneously
relied upon the Income Tax Returns of 2006, while
determining the maintenance payable in 2013. He further
G submitted that he was exploring new business projects, which
would enable him to be in a better position to sustain his
family.
The wife has inter alia submitted that the amount of
Rs.10,000 awarded for the son was granted when he was 2
H ½ years old in 2015. The said amount was now highly
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1111
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

inadequate to meet the expenses of a growing child, who is A
7 ½ years old, and is a school-going boy. It was further
submitted that the admission fee for the current academic
year 2020-2021 had not yet been paid. If the fee was not
paid within time, the school would discontinue sending the
link for online classes. She submitted that she was being
B
over-burdened by the growing expenses, with no support
from the husband.
With respect to the contention of the husband that he
had no income, she submitted that the husband had made
investments in real estate projects, and other businesses,
which he was concealing from the Court, and diverting the C
income to his parents. It has also been alleged that the
Appellant had retained illegal possession of her Streedhan,
which he was refusing to return. Despite orders being passed
by this Court, and in the proceedings under the D.V. Act, he
was deliberately not complying with the same. In these D
circumstances, it was submitted that there was a major trust
deficit, and there was no prospect for reconciliation.
(ix) With respect to the issue of enhancement of maintenance
for the son, the Respondent is at liberty to move the Family
Court for the said relief. We cannot grant this relief in the E
present appeal, as it has been filed by the husband.
(x) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we order
and direct that :
(a) The Judgment and order dated 24.08.2015 passed
by the Family Court, Nagpur, affirmed by the Bombay F
High Court, Nagpur Bench vide Order dated
14.08.2018 for payment of interim maintenance @
Rs.15,000 p.m. to the Respondent No.1-wife, and
Rs.10,000 p.m. to the Respondent No.2-son, is hereby
affirmed by this Court; G
(b) The husband is directed to pay the entire arrears of
maintenance @ Rs.15,000 p.m., within a period of 12
weeks’ from the date of this Judgment, and continue to
comply with this Order during the pendency of the
proceedings u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court;
H
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A (c) If the Appellant-husband fails to comply with the
aforesaid directions of this Court, it would be open to
the respondents to have the Order enforced u/S.128
Cr.P.C., and take recourse to all other remedies which
are available in accordance with law;
B (d) The proceedings for payment of interim maintenance
u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. have been pending between the parties
for a period of over 7 years now. We deem it appropriate
that the Family Court decides the substantive application
u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. in Petition No. E-443/ 2013 finally, in
light of the directions/guidelines issued in the present
C judgment, within a period of 6 months’ from the date of
this judgment.
The Registry is directed to forward a complete copy
of the pleadings, alongwith the written submissions filed
by the parties, and the record of the proceedings in the
D present Criminal Appeal, to the Family Court, Nagpur.
The present Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
PART B
Given the backdrop of the facts of the present case, which reveal
E that the application for interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
has remained pending before the Courts for seven years now, and the
difficulties encountered in the enforcement of orders passed by the Courts,
as the wife was constrained to move successive applications for
enforcement from time to time, we deem it appropriate to frame guidelines
F on the issue of maintenance, which would cover overlapping jurisdiction
under different enactments for payment of maintenance, payment of
Interim Maintenance, the criteria for determining the quantum of
maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be awarded, and
enforcement of orders of maintenance.
Guidelines / Directions on Maintenance
G
Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social
justice to provide recourse to dependant wives and children for their
financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and
vagrancy.
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1113
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India provides that : A
“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making
any special provision for women and children.”
Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India,
which envisages a positive role for the State in fostering change towards
the empowerment of women, led to the enactment of various legislations B
from time to time.
Justice Krishna Iyer in his judgment in Captain Ramesh Chander
Kaushal v Mrs. Veena Kaushal & Ors. 1 held that the object of
maintenance laws is :
C
“9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially
enacted to protect women and children and falls within the
constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39.
We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for
construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words
with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the D
constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women
and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social
relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking
out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances
the cause — the cause of the derelicts.” E
The legislations which have been framed on the issue of
maintenance are the Special Marriage Act 1954 (“SMA”), Section 125
of the Cr.P.C. 1973; and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 (“D.V. Act”) which provide a statutory remedy to women,
irrespective of the religious community to which they belong, apart from F
the personal laws applicable to various religious communities.
I Issue of Overlapping Jurisdiction
Maintenance may be claimed under one or more of the afore-
mentioned statutes, since each of these enactments provides an
independent and distinct remedy framed with a specific object and G
purpose. For instance, a Hindu wife may claim maintenance under the
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 (“HAMA”), and also in a
substantive proceeding for either dissolution of marriage, or restitution of

1
(1978) 4 SCC 70. H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A conjugal rights, etc. under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”) by
invoking Sections 24 and 25 of the said Act.
(i) In Nanak Chand v Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors. 2,
the Supreme Court held that there was no inconsistency between the
Cr.P.C. and HAMA. Section 4(b) of HAMA would not repeal or affect
B the provisions of Section 488 of the old Cr.P.C. It was held that :
“4. Both can stand together. The Maintenance Act is an act to
amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and
maintenance among Hindus. The law was substantially similar
before and nobody ever suggested that Hindu Law, as in force
C immediately before the commencement of this Act, insofar as
it dealt with the maintenance of children, was in any way
inconsistent with Section 488, Cr.P.C. The scope of the two
laws is different. Section 488 provides a summary remedy and
is applicable to all persons belonging to all religions and has
no relationship with the personal law of the parties. Recently
D the question came before the Allahabad High Court in Ram
Singh v. State: AIR1963All355, before the Calcutta High Court
in Mahabir Agarwalla v. Gita Roy [1962] 2 Cr. L.J.528 and
before the Patna High Court in Nalini Ranjan v. Kiran Rani:
AIR1965Pat442. The three High Courts have, in our view,
E correctly come to the conclusion that Section 4(b) of the
Maintenance Act does not repeal or affect in any manner the
provisions contained in Section 488, Cr.P.C.”
(emphasis supplied)
While it is true that a party is not precluded from approaching the
F Court under one or more enactments, since the nature and purpose of
the relief under each Act is distinct and independent, it is equally true
that the simultaneous operation of these Acts, would lead to multiplicity of
proceedings and conflicting orders. This would have the inevitable effect
of overlapping jurisdiction. This process requires to be streamlined, so
G that the respondent / husband is not obligated to comply with successive
orders of maintenance passed under different enactments.
For instance, if in a previous proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
an amount is awarded towards maintenance, in the subsequent proceeding

2
H (1969) 3 SCC 802.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1115
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

filed for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, where an A
application for maintenance pendente lite is filed under Section 24 of
that Act, or for maintenance under Section 25, the payment awarded in
the earlier proceeding must be taken note of, while deciding the amount
awarded under HMA.
Statutory provisions under various enactments B
(a) The Special Marriage Act, 1954 (“SMA”)
Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides that a
marriage between any two persons who are citizens of India may be
solemnised under this Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force. It is a secular legislation applicable C
to all persons who solemnize their marriage in India.
Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act provides that a wife is
entitled to claim pendente lite maintenance, if she does not have sufficient
independent income to support her and for legal expenses. The
maintenance may be granted on a weekly or monthly basis during the D
pendency of the matrimonial proceedings. The Court would determine
the quantum of maintenance depending on the income of the husband,
and award such amount as may seem reasonable.
Section 36 reads as:
E
“S.36. Alimony pendente lite.—Where in any proceeding
under Chapter V or Chapter VI it appears to the district
court that the wife has no independent income sufficient
for her support and the necessary expenses of the
proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife, order
the husband to pay her the expenses of the proceeding, F
and weekly or monthly during the proceeding such sum
as, having regard to the husband’s income, it may seem to
the court to be reasonable.
Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses
of the proceeding and such weekly or monthly sum during G
the proceeding under Chapter V or Chapter VI, shall, as
far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the
date of service of notice on the husband.”
Section 37 provides for grant of permanent alimony at the time of
passing of the decree, or subsequent thereto. Permanent alimony is the H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A consolidated payment made by the husband to the wife towards her
maintenance for life.
Section 37 reads as:
“S. 37. Permanent alimony and maintenance.—(1) Any court
exercising jurisdiction under Chapter V or Chapter VI may,
B at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent to
the decree, on application made to it for the purpose, order
that the husband shall secure to the wife for her maintenance
and support if necessary, by a charge on the husband’s
property such gross sum or such monthly or periodical payment
C of money for a term not exceeding her life, as, having regard
to her own property, if any, her husband’s property and ability,
the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case,
as it may seem to the court to be just.
(2) If the district court is satisfied that there is a change in the
D circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an
order under sub-Section (1), it may, at the instance of either
party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner
as it may seem to the court to be just.
(3) If the district court is satisfied that the wife in whose favour
E an order has been made under this Section has remarried or
is not leading a chaste life, it may, at the instance of the
husband, vary, modify or rescind any such order and in such
manner as the court may deem just.”
(b) The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”)
F The HMA is a complete code which provides for the rights, liabilities
and obligations arising from a marriage between two Hindus. Sections
24 and 25 make provision for maintenance to a party who has no
independent income sufficient for his or her support, and necessary
expenses. This is a gender-neutral provision, where either the wife or the
husband may claim maintenance. The pre- requisite is that the applicant
G
does not have independent income which is sufficient for her or his support,
during the pendency of the lis.
Section 24 of the HMA provides for maintenance pendente lite,
where the Court may direct the respondent to pay the expenses of the
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1117
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

proceeding, and pay such reasonable monthly amount, which is considered A
to be reasonable, having regard to the income of both the parties.
Section 24 reads as:
“24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of
proceedings.—
B
Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court
that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has
no independent income sufficient for her or his support and
the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the
application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent
to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and C
monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to
the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent,
it may seem to the court to be reasonable.
Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses
of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the D
proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within
sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the
husband, as the case may be.”
(emphasis supplied)
E
The proviso to Section 24 providing a time line of 60 days for
disposal of the application was inserted vide Act 49 of 2001 w.e.f.
24.09.2001.
Section 25 provides for grant of permanent alimony, which reads
as :
F
“25. Permanent alimony and maintenance —
(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at
the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent
thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either
the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the G
respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance
and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical
sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having
regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if
any, the income and other property of the applicant, the
H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it
may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may
be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable
property of the respondent.
(2) If the court is satisfied that there is, a change in the
B circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an
order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either
party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner
as the court may deem just.
(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an
C order has been made under this section has remarried or, if
such party is the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if
such party is the husband, that he has had sexual intercourse
with any woman outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the
other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such
manner as the court may deem just.”
D
(emphasis supplied)
Section 26 of the HMA provides that the Court may from time to
time pass interim orders with respect to the custody, maintenance and
education of the minor children.
E (c) Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAMA”)
HAMA is a special legislation which was enacted to amend and
codify the laws relating to adoption and maintenance amongst Hindus,
during the subsistence of the marriage. Section 18 provides that a Hindu
wife shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime.
F She is entitled to make a claim for a separate residence, without forfeiting
her right to maintenance. Section 18 read in conjunction with Section 23
states the factors required to be considered for deciding the quantum of
maintenance to be paid. Under sub-section (2) of Section 18, the husband
has the obligation to maintain his wife, even though she may be living
separately. The right of separate residence and maintenance would
G
however not be available if the wife has been unchaste, or has converted
to another religion.
Section 18 reads as follows :

H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1119
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

“18. Maintenance of wife.— A
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife,
whether married before or after the commencement of this
Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during
her lifetime.
(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her B
husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance—
(a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning
her without reasonable cause and without her consent or
against her wish or willfully neglecting her;
C
(b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a
reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful
or injurious to live with her husband;
(c) [****]
(d) if he has any other wife living; D
(e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his
wife is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere;
(f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another
religion;
E
(g) if there is any other cause justifying living separately.
(3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residency
and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases
to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion.”
The distinction between maintenance under HMA and HAMA is F
that the right under Section 18 of HAMA is available during the subsistence
of a marriage, without any matrimonial proceeding pending between the
parties. Once there is a divorce, the wife has to seek relief under Section
25 of HMA.3
Under HMA, either the wife, or the husband, may move for judicial G
separation, restitution of conjugal rights, dissolution of marriage, payment
of interim maintenance under Section 24, and permanent alimony under
Section 25 of the Act, whereas under Section 18 of HAMA, only a wife
may seek maintenance.
3
Panditrao Chimaji Kalure v Gayabai (2002) 2 Mah LJ 53. H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A The interplay between the claim for maintenance under HMA and
HAMA came up for consideration by the Supreme Court in Chand
Dhawan v Jawaharlal Dhawan. 4 The Supreme Court, while
considering the various laws relating to marriage amongst Hindus,
discussed the scope of applications under the HMA and HAMA in the
following words :
B
“23. …Section 18(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1956 entitles a Hindu wife to claim maintenance from
her husband during her life-time. Sub-section (2) of Section
18 grants her the right to live separately, without forfeiting
her claim to maintenance, if he is guilty of any of the
C misbehaviors enumerated therein or on account of his being
in one of objectionable conditions as mentioned therein. So
while sustaining her marriage and preserving her marital
status, the wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her
husband. On the other hand, under the Hindu Marriage Act,
D in contrast, her claim for maintenance pendente lite is durated
on the pendency of a litigation of the kind envisaged under
Sections 9 to 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and her claim to
permanent maintenance or alimony is based on the supposition
that either her marital status has been strained or affected by
passing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights or judicial
E separation in favour or against her, or her marriage stands
dissolved by a decree of nullity or divorce, with or without
her consent. Thus when her marital status is to be affected or
disrupted the court does so by passing a decree for or against
her. On or at the time of the happening of that event, the
F court being seized of the matter, invokes its ancillary or
incidental power to grant permanent alimony. Not only that,
the court retains the jurisdiction at subsequent stages to fulfill
this incidental or ancillary obligation when moved by an
application on that behalf by a party entitled to relief. The
court further retains the power to change” or alter the order
G in view of the changed circumstances. Thus the whole exercise
is within the gammit of a diseased or a broken marriage. And
in order to avoid conflict of perceptions the legislature while
codifying the Hindu Marriage Act preserved the right of
4
(1993) 3 SCC 406.
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1121
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

permanent maintenance in favour of the husband or the wife, A
as the case may be, dependent on the court passing a decree
of the kind as envisaged under Sections 9 to 14 of the Act. In
other words without the marital status being affected or;
disputed by the matrimonial court under the Hindu Marriage
Act the claim of permanent alimony was not to be valid as
B
ancillary or incidental to such affectation or disruption. The
wife’s claim to maintenance necessarily has then to be agitated
under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 which
is a legislative measure later in point of time than the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, though part of the same socio-legal
scheme revolutionizing the law applicable to Hindus….” C
(emphasis supplied)
Section 19 of the HAMA provides that a widowed daughter-in-
law may claim maintenance from her father-in-law if (i) she is unable to
maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property; or, (ii) where
she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance; (a) D
from the estate of her husband, or her father or mother, or (b) from her
son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate. Section 20 of HAMA provides
for maintenance of children and aged parents. Section 20 casts a statutory
obligation on a Hindu male to maintain an unmarried daughter, who is
unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings, or other property. In E
Abhilasha v Parkash & Ors.,5 a three-judge bench of this Court held
that Section 20(3) is a recognition of the principles of Hindu law,
particularly the obligation of the father to maintain an unmarried daughter.
The right is absolute under personal law, which has been given statutory
recognition by this Act. The Court noted the distinction between the award
of maintenance to children u/S. 125 Cr.P.C., which limits the claim of F
maintenance to a child, until he or she attains majority. However, if an
unmarried daughter is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or
injury, unable to maintain herself, under Section 125(1)(c), the father
would be obligated to maintain her even after she has attained majority.
The maintenance contemplated under HAMA is a wider concept. Section G
3(b) contains an inclusive definition of maintenance including marriage
expenses. The purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide
immediate relief to the wife and children in a summary proceeding,

5
Decided on 15.10.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.615/2020. H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A whereas under Section 20 read with Section 3(b) of HAMA, a much
larger right is contemplated, which requires determination by a civil court.
Section 22 provides for maintenance of dependants. Section 23
provides that while awarding maintenance, the Court shall have due
regard to the criteria mentioned therein :
B “23. Amount of maintenance. –
(1) It shall be in the discretion of the court to determine whether
any, and if so what, maintenance shall be awarded under the
provisions of this Act, and in doing so, the court shall have
due regard to the consideration set out in sub-section (2) or
C sub-section (3), as the case may be, so far as they are
applicable.
(2) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be
awarded to a wife, children or aged or infirm parents under
this Act, regard shall be had to—
D
(a) the position and status of the parties;
(b) the reasonable wants of the claimant;
(c) if the claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is
justified in doing so;
E (d) the value of the claimant’s property and any income derived
from such property, or from the claimant’s own earning or
from any other source;
(e) the number of persons entitled to maintenance under this
Act.
F
(3) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be
awarded to a dependant under this Act, regard shall be had
to—
(a) the net value of the estate of the deceased after providing
G for the payment of his debts;
(b) the provision, if any, made under a will of the deceased in
respect, of the dependant;
(c) the degree of relationship between the two;
(d) the reasonable wants of the dependant;
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1123
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

(e) the past relations between the dependant and the deceased; A
(f) the value of the property of the dependant and any income
derived from such property, or from his or her earnings or
from any other course;
(g) the number of dependants entitled to maintenance under
this Act.” B

(d) Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for
maintenance of wife, children and parents in a summary proceeding.
Maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. may be claimed by a C
person irrespective of the religious community to which they belong.
The purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate
relief to an applicant. An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is
predicated on two conditions : (i) the husband has sufficient means; and
(ii) “neglects” to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. In
such a case, the husband may be directed by the Magistrate to pay such D
monthly sum to the wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is awarded on the
basis of the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors.
The remedy provided by Section 125 is summary in nature, and
the substantive disputes with respect to dissolution of marriage can be
determined by a civil court / family court in an appropriate proceeding, E
such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.
In Bhagwan Dutt v Kamla Devi6 the Supreme Court held that
under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. only a wife who is “unable to maintain
herself” is entitled to seek maintenance. The Court held :
F
“19. The object of these provisions being to prevent vagrancy
and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is
required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is
neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent
with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of
the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, G
only if her separate income, also, is taken into account
together with the earnings of the husband and his
commitments.”
(emphasis supplied)
6
(1975) 2 SCC 386. H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A Prior to the amendment of Section 125 in 2001, there was a ceiling
on the amount which could be awarded as maintenance, being Rs. 500
“in the whole”. In view of the rising costs of living and inflation rates, the
ceiling of Rs. 500 was done away by the 2001 Amendment Act. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act states that
the wife had to wait for several years before being granted maintenance.
B
Consequently, the Amendment Act introduced an express provision for
grant of “interim maintenance”. The Magistrate was vested with the
power to order the respondent to make a monthly allowance towards
interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition.
Under sub-section (2) of Section 125, the Court is conferred with
C the discretion to award payment of maintenance either from the date of
the order, or from the date of the application.
Under the third proviso to the amended Section 125, the application
for grant of interim maintenance must be disposed of as far as possible
within sixty days’ from the date of service of notice on the respondent.
D
The amended Section 125 reads as under :
“125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses
to maintain- (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
E
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married
or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married
daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by
reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable
F
to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect
or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance
for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother,
G at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay
the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to
time direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor
female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance,
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1125
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that A
the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not
possessed of sufficient means :
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency
of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the
maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to B
make a monthly allow for the interim maintenance of his wife
or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such
proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and
to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from
time to time direct :
C
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance
for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under
the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of
within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the
application to such person.
D
Explanation. – For the purposes of this Chapter,-
(a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the
Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875); is deemed not to have
attained his majority;
(b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or E
has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not
remarried.
(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim
maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable
from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of F
the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to
comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every
breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount G
due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence
such person, for the whole, or any part of each month’s
allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance
and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining
unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment
H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if
sooner made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of
any amount due under this section unless application be made
to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year
B from the date on which it became due: Provided further that
if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her
living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such
Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her,
and may make an order under this section notwithstanding
such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so
C doing.
Explanation. – If a husband has contracted marriage with
another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to
be a just ground for his wife’ s refusal to live with him.

D (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the
maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding, as the case may be, from her husband under this
section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient
reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are
living separately by mutual consent.
E
(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been
made under this section is living in adultery, or that without
sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that
they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate
shall cancel the order.”
F
(emphasis supplied)
7
In Chaturbhuj v Sitabai this Court held that the object of
maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but
to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her
food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
G
is a measure of social justice especially enacted to protect women and
children, and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3),
reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution.

7
H (2008) 2 SCC 316.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1127
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

Proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are summary in A
nature. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v Meena & Ors.8 this Court held
that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony,
anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial
home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her
to sustain herself and the children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the
B
husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the
husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is
able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally
permissible ground mentioned in the statute.
The issue whether presumption of marriage arises when parties
are in a live-in relationship for a long period of time, which would give C
rise to a claim u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. came up for consideration in Chanmuniya
v Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr.9 before the Supreme Court.
It was held that where a man and a woman have cohabited for a long
period of time, in the absence of legal necessities of a valid marriage,
such a woman would be entitled to maintenance. A man should not be D
allowed to benefit from legal loopholes, by enjoying the advantages of a
de facto marriage, without undertaking the duties and obligations of
such marriage. A broad and expansive interpretation must be given to
the term “wife,” to include even those cases where a man and woman
have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long
period of time. Strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for E
grant of maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. The Court relied on the Malimath
Committee Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System published in
2003, which recommended that evidence regarding a man and woman
living together for a reasonably long period, should be sufficient to draw
the presumption of marriage. F
The law presumes in favour of marriage, and against concubinage,
when a man and woman cohabit continuously for a number of years.
Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential,
in proceedings u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. such strict standard of proof is not
necessary.10 G

8
(2015) 6 SCC 353.
9
(2011) 1 SCC 141.
This judgment was referred to a larger bench.
10
Kamala & Ors. v. M.R. Mohan Kumar (2019) 11 SCC 491. H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A (e) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(“D.V. Act”)
The D.V. Act stands on a separate footing from the laws discussed
hereinabove. The D.V. Act provides relief to an aggrieved woman who
is subjected to “domestic violence.” The “aggrieved person” has been
B defined by Section 2(a) to mean any woman who is, or has been, in a
domestic relationship with the respondent, and alleges to have been
subjected to any act of domestic violence. Section 2(f) defines “domestic
relationship” to include a relationship between two persons who live, or
have at any point of time lived together in a shared household, when
they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in
C the nature of marriage, adoption, or are family members living together
as a joint family.
Section 2(q) of the Act defined “respondent” to mean an “adult
male person” who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the
aggrieved woman. In Hiral P. Harsora & Ors. v Kusum Narottamdas
D Harsora & Ors.11 this Court held that the “respondent” could also be a
female in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. Section 3 of
the D.V. Act gives a gender- neutral definition to “domestic violence”.
Physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse and economic abuse can
also be inflicted by women against other women. Even sexual abuse
E may, in a given fact circumstance, be by one woman on another. Section
17(2) provides that the aggrieved person cannot be evicted or excluded
from a “shared household”, or any part of it by the “respondent”, save in
accordance with the procedure established by law. If “respondent” is
to be read as only an adult male person, women who evict or exclude
the aggrieved person would then not be covered by the ambit of the Act,
F and defeat the very object, by putting forward female persons who can
evict or exclude the aggrieved woman from the shared household. The
Court struck down the words “adult male” before the word “person” in
Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act, and deleted the proviso to Section 2(q), as
being contrary to the object of the Act.
G The expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” as being
akin to a common law or a de facto marriage, came up for consideration
in D. Velusamy v D. Patchaiammal.12 It was opined that a common law
marriage is one which requires that although a couple may not be formally
11
(2016) 10 SCC 165.
12
H (2010) 10 SCC 469.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1129
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

married : (a) the couple hold themselves out to society as being akin to A
spouses; (b) the parties must be of legal age to marry; (c) the parties
must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being
unmarried; and (d) the parties must have voluntarily cohabited, and held
themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant
period of time. However, not all live-in relationships would amount to a
B
relationship in the nature of marriage to avail the benefit of D.V. Act.
Merely spending week-ends together, or a one-night stand, would not
make it a “domestic relationship”.
For a live-in relationship to fall within the expression “relationship
in the nature of marriage”, this Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma13
laid down the following guidelines : (a) duration of period of relationship; C
(b) shared household; (c) domestic arrangements; (d) pooling of resources
and financial arrangements; (e) sexual relationship; (f) children; (g)
socialisation in public and (h) intention and conduct of the parties. The
Court held that these guidelines were only indicative, and not exhaustive.
“Domestic violence” has been defined in Section 3 of the Act, D
which includes economic abuse as defined in Explanation 1 (iv) to Section
3, as :
“Economic abuse which means deprivation of all or any
economic or financial resources, to which the aggrieved person
is entitled under any law or custom, whether payable under E
an order of a Court or otherwise, or which the aggrieved
person requires out of necessity, including but not limited to
household necessities for the aggrieved person, or her
children.”
Section 17 by a non-obstante clause provides that notwithstanding F
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman
in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the “shared
household”, irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial
interest in the same. Section 17 reads as :
“17. Right to reside in a shared household: G
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained household: in any
other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic
relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household,

13
(2013) 15 SCC 755. H
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in
the same.
(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded
from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent
save in accordance with the procedure established by law.”
B Section 19 deals with residence orders, grant of injunctive reliefs,
or for alternate accommodation / payment of rent by the respondent.
A three-judge bench of this Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v
Sneha Ahuja14 has overruled the judgment in S.R.Batra v Taruna
Batra,15 wherein a two judge bench held that the wife is entitled to claim
C a right of residence in a “shared household” u/S.17 (1), which would
only mean the house belonging to, or taken on rent by the husband, or the
house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member.
In Satish Chander Ahuja (supra), the Court has held that although the
judgment in S.R. Batra (supra) noticed the definition of shared household
D under Section 2(s), it did not advert to different parts of the definition,
which makes it clear that there was no requirement for the shared
household to be owned singly or jointly by the husband, or taken on rent
by the husband. If the interpretation given in S.R. Batra is accepted, it
would frustrate the object of the Act. The Court has taken the view that
the definition of “shared household” in Section 2(s) is an exhaustive
E definition. The “shared household” is the household which is the dwelling
place of the aggrieved person in present time. If the definition of “shared
household” in Section 2(s) is read to mean all the houses where the
aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship alongwith the relatives
of the husband, there will be a number of shared households, which was
F never contemplated by the legislative scheme. The entire scheme of the
legislation is to provide immediate relief to the aggrieved person with
respect to the shared household where the aggrieved woman lives or
has lived. The use of the expression “at any stage has lived”, is with the
intent of not denying protection to an aggrieved woman merely on the
ground that she was not living there on the date of the application, or on
G the date when the Magistrate passed the order u/S. 19. The words “lives,
or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship” has to be given its
normal and purposeful meaning. Living of the woman in a household
14
Decided on 15.10.2020 in C.A. No. 2483/2020 by a bench comprising of Hon’ble
Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R.Shah.
15
H (2007) 3 SCC 169.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1131
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

must refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or A
casual living at different places would not make it a shared household.
The intention of the parties and the nature of living, including the nature
of the household, must be considered, to determine as to whether the
parties intended to treat the premises as a “shared household” or not.
Section 2(s) r.w. Sections 17 and 19 grant an entitlement in favour of an
B
aggrieved woman to the right of residence in a “shared household”,
irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same or not. From the
definition of “aggrieved person” and “respondent”, it was clear that :
(i) it is not the requirement of law that the aggrieved person may
either own the premises jointly or singly, or by tenanting it
jointly or singly; C

(ii) the household may belong to a joint family of which the
respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the
respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title, or
interest in the shared household;
D
(iii) the shared household may either be owned, or tenanted by the
respondent singly or jointly.
The right to residence u/S. 19 is, however, not an indefeasible
right, especially when a daughter-in-law is claiming a right against aged
parents-in- law. While granting relief u/S. 12 of the D.V. Act, or in any E
civil proceeding, the court has to balance the rights between the aggrieved
woman and the parents- in-law.
Section 20 provides for monetary relief to the aggrieved woman :
“20. Monetary reliefs.-
F
(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1)
of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to
pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses
suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the
aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence and such
relief may include, but is not limited to,- G
(a) the loss of earnings;
(b) the medical expenses;
(c) the loss caused due to destruction, damage or removal of
any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and H
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her
children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an
order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for
the time being in force.
B (2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be
adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard
of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.
(3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an
appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of
C maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may
require.”
(emphasis supplied)
Section 20(1)(d) provides that maintenance granted under the D.V.
Act to an aggrieved woman and children, would be given effect to, in
D addition to an order of maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C., or any other law in force.
Under sub-section (6) of Section 20, the Magistrate may direct the
employer or debtor of the respondent, to directly pay the aggrieved person,
or deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to
E or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted
towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.
Section 22 provides that the Magistrate may pass an order directing
the respondent to pay compensation and damages for the injuries, including
mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic
F violence perpetrated by the respondent.
Section 23 provides that the Magistrate may grant an ex parte
order, including an order under Section 20 for monetary relief. The
Magistrate must be satisfied that the application filed by the aggrieved
woman discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an
G act of domestic violence, or that there is a likelihood that the respondent
may commit an act of domestic violence. In such a case, the Magistrate
is empowered to pass an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit of
the aggrieved woman.
Section 26 of the D.V. Act provides that any relief available under
H Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1133
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

before a Civil Court, Family Court or Criminal Court. Sub-section (2) of A
Section 26 provides that the relief mentioned in sub-section (1) may be
sought in addition to, and alongwith any other relief that the aggrieved
person may seek in a suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal
court. Section 26 (3) provides that in case any relief has been obtained
by the aggrieved person in any proceeding other than proceedings under
B
this Act, the aggrieved woman would be bound to inform the Magistrate
of the grant of such relief.
Section 36 provides that the D.V. Act shall be in addition to, and
not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in
force.
C
Conflicting judgments on overlapping jurisdiction
(i) Some High Courts have taken the view that since each proceeding
is distinct and independent of the other, maintenance granted in one
proceeding cannot be adjusted or set-off in the other. For instance, in
Ashok Singh Pal v Manjulata,16 the Madhya Pradesh High Court held D
that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under S. 24 of the
HMA is independent of S. 125 of the Cr.P.C. In an application filed by
the husband for adjustment of the amounts awarded in the two
proceedings, it was held that the question as to whether adjustment is to
be granted, is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised by the Court.
There is nothing to suggest as a thumb rule which lays down as a E
mandatory requirement that adjustment or deduction of maintenance
awarded u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. must be off-set from the amount awarded
under S.24 of the HMA, or vice versa.
A similar view was taken by another single judge of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Mohan Swaroop Chauhan v Mohini.17 F
Similarly, the Calcutta High Court in Sujit Adhikari v Tulika
Adhikari18 held that adjustment is not a rule. It was held that the quantum
of maintenance determined by the Court under HMA is required to be
added to the quantum of maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C.
G
A similar view has been taken in Chandra Mohan Das v Tapati
19
Das , wherein a challenge was made on the point that the Court ought
16
AIR 2008 MP 139.
17
(2016) 2 MP LJ 179.
18
(2017) SCC OnLine Cal 15484.
19
2015 SCC OnLine Cal 9554. H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A to have adjusted the amount awarded in a proceeding under S.125 Cr.P.C.,
while determining the maintenance to be awarded under S.24 of the
HMA, 1955. It was held that the quantum of maintenance determined
under S.24 of HMA was to be paid in addition to the maintenance awarded
in a proceeding under S.125 Cr.P.C.
B (ii) On the other hand, the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, have
held that in case of parallel proceedings, adjustment or set-off must take
place.
The Bombay High Court in a well-reasoned judgment delivered in
Vishal v Aparna & Anr.,20 has taken the correct view. The Court was
C considering the issue whether interim monthly maintenance awarded
under Section 23 r.w. Section 20 (1)(d) of the D.V. Act could be adjusted
against the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family
Court held that the order passed under the D.V. Act and the Cr.P.C.
were both independent proceedings, and adjustment was not permissible.
The Bombay High Court set aside the judgment of the Family Court, and
D held that Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act makes it clear that the
maintenance granted under this Act, would be in addition to an order of
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and any other law for the time
being in force. Sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the D.V. Act enjoins
upon the aggrieved person to inform the Magistrate, if she has obtained
E any relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, in any other legal
proceeding filed by her, whether before a Civil Court, Family Court, or
Criminal Court. The object being that while granting relief under the
D.V. Act, the Magistrate shall take into account and consider if any
similar relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person. Even though
proceedings under the D.V. Act may be an independent proceeding, the
F Magistrate cannot ignore the maintenance awarded in any other legal
proceedings, while determining whether over and above the maintenance
already awarded, any further amount was required to be granted for
reasons to be recorded in writing.
The Court observed :
G
“18. What I intend to emphasize is the fact that the adjustment
is permissible and the adjustment can be allowed of the lower
amount against the higher amount. Though the wife can
simultaneously claim maintenance under the different
20
H 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1207.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1135
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

