Supreme Court lays down the guidelines for the determination of compensation and maintenance in the matrimonial cases. The guidelines aim to overcome issues pertaining to various aspects relating to the matrimonial cases
By: Bar and Bench Edited by: Nishtha Narayan
Supreme Court bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and R Subhash Reddy on Wednesday laid down the guidelines for determining the payment of compensation and quantum of maintenance to be paid in the matrimonial cases.
The major developments had been made in the case of Rajesh vs Neha. The concerned matrimonial case is from Maharashtra and the question of maintenance of a wife and son under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had come up in the case.
The Supreme Court observed in the case that the maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.
The court also observed the various sections pertaining to alimony in the various enactments such as The Special Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 125 of Cr.P.C, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1924, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The guidelines will bring uniformity in the practices concerning the matrimonial cases followed by the district courts, family courts, and magistrate courts throughout the country.
The Supreme Court appointed Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Anitha Shenoy as Amicus Curiae to aid in the framing of the guidelines on the payment of interim maintenance.
The guidelines will deal with the important aspects such as Payment of interim maintenance, criteria of determining quantum of maintenance, overlapping jurisdictions, date from which maintenance is to be awarded and Enforcement orders of maintenance.
The guidelines also made the position of law with regards to the issue of the overlapping jurisdiction clear. The guidelines aim to overcome the problem of conflicting orders passed by the different courts in a same matrimonial case.
Read the judgement here: