Family Court's Enhancement Of Maintenance To Rs.3,000 Is Upheld; Appeal Dismissed

A single-judge bench of Justice M.V. Muralidaran heard an appeal challenging the Family Court's order dated 11.06.2019 that enhanced monthly maintenance payable to an unmarried daughter. The appellant (the father) contested the increase granted in Judl. Misc. Case No.146 of 2015 under Section 25 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Family Court's order increasing maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month for the respondent's educational expenses. The judgment emphasised that maintenance under the Act included "provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment" and reiterated that enhancement was permissible where there was a "material change in the circumstances." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is settled that an unmarried daughter unable to maintain herself is entitled to claim maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The father is obliged to maintain the unmarried daughter even if she is living separately with her mother. Thus, it is clear that it is the bounden duty of the appellant to maintain the respondent, who is his legitimate daughter, till her marriage by paying reasonable maintenance, which the Family Court has rightly considered and enhanced vide the impugned order. Further, the respondent has established the means of the appellant to pay the enhanced maintenance. The Family Court has got ample power to alter the maintenance amount after taking into considering the changed circumstances by virtue of the power conferred under Section 25 of the Act. In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity and/or perversity in the order of the Family Court." The Court directed the appellant to pay the enhanced amount from July 2015 within twelve weeks of receipt of the judgment.

Background

The dispute arose from a maintenance award originally passed on 26.05.2005 in Matrimonial (M) Case No.25 of 2004, by which the Family Court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month for the respondent (his daughter) and her mother. In practice the appellant paid Rs. 500/- each to the daughter and the mother. The respondent filed Judl. Misc. Case No.146 of 2015 under Section 25 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act seeking enhancement of her share of maintenance to Rs. 8,000/- per month and a lump-sum of Rs. 10,000/- to defray academic expenses, pleading that rising educational costs made Rs. 500/- grossly inadequate. She asserted that her mother had incurred substantial outlays (claimed at Rs. 27,910/- excluding monthly school and van fees) and could not meet the respondent's needs from the meagre allowance.

The appellant contested the petition, stating that the respondent attended a nearby school requiring no van fee, that the mother was employed in government service and received substantial salary, and that he had paid a settlement of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the mother at the time of divorce. He also claimed limited net take-home pay and additional dependents to maintain. Before the Family Court, the respondent and her mother gave evidence and the appellant testified as defence witness. The Family Court concluded that Rs. 500/- was insufficient and enhanced the respondent's maintenance to Rs. 3,000/- per month specifically "for her educational expenses," recording that "it is not possible for a meagre amount of Rs. 500/- p.m. for the petitioner to survive now a days."

On appeal, the appellant argued that the mother's employment and receipt of the settlement negated the need for enhancement and that the Family Court failed to properly consider cross-examination and evidence of payments. The respondent reiterated the increased burden of educational costs and defaults in payment by the appellant. The Court examined Sections 3, 23 and 25 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and relevant definitions of "maintenance," and found the respondent's plea of increased academic expenses to be bona fide and a material change in circumstances. The Court held that the mother's employment alone did not preclude the daughter's claim and that the Family Court's exercise of discretion under Section 25 was justified. The appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded; the appellant was directed to effect payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month from July 2015 within twelve weeks of receiving the judgment.

Case Details: Case No.: Judl. Misc. Case No.146 of 2015 Case Title: Appeal against the order dated 11.06.2019 in Judl. Misc. Case No.146 of 2015 (maintenance enhancement) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment extract] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment extract]