Courts Must Consider Adequacy Of Pre-Existing Maintenance Awards Before Granting Additional Interim Or Final Maintenance In Subsequent Proceedings: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court held that courts should consider the issue of adequacy or inadequacy of the interim/final maintenance allowance already awarded and record its reason for awarding any other or different interim/final maintenance allowance in subsequent proceedings.
The Court clarified the issue of filing multiple maintenance claims filed under multiple statutory provisions. The Court observed a “steady flow” of similar maintenance proceedings coming to court by way of statutory appeals involving multiple orders providing for interim/final maintenance allowance, passed by different Family Courts in the State.
A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed, “Thus, no (further) recovery may be made pursuant to any order/s providing for equal or less monthly interim/final maintenance allowance, so long as an equal or higher sum of maintenance allowance has been or is being paid under another order providing for equal or higher interim/final maintenance allowance. ”
Advocate Ashish Kumar appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Shashi Kumar Mishra represented the respondent.
The husband in this case was subjected to a 22% deduction from his pay for maintenance to his wife under the Army Act. Concurrently, his wife pursued separate proceedings for maintenance, resulting in multiple orders for interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The High Court highlighted the binding nature of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) which lays down a firm rule against multiple deductions or recoveries, towards interim/final maintenance allowance.
“Where the subsequent order may provide for a equal or higher amount of maintenance allowance than awarded under earlier order/s (under any law), the actual amount to be paid/recovered under that later order would depend on the status of payment/recovery of the equal or lesser amounts (under the earlier order/s). Similarly, where in a case equal or less amount of maintenance allowance awarded under the later order gets paid/recovered first i.e. before recovery being made under the earlier order, the payer spouse would be entitled to claim benefit of that recovery in the recovery proceedings under the earlier order/s,” the Bench clarified.
The Bench held that no (further) recovery can be made pursuant to any order/s providing for equal or less monthly interim/final maintenance allowance, so long as an equal or higher sum of maintenance allowance has been or is being paid under another order providing for equal or higher interim/final maintenance allowance.
The Court stated that “in the single application that may be received by a Court or as may mature for orders/hearing, before it (under any enactment), seeking maintenance allowance and if that Court proposes to award - either interim or final maintenance allowance (as the case may be), it must make best effort to award a wholesome, adequate and reasonable amount of interim/final maintenance allowance at that first instance/application, itself.”
Consequently, the court found that “once the eligibility to receive maintenance allowance was established by the respondent before the learned Court below, it ought to have first considered if deduction provided under the Army Order - 22% of the pay and allowance of the appellant, was sufficient to take care of the claim made before it. Only if the learned Court below was of the view that a higher deduction was necessary to be provided then, for reasons that must have been recorded, it may have passed appropriate order.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition.
Cause Title: N v. K (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:152463-DB)