-By Subhrodeep Maiti
In a pivotal ruling, the Orissa High Court clarified that the competent court can grant an amount of maintenance more than what is claimed in the application under section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The said ruling lays emphasis on the discretion of the court to do justice and fair reasoning on the maintenance amount depending upon the genuine needs of the dependant and the financial capacity of the payer.
Judicial Observations
A Division Bench consisting of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash said that discretion should be exercised by the courts while factoring the financial realities of both parties. The Bench said, “Judicial discretion ought to have been exercised to give a fair and just maintenance amount, based on the actual needs of the dependent and the ability of the payer to pay, however understated the claim was in the beginning.”
Case Background
The respondent-wife is a woman of sixty years of age, and her income is limited to a very meager amount of government benefits—₹500 per month under the government scheme and 5 kg of free rice. Not being in a position to maintain her daily needs and to bear medical expenses, she filed an application under Section 25(2) of the Act, asking for enhancement of maintenance from ₹1,500 to ₹7,000 a month. The Family Court in Rourkela, having assessed the financial condition of the appellant-husband and the necessities of the respondent-wife, increased the maintenance to ₹10,000 per month, which was beyond the claimed amount. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant challenged it before the High Court.
Court’s Analysis
Orissa High Court observed the main issue was whether the Family Court had the jurisdiction to grant more than ₹7,000 as sought in the application. Referring to Section 25(2) of the Act, the court stated that this Provision allows variation, modification or rescission of maintenance orders by the courts on the basis of change in the material circumstances of either of the parties. The Bench further clarified that though the words “at the instance of either party” requires a formal application, the judicial discretion should be exercised keeping within the ambit of the claim and the evidence provided in support thereof. The court further drew parallels with Section 127 of the CrPC which provides for the amendment of maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC, depending on the financial status changed. The Bench quoted outdated decisions, including
- Kamaldeep Kaur and Anr. v. Balwinder Singh (2005), where the High Court of Punjab and Haryana also ruled that there is no bar under Section 125 CrPC as such for a magistrate to grant more than what has been claimed in any manner.
- It also noted the ruling of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in G. Amrutha Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh which stated that a trial court raised maintenance from ₹30,000 to ₹50,000 per month, though the wife’s claim was for a lesser amount.
Final Decision
In the present case, the Court noted the Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting ₹10,000 instead of ₹7,000. Even so, the Bench, deemed imprecise procedural decisions were to be overlooked given the merits of the case, and, therefore, to keep spirit and justice above mere technicalities should be the major approach of the courts. The Court also considered the financial standing of the appellant-husband. In fact, the old man is 72 years old and formerly a railway diesel engine driver, with a pension of ₹50,000 per month. He showed high personal expenses, yet evaded any proof of his liabilities backed by documentary proof. The Court added that prior to his submitting an affidavit in the proceedings, the respondent-wife was not aware of the amount of the pension of the husband. Maintenance had hence been awarded on little less than 25% of his pension.
Conclusion
The Division Bench reiterated that courts must exercise discretion to award a maintenance amount that is just, even if it is above the contestation and dependent claims, according to the real needs of the dependent and the financial status of the payer. In this case, accordingly, according to the court, the enhancement was justified due to the needs of the applicant and not merely for procedural technicalities. Finding no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s substantive decision, the High Court dismissed the appeal, endorsing the monthly maintenance award of ₹10,000.
Case Title: Nirmal Karnakar v. Parbati @ Parbati Karnakar