enactments, it does not in any way mean that the husband A
can be made liable to pay the maintenance awarded in each
of the said proceedings.”
(emphasis supplied)
It was held that while determining the quantum of maintenance
awarded u/S.125 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate would take into consideration B
the interim maintenance awarded to the aggrieved woman under the
D.V. Act.
The issue of overlapping jurisdictions under the HMA and D.V.
Act or Cr.P.C. came up for consideration before a division bench of the
Delhi High Court in RD v BD21 wherein the Court held that maintenance C
granted to an aggrieved person under the D.V. Act, would be in addition
to an order of maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C., or under the HMA. The
legislative mandate envisages grant of maintenance to the wife under
various statutes. It was not the intention of the legislature that once an
order is passed in either of the maintenance proceedings, the order would D
debar re-adjudication of the issue of maintenance in any other proceeding.
In paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment, it was observed that :
“16. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Sections 20, 26 and
36 of DV Act would clearly establish that the provisions of
DV Act dealing with maintenance are supplementary to the E
provisions of other laws and therefore maintenance can be
granted to the aggrieved person (s) under the DV Act which
would also be in addition to any order of maintenance arising
out of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
17. On the converse, if any order is passed by the Family F
Court under Section 24 of HMA, the same would not debar
the Court in the proceedings arising out of DV Act or
proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. instituted by the wife/
aggrieved person claiming maintenance. However, it cannot
be laid down as a proposition of law that once an order of
maintenance has been passed by any Court then the same G
cannot be re-adjudicated upon by any other Court. The
legislative mandate envisages grant of maintenance to the
wife under various statutes such as HMA, Hindu Adoption

21
2019 VII AD (Delhi) 466. H
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as
‘HAMA’), Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as well as Section 20 of DV
Act. As such various statutes have been enacted to provide
for the maintenance to the wife and it is nowhere the intention
of the legislature that once any order is passed in either of
the proceedings, the said order would debar re adjudication
B
of the issue of maintenance in any other Court.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Court held that u/S. 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act, maintenance
awarded to the aggrieved woman under the D.V. is in addition to an
C order of maintenance provided u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. The grant of maintenance
under the D.V. Act would not be a bar to seek maintenance u/S. 24 of
HMA.
Similarly, in Tanushree & Ors. v A.S.Moorthy,22 the Delhi High
Court was considering a case where the Magistrate’s Court had sine
D die adjourned the proceedings u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that parallel
proceedings for maintenance under the D.V. Act were pending. In an
appeal filed by the wife before the High Court, it was held that a reading
of Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act indicates that while considering an
application u/S. 12 of the D.V. Act, the

E Court would take into account an order of maintenance passed u/
S. 125 Cr.P.C., or any other law for the time being in force. The mere
fact that two proceedings were initiated by a party, would not imply that
one would have to be adjourned sine die. There is a distinction in the
scope and power exercised by the Magistrate under S.125, Cr.P.C. and
the D.V. Act. With respect to the overlap in both statutes, the Court
F held :
“5. Reading of Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act further shows
that the two proceedings are independent of each other and
have different scope, though there is an overlap. Insofar as
the overlap is concerned, law has catered for that eventuality
G and laid down that at the time of consideration of an
application for grant of maintenance under Section 12 of the
D.V. Act, the maintenance fixed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
shall be taken into account.”
(emphasis supplied)
22
H 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7074.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1137
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

The issue whether maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. could be awarded A
by the Magistrate, after permanent alimony was granted to the wife in
the divorce proceedings, came up for consideration before the Supreme
Court in Rakesh Malhotra v Krishna Malhotra.23 The Court held that
once an order for permanent alimony was passed, the same could be
modified by the same court by exercising its power u/S. 25(2) of HMA.
B
The Court held that :
“16. Since the Parliament has empowered the Court Under
Section 25(2) of the Act and kept a remedy intact and made
available to the concerned party seeking modification, the
logical sequitur would be that the remedy so prescribed ought
to be exercised rather than creating multiple channels of C
remedy seeking maintenance. One can understand the
situation where considering the exigencies of the situation
and urgency in the matter, a wife initially prefers an application
Under Section 125 of the Code to secure maintenance in order
to sustain herself. In such matters the wife would certainly be D
entitled to have a full-fledged adjudication in the form of
any challenge raised before a Competent Court either under
the Act Or similar such enactments. But the reverse cannot be
the accepted norm.”
The Court directed that the application u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. be treated E
as an application u/S. 25(2) of HMA and be disposed of accordingly.
(iii) In Nagendrappa Natikar v Neelamma24 this Court considered
a case where the wife instituted a suit under Section 18 of HAMA,
after signing a consent letter in proceedings u/S. 125 Cr.P.C., stating
that she would not make any further claims for maintenance against the F
husband. It was held that the proceedings u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. were summary
in nature, and were intended to provide a speedy remedy to the wife.
Any order passed u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. by compromise or otherwise would
not foreclose the remedy u/S. 18 of HAMA.
(iv) In Sudeep Chaudhary v Radha Chaudhary25 the Supreme G
Court directed adjustment in a case where the wife had filed an application
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and under HMA. In the S. 125

23
2020 SCC OnLine SC 239.
24
(2014) 14 SCC 452.
25
(1997) 11 SCC 286. H
1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A proceedings, she had obtained an order of maintenance. Subsequently,
in proceedings under the HMA, the wife sought alimony. Since the
husband failed to pay maintenance awarded, the wife initiated recovery
proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the maintenance awarded
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be adjusted against the amount awarded
in the matrimonial proceedings under HMA, and was not to be given
B
over and above the same.
Directions on overlapping jurisdictions
It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance
under different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance
C both under the D.V. Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A.
It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance
under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a
previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously
instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same
in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under
D another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the
subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family court shall take into account
the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and
determine the maintenance payable to the claimant.
To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid
E conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that
in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the
previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that
the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded
in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said
F amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any
modification or variation, the party would be required to move the
concerned court in the previous proceeding.
II Payment of Interim Maintenance
(i) The proviso to Section 24 of the HMA (inserted
G vide Act 49 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001), and the third
proviso to Section 125 Cr.P.C. (inserted vide Act 50 of
2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001) provide that the proceedings for
interim maintenance, shall as far as possible, be disposed
of within 60 days’ from the date of service of notice on
the contesting spouse. Despite the statutory provisions
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1139
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

granting a time-bound period for disposal of proceedings A
for interim maintenance, we find that applications remain
pending for several years in most of the cases. The delays
are caused by various factors, such as tremendous docket
pressure on the Family Courts, repetitive adjournments
sought by parties, enormous time taken for completion of
B
pleadings at the interim stage itself, etc. Pendency of
applications for maintenance at the interim stage for
several years defeats the very object of the legislation.
(ii) At present, the issue of interim maintenance is
decided on the basis of pleadings, where some amount of
guess-work or rough estimation takes place, so as to make C
a prima facie assessment of the amount to be awarded.
It is often seen that both parties submit scanty material,
do not disclose the correct details, and suppress vital
information, which makes it difficult for the Family Courts
to make an objective assessment for grant of interim D
maintenance. While there is a tendency on the part of the
wife to exaggerate her needs, there is a corresponding
tendency by the husband to conceal his actual income.
It has therefore become necessary to lay down a
procedure to streamline the proceedings, since a E
dependant wife, who has no other source of income, has
to take recourse to borrowings from her parents / relatives
during the interregnum to sustain herself and the minor
children, till she begins receiving interim maintenance.
(iii) In the first instance, the Family Court in F
compliance with the mandate of Section 9 of the Family
Courts Act 1984, must make an endeavour for settlement
of the disputes. For this, Section 6 provides that the State
Government shall, in consultation with the High Court,
make provision for counsellors to assist a Family Court
in the discharge of its functions. Given the large and G
growing percentage of matrimonial litigation, it has become
necessary that the provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the
Family Courts Act are given effect to, by providing for
the appointment of marriage counsellors in every Family
Court, which would help in the process of settlement. H
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A If the proceedings for settlement are unsuccessful,
the Family Court would proceed with the matter on merits.
(iv) The party claiming maintenance either as a spouse,
or as a partner in a civil union, live-in relationship, common
law marriage, should be required to file a concise
B application for interim maintenance with limited pleadings,
alongwith an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and
Liabilities before the concerned court, as a mandatory
requirement.
(v) On the basis of the pleadings filed by both parties
C and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the Court would be in a
position to make an objective assessment of the
approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance
at the interim stage.
(vi) The Delhi High Court in a series of judgments
D beginning with Puneet Kaur v Inderjit Singh Sawhney26
and followed in Kusum Sharma v Mahinder Kumar
Sharma27 (“Kusum Sharma I”) directed that applications
for maintenance under the HMA, HAMA, D.V. Act, and
the Cr.P.C. be accompanied with an Affidavit of assets,
income and expenditure as prescribed. In Kusum Sharma
E II,28 the Court framed a format of Affidavit of assets,
income and expenditure to be filed by both parties at the
threshold of a matrimonial litigation. This procedure was
extended to maintenance proceedings under the Special
Marriage Act and the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. In Kusum
F Sharma III,29 the Delhi High Court modified the format of
the Affidavit, and extended it to maintenance proceedings
under the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu
Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956. In Kusum Sharma
IV30 the Court took notice that the filing of Affidavits
alongwith pleadings gave an unfair advantage to the party
G who files the affidavit subsequently. In this judgment, it
26
ILR (2012) I Delhi 73.
27
(2014) 214 DLT 493.
28
(2015) 217 DLT 706.
29
MANU/DE/2406/2017.
30
H 2017 – (2018) 246 DLT 1.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1141
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

was clarified that the Affidavit must be filed simultaneously A
by both parties. In Kusum Sharma V 31 the Court
consolidated the format of the Affidavits in the previous
judgments, and directed that the same be filed in
maintenance proceedings.
(vii) Given the vastly divergent demographic profile of B
our country, which comprises of metropolitan cities, urban
areas, rural areas, tribal areas, etc., it was considered
appropriate to elicit responses from the various State Legal
Services Authorities (“SLSAs”).
This Court vide its Order dated 17.12.2019 C
requested the National Legal Services Authority
(“NALSA”) to submit a report of the suggestions received
from the SLSAs for framing guidelines on the Affidavit
of Disclosure of the Assets and Liabilities to be filed by
the parties.
D
(viii) The NALSA submitted a comprehensive report
dated 17.02.2020 containing suggestions from all the State
Legal Service Authorities throughout the country. We find
the various suggestions made by the SLSAs to be of great
assistance in finalizing the Affidavit of Disclosure which
can be used by the Family Courts for determining the E
quantum of maintenance to be paid.
(ix) Keeping in mind the varied landscape of the
country, and the recommendations made by the SLSAs,
it was submitted that a simplified Affidavit of Disclosure
may be framed to expedite the process of determining F
the quantum of maintenance.
We feel that the Affidavit to be filed by parties
residing in urban areas, would require to be entirely
different from the one applicable to rural areas, or tribal
areas. G
For this purpose, a comprehensive Affidavit of
Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities is being attached as
Enclosure I and II to this judgment.
31
Decided by the Delhi High Court vide Judgment dated 06.08.2020. H
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A (x) We have been informed by the Meghalaya State
Legal Services Authority that the State of Meghalaya has
a predominantly tribal population, which follows a
matrilineal system of society. The population is comprised
of three tribes viz. the Khasis, Jaintia and Garo tribes. In
Meghalaya, the youngest daughter is the custodian of the
B
property, and takes important decisions relating to family
property in consultation with her maternal uncle. The
majority of the population is employed in the unorganized
sector, such as agriculture. Under Section 10(26) of the
Income Tax Act 1961, the tribals residing in this State are
C exempted from payment of income tax.
The Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority
has suggested that the declaration in Meghalaya be made
in the format enclosed with this judgment as Enclosure
III.
D (xi) Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of
Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed
in maintenance proceedings, this Court considers it
necessary to frame guidelines in exercise of our powers
under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution
E of India :
(a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities
annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as
may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all
maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings
F before the concerned Family Court/District Court/
Magistrate’s Court, as the case may be, throughout the
country;
(b) The applicant making the claim for maintenance
will be required to file a concise application accompanied
G with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets;
(c) The respondent must submit the reply alongwith
the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of
four weeks. The Courts may not grant more than two
opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure
of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent.
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1143
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

If the respondent delays in filing the reply with the A
Affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for this
purpose, the Court may consider exercising the power to
strike off the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is
found to be wilful and contumacious in delaying the
proceedings.32
B
On the failure to file the Affidavit within the
prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide
the application for maintenance on basis of the Affidavit
filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record;
(d) The above format may be modified by the C
concerned Court, if the exigencies of a case require the
same. It would be left to the judicial discretion of the
concerned Court, to issue necessary directions in this
regard.
(e) If apart from the information contained in the D
Affidavits of Disclosure, any further information is
required, the concerned Court may pass appropriate orders
in respect thereof.
(f) If there is any dispute with respect to the
declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the E
aggrieved party may seek permission of the Court to serve
interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents
from the opposite party under Order XI of the CPC;
On filing of the Affidavit, the Court may invoke
the provisions of Order X of the C.P.C or Section 165 of F
the Evidence Act 1872, if it considers it necessary to do
so;
The income of one party is often not within the
knowledge of the other spouse. The Court may invoke
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since
G
the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within
the personal knowledge of the party concerned.

32
Kaushalya v Mukesh Jain, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1129-1130 / 2019 decided vide
Judgment 24.07.2019. H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A (g) If during the course of proceedings, there is a change
in the financial status of any party, or there is a change of
any relevant circumstances, or if some new information
comes to light, the party may submit an amended /
supplementary affidavit, which would be considered by
the court at the time of final determination.
B
(h) The pleadings made in the applications for
maintenance and replies filed should be responsible
pleadings; if false statements and misrepresentations are
made, the Court may consider initiation of proceeding
u/S. 340 Cr.P.C., and for contempt of Court.
C
(i) In case the parties belong to the Economically
Weaker Sections (“EWS”), or are living Below the Poverty
Line (“BPL”), or are casual labourers, the requirement of
filing the Affidavit would be dispensed with.

D (j) The concerned Family Court / District Court /
Magistrate’s Court must make an endeavour to decide
the I.A. for Interim Maintenance by a reasoned order,
within a period of four to six months at the latest, after
the Affidavits of Disclosure have been filed before the
court.
E
(k) A professional Marriage Counsellor must be made
available in every Family Court.
Permanent alimony
(i) Parties may lead oral and documentary evidence
F with respect to income, expenditure, standard of living,
etc. before the concerned Court, for fixing the permanent
alimony payable to the spouse.
(ii) In contemporary society, where several marriages
do not last for a reasonable length of time, it may be
G inequitable to direct the contesting spouse to pay
permanent alimony to the applicant for the rest of her life.
The duration of the marriage would be a relevant factor
to be taken into consideration for determining the
permanent alimony to be paid.
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1145
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

(iii) Provision for grant of reasonable expenses for the A
marriage of children must be made at the time of
determining permanent alimony, where the custody is with
the wife. The expenses would be determined by taking
into account the financial position of the husband and the
customs of the family.
B
(iv) If there are any trust funds / investments created
by any spouse / grandparents in favour of the children,
this would also be taken into consideration while deciding
the final child support.
III Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance C
(i) The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony
is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to
destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the
marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There
is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of D
maintenance to be awarded.
The factors which would weigh with the Court inter
alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the
wife and dependant children; whether the applicant is
educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant E
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 F
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.33
In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain34 this Court held that
the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, G
would not be material while determining the quantum of
maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional
33
Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v District Judge, Dehradun & Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 7.
Refer to Vinny Paramvir Parmar v Paramvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112.
34
(2017) 15 SCC 801. H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a
claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his
support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the
wife is educated and could support herself. The court must
take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity
of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is
B
dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould
the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought
before it.
On the other hand, the financial capacity of the
husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his
C own maintenance, and dependant family members whom
he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any,
would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive
at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid.
The Court must have due regard to the standard of living
D of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates
and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he
does not possess any source of income ipso facto does
not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if
he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.35
E (ii) A careful and just balance must be drawn between
all relevant factors. The test for determination of
maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the
financial status of the respondent, and the standard of
living that the applicant was accustomed to in her
matrimonial home.36
F
The maintenance amount awarded must be
reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two
extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should
neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and
unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre
G that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the
quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to
maintain herself with reasonable comfort.

35
Reema Salkan v Sumer Singh Salkan (2019) 12 SCC 303.
36
H Chaturbhuj v Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1147
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

(iii) Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance A
with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum
of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA
provides the following factors which may be taken into
consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii)
reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/
B
claimant is living separately, the justification for the same,
(iv) value of the claimant’s property and any income derived
from such property, (v) income from claimant’s own
earning or from any other source.
(iv) Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the
monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and / or C
the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and
consistent with the standard of living to which the
aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial
home.
(v) The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. D
Saroj Hegde37 laid down the following factors to be
considered for determining maintenance :
“1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant. E
3. The independent income and property of the claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to
maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar F
lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education,
medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.
G
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating
the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or
correct sources are not disclosed.
37
140 (2007) DLT 16. H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A 10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
11. The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable
against the amount awarded u/ 24 of the Act. 17.”
(vi) Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated
hereinabove, certain additional factors would also be
B relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance
payable.
(a) Age and employment of parties
In a marriage of long duration, where parties have endured
C the relationship for several years, it would be a relevant factor to
be taken into consideration. On termination of the relationship, if
the wife is educated and professionally qualified, but had to give
up her employment opportunities to look after the needs of the
family being the primary caregiver to the minor children, and the
elder members of the family, this factor would be required to be
D given due importance. This is of particular relevance in
contemporary society, given the highly competitive industry
standards, the separated wife would be required to undergo fresh
training to acquire marketable skills and re-train herself to secure
a job in the paid workforce to rehabilitate herself. With
E advancement of age, it would be difficult for a dependant wife to
get an easy entry into the work-force after a break of several
years.
(b) Right to residence
Section 17 of the D.V. Act grants an aggrieved woman the
F right to live in the “shared household”. Section 2(s) defines “shared
household” to include the household where the aggrieved woman
lived at any stage of the domestic relationship; or the household
owned and rented jointly or singly by both, or singly by either of
the spouses; or a joint family house, of which the respondent is a
member.
G
The right of a woman to reside in a “shared household”
defined under Section 2(s) entitles the aggrieved woman for right
of residence in the shared household, irrespective of her having
any legal interest in the same. This Court in Satish Chander
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1149
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja38 (supra) held that “shared household” A
referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared household of the aggrieved
person where she was living at the time when the application was
filed, or at any stage lived in a domestic relationship. The living of
the aggrieved woman in the shared household must have a degree
of permanence. A mere fleeting or casual living at different places
B
would not constitute a “shared household”. It is important to
consider the intention of the parties, nature of living, and nature of
the household, to determine whether the premises is a “shared
household”. Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of the D.V.
Act entitles a woman to the right of residence in a shared household,
irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same. There is C
no requirement of law that the husband should be a member of
the joint family, or that the household must belong to the joint family,
in which he or the aggrieved woman has any right, title or interest.
The shared household may not necessarily be owned or tenanted
by the husband singly or jointly.
D
Section 19 (1)(f) of the D.V. Act provides that the
Magistrate may pass a residence order inter alia directing the
respondent to secure the same level of alternate accommodation
for the aggrieved woman as enjoyed by her in the shared household.
While passing such an order, the Magistrate may direct the
respondent to pay the rent and other payments, having regard to E
the financial needs and resources of the parties.
(c) Where wife is earning some income
The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot
operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. F
The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following
judgments.
In Shailja & Anr. v Khobbanna, 39 this Court held that
merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a
sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the G
Family Court. The Court has to determine whether the income of
the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance
38
Civil Appeal No. 2483/2020 decided vide Judgment dated 15.10.2020.
39
(2018) 12 SCC 199.
See also Decision of the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v S. Deepa & Ors., 2016
Cri LJ 4794. H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.40
Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere
survival.41
In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v Anil Kachwaha 42 the wife
had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in
B Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had
sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from
the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and
held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it
could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
C The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v
Kalyani Sanjay Kale43 while relying upon the judgment in Sunita
Kachwaha (supra), held that neither the mere potential to earn,
nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient
to deny the claim of maintenance.

D An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable
of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and
cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to
maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander
Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash.44 The onus
is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there
E are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the
family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his
control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his
income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court.
This Court in Shamima Farooqui v Shahid Khan45 cited
F the judgment in Chander Prakash (supra) with approval, and
held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance
stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.
(d) Maintenance of minor children
The living expenses of the child would include expenses for
G
food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children.
40
Chaturbhuj v Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316.
41
Vipul Lakhanpal v Smt. Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 1252.
42
(2014) 16 SCC 715.
43
2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694.
44
AIR 1968 Delhi 174.
H 45
(2015) 5 SCC 705.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1151
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to A
complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding
child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be
awarded for extra-curricular / coaching classes, and not an overly
extravagant amount which may be claimed.
Education expenses of the children must be normally borne B
by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the
expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties.
(e) Serious disability or ill health
Serious disability or ill health of a spouse, child / children
from the marriage / dependant relative who require constant care C
and recurrent expenditure, would also be a relevant consideration
while quantifying maintenance.
IV Date from which Maintenance to be awarded
There is no provision in the HMA with respect to the date D
from which an Order of maintenance may be made effective.
Similarly, Section 12 of the D.V. Act, does not provide the date
from which the maintenance is to be awarded.
Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is the only statutory provision which
provides that the Magistrate may award maintenance either from
E
the date of the order, or from the date of application.46
In the absence of a uniform regime, there is a vast variance
in the practice adopted by the Family Courts in the country, with
respect to the date from which maintenance must be awarded.
The divergent views taken by the Family Courts are : first, from
F
the date on which the application for maintenance was filed;
second, the date of the order granting maintenance; third, the
date on which the summons was served upon the respondent.
(a) From date of application
The view that maintenance ought to be granted from the G
date when the application was made, is based on the rationale
that the primary object of maintenance laws is to protect a deserted
wife and dependant children from destitution and vagrancy. If
maintenance is not paid from the date of application, the party
46
K. Sivaram v K. Mangalamba & Ors.1989 (1) APLJ (HC) 604.
H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A seeking maintenance would be deprived of sustenance, owing to
the time taken for disposal of the application, which often runs
into several years.
The Orissa High Court in Susmita Mohanty v Rabindra
Nath Sahu47 held that the legislature intended to provide a
B summary, quick and comparatively inexpensive remedy to the
neglected person. Where a litigation is prolonged, either on account
of the conduct of the opposite party, or due to the heavy docket in
Courts, or for unavoidable reasons, it would be unjust and contrary
to the object of the provision, to provide maintenance from the
date of the order.
C
In Kanhu Charan Jena v. Smt. Nirmala Jena48 , the Orissa
High Court was considering an application u/S. 125 Cr.P.C., wherein
it was held that even though the decision to award maintenance
either from the date of application, or from the date of order, was
within the discretion of the Court, it would be appropriate to grant
D maintenance from the date of application. This was followed in
Arun Kumar Nayak v Urmila Jena,49 wherein it was reiterated
that dependents were entitled to receive maintenance from the
date of application.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishna Jain v
E Dharam Raj Jain50 held that a wife may set up a claim for
maintenance to be granted from the date of application, and the
husband may deny it. In such cases, the Court may frame an issue,
and decide the same based on evidence led by parties. The view
that the “normal rule” was to grant maintenance from the date of
F order, and the exception was to grant maintenance from the date
of application, would be to insert something more in Section 125(2)
Cr.P.C., which the Legislature did not intend. Reasons must be
recorded in both cases. i.e. when maintenance is awarded from
the date of application, or when it is awarded from the date of
order.
G
The law governing payment of maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C.
from the date of application, was extended to HAMA by the
47
1996 (I) OLR 361.
48
2001 Cri LJ 879.
49
(2010) 93 AIC 726 (Orl).
H 50
1993 (2) MPJR 63.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1153
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

Allahabad High Court in Ganga Prasad Srivastava v Additional A
District Judge, Gonda & Ors.51 The Court held that the date of
application should always be regarded as the starting point for
payment of maintenance. The Court was considering a suit for
maintenance u/S. 18 of HAMA, wherein the Civil Judge directed
that maintenance be paid from the date of judgment. The High
B
Court held that the normal inference should be that the order of
maintenance would be effective from the date of application. A
party seeking maintenance would otherwise be deprived of
maintenance due to the delay in disposal of the application, which
may arise due to paucity of time of the Court, or on account of the
conduct of one of the parties. In this case, there was a delay of C
seven years in disposing of the suit, and the wife could not be
made to starve till such time. The wife was held to be entitled to
maintenance from the date of application / suit.
The Delhi High Court in Lavlesh Shukla v Rukmani52 held
that where the wife is unemployed and is incurring expenses D
towards maintaining herself and the minor child / children, she is
entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application.
Maintenance is awarded to a wife to overcome the financial crunch,
which occurs on account of her separation from her husband. It is
neither a matter of favour to the wife, nor any charity done by the
husband. E

(b) From the date of order
The second view that maintenance ought to be awarded
from the date of order is based on the premise that the general
rule is to award maintenance from the date of order, and grant of F
maintenance from the date of application must be the exception.
The foundation of this view is based on the interpretation of Section
125(2) Cr.P.C. which provides :
“(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim
maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable G
from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of
the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.”
(emphasis supplied)
51
2019 (6) ADJ 850.
52
Crl.Rev.P. 851/2019 decided by the Delhi High Court vide Order dated 28.11.2019.
H
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A The words “or, if so ordered” in Section 125 has been
interpreted to mean that where the court is awarding maintenance
from the date of application, special reasons ought to be recorded.53
In Bina Devi v State of U.P.,54 the Allahabad High Court
on an interpretation of S.125(2) of the Cr.P.C. held that when
B maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of application,
the Court must record reasons. If the order is silent, it will be
effective from the date of the order, for which reasons need not
be recorded. The Court held that Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is prima
facie clear that maintenance shall be payable from the date of the
order.
C
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Amit Verma v Sangeeta
Verma & Ors.55 directed that maintenance ought to be granted
from the date of the order.
(c) From the date of service of summons
D The third view followed by some Courts is that maintenance
ought to be granted from the date of service of summons upon the
respondent.
The Kerala High Court in S. Radhakumari v K.M.K. Nair56
was considering an application for interim maintenance preferred
E by the wife in divorce proceedings filed by the husband. The High
Court held that maintenance must be awarded to the wife from
the date on which summons were served in the main divorce
petition. The Court relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High
Court in Samir Banerjee v Sujata Banerjee,57 and held that
F Section 24 of the HMA does not contain any provision that
maintenance must be awarded from a specific date. The Court
may, in exercise of its discretion, award maintenance from the
date of service of summons.

G
53
Bina Devi & Ors. v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 69 ACC 19.
54
(2010) 69 ACC 19.
55
CRR No. 3542/2019, decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide Order dated
08.01.2020.
56
AIR 1983 Ker 139.
57
H 70 CWN 633.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1155
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

The Orissa High Court in Gouri Das v Pradyumna Kumar A
Das58 was considering an application for interim maintenance filed
u/S. 24 HMA by the wife, in a divorce petition instituted by the
husband. The Court held that the ordinary rule is to award
maintenance from the date of service of summons. It was held
that in cases where the applicant in the maintenance petition is
B
also the petitioner in the divorce petition, maintenance becomes
payable from the date when summons is served upon the
respondent in the main proceeding.
In Kalpana Das v Sarat Kumar Das,59 the Orissa High
Court held that the wife was entitled to maintenance from the
date when the husband entered appearance. The Court was C
considering an application for interim maintenance u/S. 24 HMA
in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife. The
Family Court awarded interim maintenance to the wife and minor
child from the date of the order. In an appeal filed by the wife
and minor child seeking maintenance from the date of application, D
the High Court held that the Family Court had failed to assign any
reasons in support of its order, and directed :
“9. …Learned Judge. Family Court has not assigned any
reason as to why he passed the order of interim
maintenance w.e.f. the date of order. When admittedly the E
parties are living separately and prima facie it appears
that the Petitioners have no independent source of income,
therefore, in our view order should have been passed for
payment of interim maintenance from the date of
appearance of the Opposite Party-husband…”
F
(emphasis supplied)
Discussion and Directions
The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different
High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded.
G
Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to
grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of
the order in S. 125(2) Cr.P.C., it would be appropriate to grant maintenance

58
1986 (II) OLR 44.
59
AIR 2009 Orl 133. H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 Cr.P.C. In
the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find
that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim
maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of
justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the
application.
B
In Shail Kumari Devi and Ors. v Krishnan Bhagwan Pathak60,
this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to
the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal
of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the date of
application. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v Meena61, this Court held that
C repetitive adjournments sought by the husband in that case resulted in
delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the case. The delay in adjudication
was not only against human rights, but also against the basic embodiment
of dignity of an individual. The delay in the conduct of the proceedings
would require grant of maintenance to date back to the date of
D application.
The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application
finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to
enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on
separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependant spouse
E hampers their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. In
order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution, it is
necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the
application for maintenance is filed before the concerned Court.
In Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse62, the Supreme Court was
F considering the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held :
“13.3. …purposive interpretation needs to be given to the
provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the
application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents
under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised
G sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve “social
justice” which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the
Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the

60
2008 9 SCC 632.
61
2015 6 SCC 353.
62
H (2014) 1 SCC 188.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1157
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the A
democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of
securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.
It specifically highlights achieving their social justice.
Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to
advance the cause of the social justice. While giving
B
interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed
to bridge the gap between the law and society.”
(emphasis supplied)
It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring
about uniformity and consistency in the Orders passed by all Courts, by C
directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the
application was made before the concerned Court. The right to claim
maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since
the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending
is not within the control of the applicant.
D
V Enforcement of orders of maintenance
Enforcement of the order of maintenance is the most challenging
issue, which is encountered by the applicants. If maintenance is not paid
in a timely manner, it defeats the very object of the social welfare
legislation. Execution petitions usually remain pending for months, if not E
years, which completely nullifies the object of the law. The Bombay
High Court in Sushila Viresh Chhawda v Viresh Nagsi Chhawda 63
held that :
“The direction of interim alimony and expenses of litigation
under Section 24 is one of urgency and it must be decided as F
soon as it is raised and the law takes care that nobody is
disabled from prosecuting or defending the matrimonial case
by starvation or lack of funds.”
(i) An application for execution of an Order of Maintenance
can be filed under the following provisions :
G
(a) Section 28 A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 r.w. Section
18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Order XXI Rule 94
of the CPC for executing an Order passed under Section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (before the Family Court);
63
AIR 1996 Bom 94. H
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A (b) Section 20(6) of the DV Act (before the Judicial
Magistrate); and
(c) Section 128 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate’s Court.
(ii) Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that
orders passed by the Family Court shall be executable in
B accordance with the CPC / Cr.P.C.
(iii) Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C provides that if the party
against whom the order of maintenance is passed fails to
comply with the order of maintenance, the same shall be
recovered in the manner as provided for fines, and the
C Magistrate may award sentence of imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month, or until payment, whichever
is earlier.
Striking off the Defence

D (i) Some Family Courts have passed orders for striking off the
defence of the respondent in case of non-payment of
maintenance, so as to facilitate speedy disposal of the
maintenance petition.
In Kaushalya v Mukesh Jain64, the Supreme Court
allowed a Family Court to strike off the defence of the
E
respondent, in case of non-payment of maintenance in
accordance with the interim order passed.
(ii) The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bani v. Parkash
Singh65 was considering a case where the husband failed to
comply with the maintenance order, despite several notices,
F
for a period of over two years. The Court taking note of the
power to strike off the defence of the respondent, held that :
“Law is not that powerless as not to bring the husband to
book. If the husband has failed to make the payment of
maintenance and litigation expenses to wife, his defence
G be struck out.”

