Judicial Precedents On Maintenance And Family Law Intersections
1. Dhanwanti Murlidhar Wankhede v. Murlidhar Shantaram Wankhede (1964) — Supreme Court
Facts:
The husband contested the wife’s claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), arguing that the amount claimed was excessive and that the wife was not dependent.
Issue:
The Court examined the scope of “maintenance” and the entitlement of the wife under Section 125 CrPC irrespective of matrimonial property rights.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that maintenance is a social welfare provision and the right to claim maintenance is independent of inheritance or property rights. It emphasized that maintenance is to prevent destitution and hardship, not linked to the claimant’s property.
Significance:
This case firmly established that maintenance is a right independent of family property and inheritance laws and aims at ensuring subsistence for the dependent spouse.
2. Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2018) — Supreme Court
Facts:
The wife sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC after separation from her husband, who contested the claim on grounds of previous financial support and her ability to earn.
Issue:
The scope of maintenance and whether permanent alimony under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) overrides or replaces maintenance under CrPC.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court clarified that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a criminal liability aimed at immediate relief, while permanent alimony under the HMA is a civil remedy. Both remedies can co-exist, and the wife can claim maintenance pending the civil claim.
Significance:
The judgment clarified the co-existence and independent nature of maintenance claims under criminal and civil law, providing comprehensive protection to women.
3. Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) — Supreme Court
Facts:
The wife filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance, and the husband challenged the amount, also raising questions on live-in relationships and financial support.
Issue:
Whether maintenance can be claimed by a woman in a live-in relationship and the scope of financial support.
Ruling:
The Court held that maintenance can be claimed by women in live-in relationships if the relationship qualifies as a “shared household” under domestic violence laws. The Court expanded the concept of maintenance beyond formal marriage.
Significance:
This landmark ruling extended maintenance rights to women in non-marital cohabitation, reflecting evolving family structures.
4. Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) — Supreme Court
Facts:
The case concerned whether a mother has equal rights as a father over the property of a minor child, with implications for maintenance and guardianship.
Issue:
Interrelation of family law on guardianship, maintenance, and inheritance.
Ruling:
The Court held that mothers have equal rights and responsibilities as natural guardians, including the duty to maintain the child, which affects claims on property and guardianship.
Significance:
This judgment integrated maintenance responsibilities with family law concepts of guardianship and inheritance, promoting gender equality.
5. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) — Supreme Court
Facts:
Shah Bano, divorced by her husband, sought maintenance beyond the iddat period under Section 125 CrPC.
Issue:
Whether a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period under Section 125 CrPC, intersecting Muslim Personal Law and criminal law on maintenance.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 125 CrPC applies to all citizens regardless of religion, and divorced women are entitled to maintenance if they cannot maintain themselves.
Significance:
This case is seminal in demonstrating the intersection of secular maintenance law with personal laws, and the Court’s role in harmonizing family law with constitutional protections.
Summary Table:
| Case | Key Issue | Judicial Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Dhanwanti Wankhede (1964) | Maintenance independent of inheritance | Maintenance as a social welfare right independent of property |
| Shamima Farooqui (2018) | Co-existence of maintenance under CrPC & HMA | Criminal and civil maintenance remedies can co-exist |
| Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) | Maintenance in live-in relationships | Maintenance rights extended to women in live-in relationships |
| Githa Hariharan (1999) | Guardianship and maintenance for children | Equal maintenance responsibilities of mother and father |
| Shah Bano (1985) | Maintenance under CrPC vs. personal law | Secular maintenance law applies irrespective of religion |
Conclusion:
These judicial precedents highlight how maintenance law interacts deeply with family law principles, ensuring protection for dependents while balancing rights related to inheritance, guardianship, and marital status. The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in broadening and clarifying maintenance rights, especially for women and children, across different family law regimes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments