Authored By – RUPALI MANJHI, LOVELY PROFESSIONALUNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION

Definition

In general terms maintenance is basically financial support given to the spouse to maintain their life as per the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act under section Section 3(b) the term “Maintenance” includes in all cases, provisions for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment and in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses of an incident to her marriage^[1].

In India, maintenance is governed by the personal laws of Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Parsi. Laws there are separate provisions also, like Section 125 of CrPC, now it is under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 1973 gives power to the first-class Magistrate to order maintenance for a spouse, child, or parent unable to support themselves. Provisions include monthly allowances and possible interim maintenance, emphasizing timely resolution of applications within sixty days^[2] and the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In this article, we will explore mainly l Support vs. Financial Burden. The whole purpose of the maintenance is to protect the other spouse and support them in terms of money, but sometimes it becomes worse for the other spouse as it becomes an unwanted financial burden on the husband. It happens in situations where the claims are very huge and justified. Cases like Rajnesh v. Neha (2020)^[3] In this case, it was highlighted that there is a need for standardized guidelines to keep a check on maintenance amounts, whether that amount is fair or not. There is a very urgent requirement to balance the rights of the wife to ask for maintenance with the husband’s right to financial fairness.

This article aims to analyze how maintenance laws should be framed and should be fair for both husband and wife and prevent the misuse of the exploitation of their rights. It will examine legal provisions, case laws, judicial trends, and comparative international perspectives.

Types of Maintenance

In divorce proceedings, there are primarily two categories of maintenance Interim Maintenance and Permanent Maintenance.^[4]

• Interim Maintenance:- It is provided by the court during the proceeding divorce or separation cases, addressing urgent needs. It is provided from the date of filing the petition until the divorce order is issued.

Legal provisions are Section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955, Section 125 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code that is now Section 144(1) in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 36 of Special Marriage Act, 1954, Section 39 of Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936, Section 36 of Divorce Act provisions require the financially independent spouse to pay the dependent spouse.

• Permanent Maintenance:- it is given when the divorce decree is passed and can take the form of a one-time payment or regular installments as directed by the court.

 Provisions regarding Permanent Maintenance are Section 25 of the Hindu Marriages Act of 1955,  Section 37oof the  Special Marriage Act, of 1954, Section 40 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, of 1936, Section 36 of the Divorce Act, of 1869

B) HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The concept of maintenance can be traced to very ancient times, and it can be traced in Manusmriti as well. In the very 9th chapter of Manusmriti, it is stated that “Considering that the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands (must) strive to guard their wives. He who carefully guards his wife, preserves (the purity of) his offspring, virtuous conduct, his family, himself, and his (means of acquiring) merit.”^[5]

With the advent of Britishers, the legal arena began to change. There was a shift from personal laws to more uniform laws that focused mainly on written laws during the colonial period; maintenance laws were incorporated into the Indian legal system through various  provisions, mainly to protect vulnerable women in cases of divorce.

• The Criminal Procedure Code, 1861: The first major legislation addressing maintenance in India came in the form of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was enacted during British rule. Thus, the law protected the wife from claiming maintenance in the case where her husband failed to provide for her after the divorce.
• The Indian Divorce Act, 1869: For Christian women, this Act was the first one of the earliest that gave recognition of the wife’s right to ask for maintenance after divorce.
• The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:  under Sections 24 and 2 of HMA, it mentions that a wife has a right to have financial support from the husband after their marriage gets dissolved.
• The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937: Even before independence, maintenance laws for Muslims were governed by personal laws like the Nikah Nama (marriage contract) and were further clarified under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act.

C) INTERPRETATION

The two prominent cases which made a significant impact on the maintenance laws are. Shah Bano case 1985 and the second one is Rajesh vs Neha 2020^[6]

Shah Bano case^[7]

The Court clarified that Section 125 of CrPC refers to the individuals who have sufficient means and avoid their responsibility to maintain others, including wives who cannot support themselves. Under Muslim Personal Law, a husband is obligated to support a divorced wife, and it is limited to the iddat period and does not match the situation covered in Section 125. However, the Court stated that if the divorced wife is financially self-sufficient, the husband’s duty ends with the iddat period, if she cannot sustain herself, she is entitled to seek maintenance under Section 125. The Court emphasized that there is no conflict between Section 125 and Muslim Personal Law regarding a Muslim husband’s responsibility to support a divorced wife unable to maintain herself; the Court also gave the reference to a Quranic verse highlighting the duty of fairness in such cases.

Rajnesh vs Neha 2020^[8]

The court stated that “The object of maintenance laws is to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a spouse or child who is unable to maintain themselves. A husband cannot evade his legal and moral duty by pleading financial incapacity. The determination of maintenance must be based on the status of the parties, their reasonable needs, financial capacity, and the standard of living enjoyed in the matrimonial home. To ensure transparency, both parties must file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities. Furthermore, maintenance under Section 125 CrPC shall be awarded from the date of the application to prevent undue hardship to the claimant.”

D) COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

Country-Specific Comparison of Maintenance Laws

Various countries have distinct rules for maintenance by spouses after the dissolution of marriage. In the United Kingdom, the court frequently grants interim maintenance and requests that people become more financially independent. While some states in the United States permit temporary contingency, others permit permanent contingency. In India, personal laws are followed, but there are differences in maintenance regulations between Hindu, Muslim, and Christian laws. In Germany, maintenance is usually short-term, as the law expects both spouses to become self-sufficient. In Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, maintenance is typically paid during the iddah waiting period following a divorce.

E) WHO IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM MAINTENANCE AND EXCEPTION

Providing maintenance differs among religions – according to the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the wife, widow, children, and aged parents are entitled to maintenance. According to Muslim law, wives, young children, parents, and persons within the prohibited degrees are entitled to maintenance.

Exceptions^[9]

At first, if the wife has financial independence, as shown in the case of “S. R. Bhatnagar vs. the State of Rajasthan” (AIR 1987 SC 1225), she was not eligible for maintenance as per Section 125 of the CrPC.

Second, as the case of Ramesh vs. Smt. “Kamal” (AIR 2000 SC 610) states, the husband’s responsibilities may be deemed void if the wife has engaged in adultery or cheating.

The case of Chandermohan vs. Smt. “Shakuntala” (AIR 1966 SC 385) also shows that a wife’s maintenance request may be impacted if she refuses to live with her husband without providing a good reason.

In the end, court rulings, like in “K.K. Verma vs. Smt. Suman Verma,” have the power to alter maintenance obligations.

F) MAINTENANCE OR UNFAIR BURDEN

Inequitable Maintenance Cost

Long-term or indefinite maintenance payments may put an unreasonable financial burden on the paying spouse. Requiring the paying spouse to support their ex-spouse and other dependents can put a strain on their finances and make it difficult for them to maintain their own standard of living. The situation may appear unfair and unjust if the spouse has a low salary because this can add to the workload.

Additionally, long-term maintenance payments may encourage a financial dependence mentality. If maintenance is paid for a long period of time, even if the dependent spouse is able to work, they might not be encouraged to become financially independent. This reliance could put more of an unfair burden on the paying spouse.

In order to obtain the higher payments, some spouses may fabricate claims or overstate their financial needs, which increases the likelihood that the maintenance plan will be abused. The approach may result in circumstances where the paying spouse is compelled to make excessive or unnecessary payments when it fails to accurately assess the receiving spouse’s actual needs. This misuse could have been avoided with a more comprehensive evaluation of the recipient’s needs, which can result in a substantial financial burden.

Additionally, requiring maintenance payments may deter a spouse from remarrying or starting a family. The spouse who is paying  the maintenance may feel financially constrained and not able to move on with their life as a result of their continued financial commitment to an ex-spouse. The paying spouse can be financially bound to their former relationship, which could limit their financial and personal independence, making this an unfair scenario.

The feeling of injustice is also influenced by the gender bias present in many maintenance laws. Imagining that they are the major providers for their family, husbands and are usually required to pay maintenance in many legal systems. When the wife is financially independent but the husband is still has to pay the dependent expected to pay the maintenance amount this is unjust. A conflicted results from these gender-based presumptions, with one spouse paying the financial burden despite both parties potentially having equal earning power.

After the marriage ends, the husband may still bear an excessive amount of the financial burden if he was the main provider during the marriage. This continued financial burden can be perceived as unfair, especially if both couples had equal financial prospects during the marriage. The paying spouse may find it very difficulty to adapt to their new financial situation due to the ongoing maintenance commitment.

At the last  the strain is increased by the unpredictable nature of maintenance payments. It can be challenging for the spouse to organize their finances.

Case Laws for Misusing the Maintenance Rights by the Wife

1. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017)^[10] In the Supreme Court’s decision, maintenance must be fair and proportionate to the husband’s income. In general, maintenance should not surpass 25% of the husband’s net income, according to the benchmark it established.
2. Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi (2010)^[11] The Court decided that it was improper to take advantage of maintenance. According to the statement, a wife may not receive assistance if she makes an unreasonable maintenance request without a valid reason.
3. Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (2020)^[12] The Delhi High Court stressed that maintenance should be determined based on actual financial needs rather than inflated claims. In order to stop misuse, it enforced required financial disclosure affidavits

Recently there is a case is registered in Bangalore named Atul Shubhas case who Left a detailed 24 page suicide note in which he blamed the trouble in his marriage and the divorce proceeding , he had committed suicide because of the amount of maintenance was very huge.

G) FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

Preventing Abuse of Maintenance Provisions –

 Increased study of maintenance claims to stop their abuse is one important outcome of these instances. Before giving out large quantities of the amount, courts are likely to take a less risky approach, making sure that the wife’s actual requirements and financial independence are carefully considered.There should be more  Stricter criteria for assessing  the need for maintenance may result from this, with preventing financially capable spouses from abusing the system.

Balanced Approach to Gender Justice:

By looking into  the financial resources of both parties, courts may adopt a more equitable approach in subsequent cases. Courts may refrain from unfairly burdening the husband when the woman is able to support herself, and maintenance should only be given to those who truly need it. By reducing the possibility of financial abuse and harassment, this strategy can guarantee that maintenance payments fulfill their intended work of helping individuals in need without placing an excessive burden on the paying spouse.

Legal definitions should be clarified.

Future decisions may establish the criteria for determining what constitutes “reasonable” upkeep because excessive demand can be seen as a legal abuse. Courts may also create more detailed guidelines on each spouse’s responsibilities to maintain their financial independence in order to reduce the likelihood that maintenance claims may be financially abused.

Stricter Enforcement Procedures:

Future legislation amendments may include clauses pertaining to stricter enforcement procedures in order to prevent the misuse of maintenance rights. If it is demonstrated that a spouse has misused the system, penalties may be applied, or the maintenance amount may be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it remains fair and reasonable while taking into consideration the changing financial circumstances of both parties.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, maintenance is a complicated area of family law that aims to balance the need to shield the paying spouse from excessive financial strain with a spouse’s right to financial support. Although maintenance laws are meant to protect weaker spouses, especially women, after a divorce, it is crucial to make sure that they are not abused. The standard of living during the marriage, the paying spouse’s financial capacity, and the recipient spouse’s reasonable needs have all been factors that the courts have considered when determining maintenance. In case laws such as Shah Bano (1985) and Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), the importance of maintaining equity and transparency in maintenance claims has been highlighted. A major obstacle is the potential for misuse, in which inflated or fraudulent claims are made. Several instances, like the tragic Atul Shubhas case, show how exorbitant maintenance demands can lead to serious financial difficulties and negatively affect the mental and emotional health of the paying spouse. Improving the criteria for determining reasonable maintenance should be the main focus of future maintenance laws in order to guarantee equitable treatment for all parties.

Clearly, more robust enforcement measures are needed to prevent the misuse of maintenance provisions. In order to avoid placing an excessive burden on the paying spouse, courts should also continue to assess each spouse’s financial independence, especially in cases where the recipient spouse can sustain themselves. In conclusion, even though maintenance is a crucial aspect of family law, choosing a fair and sensible approach that safeguards the interests of both spouses without leading to abuse or excessive financial hardship can be challenging. Future legislation must ensure that maintenance regulations are reasonable and practical in order to prevent systemic abuse and promote financial justice.

1. Cases Referred
   • Shah Bano Case (1985) – Maintenance rights under CrPC and Muslim law.
   • Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) – Guidelines for determining maintenance amounts.
   • Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017) – 25% of the husband’s income as a benchmark for maintenance.
   • Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi (2010) – Preventing unjust maintenance claims.
   • Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (2020) – Affidavit of disclosure for maintenance cases.
   • R. Bhatnagar vs. State of Rajasthan (1987) – Wife’s financial independence as a factor in maintenance claims.
   • Atul Shubhas Case ( Bangalore) – Impact of high maintenance demands.

2. Statutes Referred

• Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 .
• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Sections 24 & 25) – Interim and permanent maintenance.
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 125) – Now replaced by Section 144 of BNSS, 2023.
• Special Marriage Act, 1954 (Sections 36 & 37) – Maintenance provisions for inter-religious marriages.
• Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (Sections 39 & 40) – Spousal support laws.
• Divorce Act, 1869 (Section 36) – Christian law on maintenance
• Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 – Maintenance under Islamic law.
• Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Maintenance as part of protection orders.

^[1] “Section 3(b) in The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956.” Indiankanoon, indiankanoon.org/doc/544463.

^[2] “Section144(1)in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.” Indiankanoon, indiankanoon.org/doc/99662587.

^[3] Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020, indiankanoon.org/doc/117541087/. Accessed 30 Jan. 2025.

^[4]the  “Maintenance for Wife in India – Intellectual Property, IPR &Amp; Corporate Law Firm Chennai, Bengaluru.” Intellectual Property, IPR & Corporate Law Firm Chennai, Bengaluru, 16Sept.2021,www.altacit.com/family-law/maintenance-for-wife-in-india/#:~:text=There%20are%20two%20types%20of,immediate%20needs%20of%20the%20spous.

^[5] MANUSMRITI. eweb.furman.edu/~ateipen/ReligionA45/protected/manusmriti.htm.

^[6] “Rajnesh vs Neha.” Indiankanoon, indiankanoon.org/doc/117541087.

^[7]“Mohd. Ahmad Khan V. Shah Bano Begum,1985 SCR (3) 844.” Drishti Judiciary, www.drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/muslim-law/mohd-ahmad-khan-v-shah-bano-begum-1985-scr-3-844.

^[8] “Rajnesh vs Neha.” Indiankanoon, indiankanoon.org/doc/117541087.

^[9] “When aHusband May Not Be Required to Provide Maintenance to His Wife Understanding theExceptions-Vanta.”VantaLegal,18Sept.2024,www.vantalegal.com/law-services/when-a-husband-may-not-be-required-to-provide-maintenance-to-his-wife-understanding-the-exceptions.

^[10] Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy on 19 April, 2017. (n.d.). Indiankanoon. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87785076/

^[11]RaviKumarv.JulmiDevi(2010).(n.d.).Casemine.https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e6687b607dba6b53433106

^[12] Kusum Sharma vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 6 August, 2020. (n.d.). Indiankanoon. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174517725/