Rajnesh vs Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently, in the year 2020, come up with a comprehensive set of guidelines to adjudicate upon the most crucial and deciding factor of every second Divorce case, which pertains to maintenance.
Over several years, the issue revolving around deciding the maintenance that has to be awarded had always been a matter of confusion and uncertainty as to on which basis is the maintenance amount being decided and awarded. Even though the Courts had laid down various factors which would assess in deciding the quantum of maintenance to be paid, there was still no clarity on the same.
Fortunately, to resolve the ongoing friction that had been prevailing since year, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed a judgement named Rajnesh v. Neha, which culls out and streamlines the interim maintenance process.
The Court has directed both the parties to file the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in all the ongoing maintenance proceedings before the concerned authorities i.e., Family Courts, District Courts and Magistrates Court. The format of the same is also strictly put down by the Courts, to avoid further disparities and maintain transparency between both the parties.
Both the parties are expected to come with clean hands to the Court, while submitting their Affidavit and are bound to disclose everything truthfully. Willful concealment by either parties can have severe ramifications.
The Court has also directed that such uniformity is maintained by all the Courts, throughout the country in order to avoid any issue pertaining to overlapping jurisdiction.
The said directions of the Court affirms that the maintenance will be awarded from the date of filing the maintenance application.
This order of maintenance can be executed / enforced as a money decree from the Civil Court as per the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal
In this landmark judgement the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court had held that “the question arises, as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted:
Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure ?
Whether such a spouse should be permitted to get pendente lite alimony at higher rate from the other spouse in such a condition ? Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself Or herself in spite of sincere efforts made by him or herself.
A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendente lite alimony.
The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversary by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. It really puts a bug question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient cogent and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself.
A lady who is fighting a matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from the husband during pendency of such matrimonial petition.
Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a ‘dole’ to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice versa also. If a husband is well qualified, sufficient enough to earn and still sits idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a ‘dole’ to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation, is also not permissible.