64
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1129-1130 / 2019 decided vide Judgment dated 24.07.2019.
65
AIR 1996 P&H 175.
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1159
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

(iii) The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mohinder Verma A
v Sapna,66 discussed the issue of striking off the defence in
the following words :
“8. Section 24 of the Act empowers the matrimonial court
to award maintenance pendente lite and also litigation
expenses to a needy and indigent spouse so that the B
proceedings can be conducted without any hardship on
his or her part. The proceedings under this Section are
summary in nature and confers a substantial right on the
applicant during the pendency of the proceedings. Where
this amount is not paid to the applicant, then the very object
and purpose of this provision stands defeated. No doubt, C
remedy of execution of decree or order passed by the
matrimonial court is available under Section 28A of the
Act, but the same would not be a bar to striking off the
defence of the spouse who violates the interim order of
maintenance and litigation expenses passed by the said D
Court. In other words, the striking off the defence of the
spouse not honouring the court’s interim order is the instant
relief to the needy one instead of waiting endlessly till its
execution under Section 28A of the Act. Where the spouse
who is to pay maintenance fails to discharge the liability,
the other spouse cannot be forced to adopt time consuming E
execution proceedings for realising the amount. Court
cannot be a mute spectator watching flagrant disobedience
of the interim orders passed by it showing its helplessness
in its instant implementation. It would, thus, be appropriate
even in the absence of any specific provision to that effect F
in the Act, to strike off the defence of the erring spouse in
exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 21 of the Act
rather than to leave the aggrieved party to seek its
enforcement through execution as execution is a long and
arduous procedure. Needless to say, the remedy under G
Section 28A of the Act regarding execution of decree or
interim order does not stand obliterated or extinguished
by striking off the defence of the defaulting spouse. Thus,

66
MANU/PH/3684/2014. H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A where the spouse who is directed to pay the maintenance
and litigation expenses, the legal consequences for its non-
payment are that the defence of the said spouse is liable to
be struck off.”
(emphasis supplied)
B (iv) The Delhi High Court in Satish Kumar v Meena67 held
that the Family Court had inherent powers to strike off the
defence of the respondent, to ensure that no abuse of process
of the court takes place.
The Delhi High Court in Smt. Santosh Sehgal v Shri
C Murari Lal Sehgal, 68 framed the following issue for
consideration : “Whether the appeal against the decree of
divorce filed by the appellant-wife can be allowed
straightway without hearing the respondent-husband in
the event of his failing to pay interim maintenance and
D litigation expenses granted to the wife during the
pendency of the appeal.”
The reference was answered as follows :
“5.The reference to the portion of the judgment in Bani’s
case extracted here- in-above would show that the Punjab
E and Haryana High Court and Orissa Page 2216 High Court
have taken an unanimous view that in case the husband
commits default in payment of interim maintenance to his
wife and children then he is not entitled to any matrimonial
relief in proceedings by or against him. The view taken by
F Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bani’s case has been
followed by a Single Judge of this Court in Satish Kumar
v. Meena. We tend to agree with this view as it is in
consonance with the first principle of law. We are of the
view that when a husband is negligent and does not pay
maintenance to his wife as awarded by the Court, then
G how such a person is entitled to the relief claimed by him in
the matrimonial proceedings. We have no hesitation in
holding that in case the husband fails to pay maintenance
and litigation expenses to his wife granted by the Court
67
2001 (60) DRJ 246.
H 68
AIR 2007 Delhi 210.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1161
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

during the pendency of the appeal, then the appeal filed A
by the wife against the decree of divorce granted by the
trial court in favor of the husband has to be allowed. Hence
the question referred to us for decision is answered in the
affirmative.”
The Court concluded that if there was non-payment of B
interim maintenance, the defence of the respondent is liable
to be struck off, and the appeal filed by the appellant-wife
can be allowed, without hearing the respondent.
(v) The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurvinder
Singh v Murti & Ors.69 was considering a case where the C
trial court stuck off the defence of the husband for non-payment
of ad-interim maintenance. The High Court set aside the order
of the trial court, and held that instead of following the correct
procedure for recovery of interim maintenance as provided
u/S. 125 (3) or Section 421 of the Cr.P.C., the trial court erred
in striking off the defence of the husband. The error of the D
court did not assist in recovery of interim maintenance, but
rather prolonged the litigation between the parties.
(vi) The issue whether defence can be struck off in proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. came up before the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Venkateshwar Dwivedi v Ruchi E
Dwivedi.70 The Court held that neither Section 125(3) of the
Cr.P.C, nor Section 10 of the Family Courts Act either expressly
or by necessary implication empower the Magistrate or Family
Court to strike off the defence. A statutory remedy for recovery
of maintenance was available, and the power to strike off F
defence does not exist in a proceeding u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. Such
power cannot be presumed to exist as an inherent or implied
power. The Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala
High Court in Davis v Thomas,71 and held that the Magistrate
does not possess the power to strike off the defence for failure
to pay interim maintenance. G
69
Gurvinder Singh v Murti & Ors. I (1990) DMC 559.
70
II (2018) DMC 103 MP.
Karnataka High Court affirmed this view in Ravindra Kumar v Renuka & Anr. 2009
SCC OnLine Kar 481.
71
2007(4) ILR (Kerala) 389.
See also Sakeer Hussain T.P. v Naseera & Ors., 2016 (4) ILR (Kerala) 917. H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A Discussion and Directions on Enforcement of Orders
of Maintenance
The order or decree of maintenance may be enforced
like a decree of a civil court, through the provisions which are
available for enforcing a money decree, including civil
B detention, attachment of property, etc. as provided by various
provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58,
60 read with Order XXI.
Striking off the defence of the respondent is an order
which ought to be passed in the last resort, if the Courts find
C default to be wilful and contumacious, particularly to a
dependant unemployed wife, and minor children.
Contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience may be
initiated before the appropriate Court.
VI FINAL DIRECTIONS
D
In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part
B – I to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass
the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article
142 of the Constitution of India :
(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction
E
To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and
avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it
has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so
that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family
Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the
F
country. We direct that:
(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a
party under different statutes, the Court would consider an
adjustment or set- off, of the amount awarded in the previous
proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount
G is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding;
(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the
previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the
subsequent proceeding;

H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1163
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires A
any modification or variation, it would be required to be done
in the same proceeding.
(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance
The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities
annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may B
be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance
proceedings, including pending proceedings before the
concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court,
as the case may be, throughout the country.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance C

For determining the quantum of maintenance payable
to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria
enumerated in Part B – III of the judgment.
The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and D
the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider
any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in
the facts and circumstances of a case.
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded
We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be E
awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance,
as held in Part B – IV above.
(e) Enforcement / Execution of orders of maintenance
For enforcement / execution of orders of maintenance,
it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be F
enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956;
Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C., as
may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced
as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the
CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order G
XXI.
Before we part with this judgment, we note our
appreciation of the valuable assistance provided by the Ld.
Amici Curiae Ms. Anitha Shenoy and Mr. Gopal
Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocates in this case. H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A A copy of this judgment be communicated by the
Secretary General of this Court, to the Registrars of all High
Courts, who would in turn circulate it to all the District Courts
in the States. It shall be displayed on the website of all District
Courts / Family Courts / Courts of Judicial Magistrates for
awareness and implementation.
B

Enclosure I
Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities for Non-Agrarian Deponents

C I___________, d/o___________or s/o___________,
aged___________about___________years, resident of__________,
do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
A. Personal Information
1. Name:
D
2. Age/Sex:
3. Qualifications (Educational and Professional):
4. Whether the Applicant is staying in the matrimonial house /
parental home / separate residence. Please provide the current
E residential address of matrimonial home or place of residence
and details of ownership of residence, if owned by other family
member.
5. Date of marriage:
6. Date of separation:
F
7. General monthly expenses of the Applicant (rent, household
expenses, medical bills, transportation, etc.):
B. Details of Legal Proceedings and Maintenance being
paid
G 1. Particulars of any ongoing or past legal proceedings with
respect to maintenance or child support between the Applicant
and Non-Applicant.
2. Whether any maintenance has been awarded in any
proceeding arising under the D.V.Act, Cr.P.C., HMA, HAMA,
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1165
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

etc.? If yes, provide details of the quantum of maintenance A
awarded in the proceedings.
3. If so, provide particulars thereof, alongwith a copy of the
Order/s passed.
4. Whether the Order of maintenance passed in earlier proceedings
has been complied with. If not, arrears of maintenance. B

5. Whether any voluntary contribution towards maintenance has
been made/ will be made in the future? If yes, provide details
of the same.
C. Details of dependant family members C
1. Details of Dependant family members, if any.
a. Relationship with dependants:
b. Age and sex of dependant/s:
2. Disclose if any independent source/s of income of the D
dependants, including interest income, assets, pension, tax
liability on any such income and any other relevant details.
3. The approximate expenses incurred on account of the
dependant.
D. Medical details if any, of the Deponent and/or dependant E
family members
1. Whether either party or child /children is suffering from any
physical / mental disability, or any other serious ailment. If
yes, produce medical records.
F
2. Whether any dependant family member has serious disability,
requiring continuous medical expenditure. If yes, produce
disability certificate and approximate medical expenditure
incurred on such medical treatment.
3. Whether either party or child/children or any other dependent
G
family member is suffering from life-threatening diseases,
which would entail expensive and regular medical expenditure?
If yes, provide details of the same along with summary of
previous details of hospitalisation/medical expenses incurred.

