Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

The Delhi High Court (HC) has emphasized that the possession of a graduation degree by the wife should not automatically lead to the presumption that she is purposefully refraining from employment solely to secure interim maintenance in the matter of X v. Y.

What is the Background of the X v. Y Case?

• The parties to the suit got married in 1999, differences cropped up between the parties and the husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion in 2013.
• The husband had been depositing Rs.10,000/- per month in his wife’s bank account since 2013.
• The family court ordered to pay Maintenace of Rs 25000/- per month to the wife along with the litigation cost. The husband was also ordered to pay the penalty of Rs.1,000 per day on the interim maintenance.
• The amount being meagre, wife sought enhancement of pendente lite maintenance to Rs 1,25,000/- per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
• The husband filed a cross Appeal challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs.1,000/- per day on the interim maintenance and also sought reduction in Maintenance from Rs 25000/- per month to Rs 15000/- per month.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside the penalty of Rs.1,000 per day on the delayed payment of interim maintenance to the wife.
• The bench further while observing the wife, despite having a degree of B.Sc. has not been working, while the husband was a practicing Advocate refused to reduce the maintenance amount.

What is Maintenance Pendente Lite?

• Maintenance Pendente Lite means providing living expenses and financial support to the wife and children while the suit is pending between the parties.
• The concept of maintenance Pende Lite is dealt under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
  • Section 24 - Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings—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 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 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.

What is Cross Appeal?

• The concept of cross appeal is provided under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC):

Order 41 - Appeals From Original Decrees

Rule 22 - Upon hearing respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred separate appeal —

• • (1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour; and may also take any cross-objection] to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal provided he has filed such objection in the Appellate Court within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow.
  • Explanation. —A respondent aggrieved by a finding of the Court in the judgment on which the decree appealed against is based may, under this rule, file cross-objection in respect of the decree in so far as it is based on that finding, notwithstanding that by reason of the decision of the Court on any other finding which is sufficient for the decision of the suit, the decree, is, wholly or in part, in favour of that respondent.