close
close

Temporary maintenance for survival and not enrichment of wife: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Temporary maintenance for survival and not enrichment of wife: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Reported by:

Last update:

The court overturned the decision of the court of first instance. (Illustrative graphic)

The court stressed that the court of first instance must make every effort to determine the appropriate amount of alimony to which the wife is entitled on a monthly basis in the case of temporary alimony.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur recently set aside an order granting a woman a lump sum of Rs 4 lakh as interim maintenance, emphasising that interim maintenance is for the purpose of ensuring the wife’s survival and not enriching her.

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, presiding judge, criticised the trial court for granting maintenance in the form of lump sum, observing, “Whenever an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is filed for grant of interim maintenance, the trial court has to attempt to determine the amount of interim maintenance to which the wife is entitled on a monthly basis. Interim maintenance is for the survival of the wife and is not intended to enrich her.”

The case involved the applicant, Vipin Kumar Belvanshi (husband), who filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent (wife), Diksha Javre (Belvanshi), in response filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance. She claimed that the applicant earned Rs 1,10,000 per month and had substantial assets, including 15 acres of land and residential property.

The Additional Family Court Judge, Bhopal, awarded a lump sum of Rs 4 lakh to the respondent as interim maintenance. The petitioner challenged the order in the High Court arguing that instead of a lump sum, the trial court should have fixed a monthly amount for interim maintenance.

The Supreme Court ruled that temporary alimony is awarded to ensure the wife’s survival during the divorce proceedings. It should not be aimed at enriching her beyond her basic needs. The court noted that the trial court erred in awarding a lump sum without setting an appropriate monthly amount.

“The court is satisfied that the award of a lump sum of Rs 4 lakh as interim maintenance cannot be sustained,” the court said.

As a result, the court set aside the first-instance court’s decision and ordered a reconsideration of the issue of the appropriate monthly interim benefit within one month from the date of the decision.