+

Delhi High Court: Overlapping Jurisdiction To Grant Maintenance Under Different Legislations leads To Conflicting Orders, ‘Forum Shopping’

The Delhi High Court in the case ABC v. XYZ observed and has stated that there is an overlapping of jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance under various enactments which leads to conflicting judgments or orders at different stages between the parties. The Division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna […]

The Delhi High Court in the case ABC v. XYZ observed and has stated that there is an overlapping of jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance under various enactments which leads to conflicting judgments or orders at different stages between the parties.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in the case observed that such conflicting Orders, in the similar facts and without any change in circumstances, under overlapping jurisdiction of different Acts, creates a sense of judicial impropriety and forum shopping, which may not be conducive to the majesty of the Courts.
The bench in the case observed and has stated that so long as the facts of a case are identical, maintenance granted by one Court essentially must be adopted by the other Court. The court stated that if there are additional factors or varying circumstances, especially under the DV Act, 2005 which encompasses many more heads for granting monetary relief as compared to the interim maintenance under other statutes, thus, the court may grant additional amount of maintenance in view of the different heads, but not without considering the maintenance already granted in the earlier proceedings by another Court of competent jurisdiction. Adding to it, the court stated that once the permanent alimony has been granted under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the same cannot be and should not be varied or modified by subsequent interim maintenance orders, and party should approach the same Court which has granted permanent alimony for seeking modification or variation in the light of the subsequent circumstances.
In the present case, the court was dealing with the petition moved by a husband challenging a family court order vide which he was directed to pay monthly maintenance for an amount of Rs. 30,000 to the wife under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The court observed that the parties got married in 2011 and a boy was worn in 2014 and they have been living separately since 2016.
Therefore, the husband moved the petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty by her.
However, the wife has also filed the case against the husband under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the interim maintenance to her was declined by observing that she was a Post-graduate in Hindi and well qualified to meet her ends.
The court allowed the monthly maintenance for an amount of Rs. 15,000 for the minor child.
Further, the court stated that it was a case where the lady was not only educated and had a capacity to earn, but she was also having an independent income and had been earning by doing business.
Adding to it, the court stated that it is the known fact that in the matters of interim maintenance, neither party discloses truthfully their actual source of income, leaving the Court to do some guess work.
It has also been noted by the said court that it was only a case of interim maintenance, thus, the court found that the wife had been earning, though intermittently and, therefore, she was not entitled to interim maintenance.
The court stated that it cannot be overlooked that she is maintaining the child exclusively who is now about 9 years old and is studying in Delhi Public School.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case modified the order of interim maintenance and has granted an amount of Rs. 20,000 monthly maintenances of the child. Accordingly, the court partly allowed the appeal.

Tags: