Supreme Court Allows Plea Of Retired BSNL Employee's Wife Seeking Maintenance Enhancement
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal of the wife of a retired BSNL employee seeking enhancement of maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The wife filed an appeal with allegations of insufficiency and inconsistency in the High Court's order, questioning the accuracy of the financial capabilities of her Husband.
“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”, the Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed.
Advocate Ajay Veer Singh appeared for the Petitioner.
The appeal challenged the order of the High Court, that increased the maintenance awarded to the Appellant by the Family Court under the Act. The Appellant sought enhanced maintenance, claiming inadequacy and discrepancy in reflecting the Respondent's true financial capacity.
The parties' marriage faced complications in 1998, leading to their separation. The Respondent filed for divorce, obtained an ex-parte decree, and remarried. The Family Court granted maintenance, which was later enhanced by the High Court.
The Appellant, citing the Respondent's increased salary, sought further enhancement. The Respondent, now retired, argued against interference, emphasizing his pension.
The Apex Court, after considering the circumstances surrounding the appeal(s) and the parties involved, granted the Appellant a monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/-, effective from the date of the Order.
The Bench allowed the appeal(s) filed by the Appellant and enhanced the monthly maintenance under Section 18 of the Act from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.
Furthermore, the Court directed the Respondent to pay arrears of maintenance in equal installments, in addition to the enhanced monthly maintenance. The Family Court, Jaipur, was further instructed to determine the total arrears, fix the monthly payment duration and quantum, and issue necessary directions to BSNL for the proper implementation of the order.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appellant.
Cause Title: Yagwati @ Poonam v Ghanshyam (2024 INSC 76)
Appearance:
Appellant: Divya Garg, Uday Ram Bokadia, Shubham Singh, Atit Jain, Ajay Kumar Jain, Deepika Jain and Sonal Jain Advocates
