YAGWATI @ POONAMversusGHANSHYAM

                 [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1100 : 2024 INSC 76

                           Yagwati @ Poonam
                                   v.
                              Ghanshyam
                   (Civil Appeal Nos.1318-1319 of 2024)
                              29 January 2024
           [Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       Maintenance granted to the appellant by the Family Court, enhanced
       by High Court. If to be enhanced further.

                                  Headnotes
       Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – s.18 – Maintenance
       – Enhancement – Parties having three children were residing
       separately – Respondent-husband was residing with the
       two major children and the appellant-wife was residing with
       the minor child – Ex-parte decree of divorce was passed in
       favour of the Respondent whereafter he re-married – In the
       interregnum, the Appellant sought maintenance u/ss.18, 20,
       application was allowed by the Family Court – Later, ex-parte
       order decreeing the divorce in favour of the Respondent was
       set aside; and the application u/s.13, Hindu Marriage Act
       filed by the Respondent was restored – Cross-appeal(s) filed
       against the Order of the Family Court – Maintenance granted
       was enhanced by High Court – Appellant sought further
       enhancement contending that the Respondents’ salary had
       increased significantly, relying upon an RTI application filed
       with BSNL revealing that the Respondent was last drawing a
       salary of Rs.1,05,871/- per month serving as Assistant Manager,
       BSNL – Respondent submitted that he has since attained the
       age of superannuation and no longer receives the said salary
       and is only drawing pension from BSNL:
       Held: In view of the position of the parties and the totality of
       circumstances, the monthly maintenance payable u/s.18 enhanced
       from Rs. 10,000/- per month to Rs. 20,000/- per month from the
       date of the pronouncement of the present Order – Furthermore, the
       arrears payable in respect of the maintenance due to the Appellant
       be payable in equal instalments by the Respondent in addition to
       the regular maintenance as quantified – Directions issued to the
       Family Court. [Paras 11-13]
* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                        1101

                    Yagwati @ Poonam v. Ghanshyam


                                List of Acts
     Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Hindu Marriage Act,
     1955; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
                             List of Keywords
     Maintenance; Monthly maintenance; Maintenance enhancement;
     Family Court.
                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.1318-1319 of
     2024.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2016 of the High Court
     of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCMA Nos.2834 of 2009
     and 1514 of 2010.
                         Appearances for Parties
     Sonal Jain, Ajay Veer Singh, Ms. Divya Garg, Uday Ram Bokadia,
     Shubham Singh, Atit Jain, Ajay Jain, Ms. Deepika Jain, Advs. for
     the Appellant.
     Puneet Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Advs. for the Respondent.
                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                      Order
     Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1.   Leave granted.
2.   The present appeal(s) culminate out of a common order dated
     11.11.2016 whereunder the High Court of Rajasthan (the “High
     Court”) enhanced the award of maintenance granted to the Appellant
     by the Family Court at Jaipur under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption
     and Maintenance Act, 1956 (the “Act”) from Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three
     Thousand) per month to (i) Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) from
     the date of filing the application before the High Court i.e., 16.05.2009
     up until 31.12.2005; and (ii) Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per
     month from 01.01.2006 onwards (the “Impugned Order”).
3.   The Appellant herein seeks an enhancement of maintenance awarded
     by the High Court on the ground that the maintenance awarded by
     the High Court is inadequate and does not reflect the true financial
     capacity of the Respondent.
1102                                                          [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


4.   The marriage between the Appellant and Respondent came to be
     solemnized on 27.04.1982, thereafter 3 (three) children came to
     borne out of the wedlock i.e., (i) Abhishek; (ii) Aashish; and (iii) Nikki.
     Subsequently in 1998, the marriage encountered complications which
     led to the parties residing separately. Pertinently, the Respondent
     chose to reside with 2 (two) of his major children, namely (i) Abhishek;
     and (ii) Aashish. Accordingly, the Respondent left the Appellant and
     Nikki i.e., a minor, to fend for themselves.
5.   In the aforesaid circumstances, the Respondent filed an application
     under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the “HMA”)
     seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties. Vide an
     order dated 31.05.2005, an ex-parte decree came to be passed
     in favour of the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent married
     another lady on 20.07.2007.
6.   In the interregnum, the Appellant preferred an application before the
     Family Court, Jaipur seeking maintenance under Section 18 and
     Section 20 of the Act. Vide an order dated 15.04.2009, the Family
     Court, Jaipur allowed the Appellants’ application, and accordingly
     granted maintenance as follows:
     (i)    Appellant: Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month
            w.e.f from 15.04.2009;
     (ii)   Nikki: Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month w.e.f from
            15.04.2009 until Nikki attained the age of majority; and
     (iii) Litigation Cost: Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand)
                      (hereinafter referred to as the “Underlying Order”)
7.   Subsequently, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code
     of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the “CPC”) came to be preferred by the
     Appellant. Vide an order dated 09.09.2011, in the aforesaid application,
     the ex-parte order decreeing the divorce in favour of the Respondent
     came to be set aside; and accordingly, the application under Section
     13 of the HMA preferred by the Respondent was restored.
8.   The parties preferred cross-appeal(s) against the Underlying Order of
     the Family Court, Jaipur which came to be disposed of by the High
     Court vide the Impugned Order. In the present appeal, the Appellant
     has drawn the attention of this Court to the considerable salary that
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                        1103

                    Yagwati @ Poonam v. Ghanshyam


     the Respondent was drawing from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
     (“BSNL”), whilst dragging his feet in relation to his obligations qua
     maintenance under the Impugned Order.
9.   The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has
     submitted that the Respondents’ salary has increased significantly.
     In this regard he has relied upon a Right to Information (“RTI”)
     application filed with BSNL, whereunder it is revealed that the
     Respondent was last drawing a handsome salary of Rs.1,05,871/-
     (Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy-One)
     per month whilst serving as Assistant Manager, BSNL. Accordingly, it
     is prayed that the maintenance awarded by the High Court ought to
     be enhanced further. Pertinently, it was also brought to the attention
     of this Court that the arrear(s) of maintenance have not been paid
     to the Appellant despite a categorical direction from the High Court
     to clear the arrear(s) of maintenance within 1 (one) year from date
     of the Impugned Order i.e., on or before 11.11.2017.
10. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
    the Respondent submitted that the Respondent has since attained
    the age of superannuation and accordingly, no longer receives the
    aforementioned salary. It was submitted that the Respondent is only
    drawing pension from BSNL; and that the maintenance granted by
    the High Court ought not to be interfered with.
11. Considering the position of the parties and the totality of circumstances
    surrounding the present appeal(s), we are of the considered view
    that the Appellant should be granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees
    Twenty Thousand) per month as maintenance with effect from the
    date of this Order.
12. We accordingly allow the appeal(s) preferred by the Appellant and
    enhance the monthly maintenance payable under Section 18 of
    the Act from Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month to Rs.
    20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) per month with effect from the
    date of the pronouncement of this Order. Furthermore, the arrears
    payable in respect of the maintenance due to the Appellant shall be
    payable in equal instalments by the Respondent in addition to the
    regular maintenance as quantified by us above.
13. Resultantly, in furtherance of our orders above, the Family Court,
    Jaipur is directed to:
1104                                                         [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     (i)    Quantify the total arrears due to the Appellant in terms of the
            Impugned Order;
     (ii)   Fixate the duration and the quantum of monthly payment
            to be made by the Respondent in furtherance of arrears of
            maintenance as computed in terms of Paragraph 13(i) above, in
            such a manner that the total amount i.e., (a) regular maintenance
            to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand); and
            (b) the amount quantified towards the extinguishment of arrears
            of maintenance does not exceed 50% of the pension drawn by
            the Respondent from BSNL;
     (iii) Issue necessary directions to the BSNL to ensure that the
           total amount i.e., (a) regular maintenance to the extent of Rs.
           20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand); and (b) the additional
           monthly payment as more particularly identified in 13(ii) above,
           is credited into the Appellants’ bank account on an identified
           date of every calendar month; and
     (iv) A copy of this Order may also be sent to BSNL for necessary
          compliance and onward action (if any).
14. Further, it is made clear that the aforementioned quantification
    process would not interfere with our direction to the Respondent to
    pay the Appellant regular maintenance to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-
    (Rupees Twenty Thousand) per month with effect from the date of
    the pronouncement of this Order.


     Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey   Result of the case: Appeals allowed.