H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A E. Details of Children of the parties
1. Number of children from the existing marriage / marital
relationship/ previous marriage
2. Name and age of children
B 3. Details of the parent who has the custody of the children.
4. Expenditure for maintenance of dependant children.
a. Towards food, clothing and medical expenses
b. Towards expenses for education, and a summary of general
expenses
C
c. Towards expenses, if any, of any extra educational,
vocational or professional / educational course, specialised
training or special skills programme of dependent children.
d. Details of any loan, mortgage, charge incurred or instalment
D plan (being paid or payable), if any, on account of any
educational expenses of children.
5. Whether any voluntary contribution by either of the parties is
being made towards these educational expenses. If yes,
provide details of the same. Also provide an estimate of any
E additional contribution that may be required.
6. Whether any financial support is being provided by a third
party for the educational expenses of the children?
F. Details of Income of the Deponent

F 1. Name of employer:
2. Designation:
3. Monthly income:
4. If engaged in Government Service, furnish latest Salary
Certificates or current Pay Slips or proof of deposit in bank
G account, if being remitted directly by employer.
5. If engaged in the private sector, furnish a certificate provided
by the employer stating the designation and gross monthly
income of such person, and Form 16 for the relevant period of
current employment.
H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1167
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

6. If any perquisites, benefits, house rent allowance, travel A
allowance, dearness allowance or any other service benefit is
being provided by the employer during the course of current
employment.
7. Whether assessed to income tax?
If yes, submit copies of the Income Tax Returns for the periods B
given below :
(i) One year prior to marriage
(ii) One year prior to separation
(iii) At the time when the Application for maintenance is filed C
8. Income from other sources, such as rent, interest, shares,
dividends, capital gains, FDRs, Post office deposits, mutual
funds, stocks, debentures, agriculture, or business, if any,
alongwith TDS in respect of any such income.
D
9. Furnish copies of Bank Statement of all accounts for the last
3 years.
G. Assets (movable and immovable) owned by the Deponent
1. Self-acquired property, if any:
2. Properties jointly owned by the parties after marriage: E

3. Share in any ancestral property:
4. Other joint properties of the parties (accounts/ investments/
FDR/ mutual funds, stocks, debentures etc.), their value and
status of possession: F
5. Status of possession of immovable property and details of rent,
if leased:
6. Details of loans taken or given by the Deponent
7. Brief description of jewellery and ornaments of parties
acquired during /after marriage G

8. Details of transfer deeds or transactions of alienation of
properties previously owned by the applicant, executed during
the subsistence of the marriage. Also provide brief reasons
for such sale or transaction, if any.
H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A H. Details of Liabilities of the Deponent
1. Loans, liabilities, mortgage, or charge outstanding against the
Deponent, if any.
2. Details of any EMIs being paid.
B 3. Date and purpose of taking loan or incurring any such liability:
4. Actual amount borrowed, if any, and the amount paid upto
date of filing the Affidavit:
5. Any other information which would be relevant to describe
current liabilities of the Deponent.
C
I. Self-employed persons / Professionals / Business Persons
/ Entrepreneur
1. Brief description of nature of business/profession/vocation/
self-employed/work activity.
D 2. Whether the business/profession/ self-employment is carried
on as an individual, sole proprietorship concern, partnership
concern, LLP, company or association of persons, HUF, joint
family business or any other form? Give particulars of
Applicant’s share in the partnership/business/ professional
association/self- employment. In case of partnership, specify
E the share in the profit/losses of the partnership.
3. Net Income from the business/profession/ partnership/self-
employment.
4. Business/partnership/self-employment liabilities, if any, in case
F of such activity.
5. In case of business of company, provide brief details of last
audited balance sheet to indicate profit and loss of the
company in which such party is in business in the company.
6. In case of a partnership firm, provide details of the filings of
G the last Income Tax Return of partnership.
7. In case of self-employed individual, provide the filings of the
last Income Tax Return from any such professional/business/
vocational activity.

H
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1169
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

J. Information provided by the Deponent with respect to A
the income, assets and liabilities of the other Spouse
1. Educational and professional qualifications of the other spouse:
2. Whether spouse is earning? If so, give particulars of the
occupation and income of the spouse.
B
3. If not, whether he/she is staying in his/her own
accommodation, or in a rented accommodation or in
accommodation provided by employer/business/partnership?
4. Particulars of assets and liabilities of spouse as known to the
deponent, alongwith any supporting documents. C
K. Details of Applicant or the other Spouse, in case parties
are Non-Resident Indians, Overseas Citizens of India, Foreign
Nationals or Persons living abroad outside India.
1. Details of Citizenship, Nationality and current place of
residence, if the Applicant or other spouse is residing abroad D
outside India, temporarily or permanently.
2. Details of current employment and latest income in foreign
currency of such applicant/spouse, duly supported by relevant
documentation of employment and income from such foreign
employer or overseas institution by way of employment letter E
or testimonial from foreign employer or overseas institution or
latest relevant bank statement.
3. Details of household and other expenditure of such applicant/
spouse in foreign jurisdiction.
4. Details of tax liability of applicant/other spouse in foreign F
jurisdiction.
5. Details of income of applicant/other spouse from other sources
in India/foreign jurisdiction.
6. Details of expenses incurred or contribution made on account G
of spousal maintenance, child support or any other educational
expenses, medical treatment of spouse or children.
7. Any other relevant detail of expenses or liabilities, not covered
under any of the above headings and any other liabilities to
any other dependant family members in India or abroad.
H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A Declaration
1. I declare that I have made a full and accurate disclosure of
my income, expenditure, assets and liabilities from all sources.
I further declare that I have no assets, income, expenditure
and liabilities other than as stated in this affidavit.
B 2. I undertake to inform this Court immediately with respect to
any material change in my employment, assets, income,
expenses or any other information included in this affidavit.
3. I understand that any false statement in this affidavit, apart
from being contempt of Court, may also constitute an offence
C under Section 199 read with Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian
Penal Code punishable with imprisonment upto seven years
and fine, and Section 209 of Indian Penal Code punishable
with imprisonment upto two years and fine. I have read and
understood Sections 191, 193, 199 and 209 of the Indian Penal
D Code, 1860.

DEPONENT
Verification
E
Verified at on this day of that the contents of the
above affidavit are true to my personal knowledge, no part of
it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom,
whereas the contents of the above affidavit relating to the
F assets, income and expenditure of my spouse are based on
information believed to be true on the basis of record. I further
verify that the copies of the documents filed along with the
affidavit are the copies of the originals.

G DEPONENT
Enclosure II
Details for Affidavit for Agrarian Deponents (Krishi)
1. Total extent of the rural land/s owned, or the specific share
H holding in the same land:
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1171
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

2. Jamabandis / Mutations to show ownership A
3. Location of the land owned by the party.
4. Nature of land : whether wet land or dry land.
5. Whether such land is agricultural land or non-agricultural land:
6. Nature of agriculture / horticulture : B
7. Nature of crops cultivated during the year :
8. If rural land is not cultivable, whether the same is being used
for business, leasing or other activity :
9. Income generated during the past 3 years from the land. C
10. Whether any land is taken on lease /battai (or any other term
used for a lease in the local area of the concerned jurisdiction
where rural /agricultural land is located.)
11. (a) Whether owner of any livestock, such as buffaloes, cows,
goats, cattle, poultry, fishery, bee keeping, piggery etc., the D
number thereof and Income generated therefrom?
(b) Whether engaged in dairy farming, poultry, fish farming or
any other livestock activity.
12. Loans, if any obtained against the land. Furnish details of such E
loans.
13. Any other sources of income :
14. Liabilities, if any
15. Any other relevant information :
F
Declaration
1. I declare that I have made a full and accurate disclosure of
my income, expenditure, assets and liabilities from all sources.
I further declare that I have no assets, income, expenditure
and liabilities other than as stated in this affidavit. G
2. I undertake to inform this Court immediately with respect to
any material change in my employment, assets, income,
expenses or any other information included in this affidavit.
3. I understand that any false statement in this affidavit, apart
from being contempt of Court, may constitute an offence under H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A Section 199 read with Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal
Code punishable with imprisonment upto seven years and fine,
and Section 209 of Indian Penal Code punishable with
imprisonment upto two years and fine. I have read and
understood Sections 191, 193, 199, and 209 of the Indian Penal
Code,1860.
B

DEPONENT
Verification

C
Verified at on this day of that the contents of the
above affidavit are true to my personal knowledge, no part of
it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
I further verify that the copies of the documents filed along
D with the affidavit are the copies of the originals.

DEPONENT
Enclosure III
E Affidavit for the State of Meghalaya
1. Whether the woman is the youngest daughter of the family.
2. Whether the woman is staying with her husband in her family
property.

F 3. Whether she has any maternal uncle, who plays a very important
role in their family matters, which includes settlement of
matrimonial disputes. The woman should also disclose her clan
and her lineage.
4. The woman should disclose if her children have adopted the
surname of her mother, in as much as Khasi has been defined
G
as “a person who adopts the surname of his or her mother”.
5. The woman should disclose if she gets any financial assistance
from her clan or family member.
6. The woman should disclose if her parents are alive more
H specifically, her mother, and how many siblings she has.
RAJNESH v. NEHA & ANR. 1173
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

7. In event of a woman not being the youngest daughter, she A
has to disclose who the youngest daughter is.
8. The woman should disclose if she has any movable or any
immovable property, self-acquired or inherited from her clan.
9. The woman should disclose if she is married to tribal or non-
tribal B

The above format may be modified or adapted by the
concerned Court, as may be considered appropriate.

Declaration C
1. I declare that I have made a full and accurate disclosure of
my income, expenditure, assets and liabilities from all sources.
I further declare that I have no assets, income, expenditure
and liabilities other than as stated in this affidavit.
D
2. I undertake to inform this Court immediately with respect to
any material change in my employment, assets, income,
expenses or any other information included in this affidavit.
3. I understand that any false statement in this affidavit, apart
from being contempt of Court, may also constitute an offence
under Section 199 read with Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian E
Penal Code punishable with imprisonment upto seven years
and fine, and Section 209 of Indian Penal Code punishable
with imprisonment upto two years and fine. I have read and
understood Sections 191, 193, 199, and 209 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. F

DEPONENT

Verification G

Verified at on this day of that the contents of the
above affidavit are true to my personal knowledge, no part of
it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom,
H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.

A whereas the contents of the above affidavit relating to the
assets, income and expenditure of my spouse are based on
information believed to be true on the basis of record. I further
verify that the copies of the documents filed along with the
affidavit are the copies of the originals.
B
DEPONENT

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of and Directions issued.

C

D

E

F

G

H