INSTITUTE OF LAW

NIRMA UNIVERSITY

CE- III

CASE ANALYSIS

RAJNESH V/S NEHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2020

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9503 of 2018)

Guided By: Submitted By:

Shreya Srivastava Siddhant Sodhia

Assistant Professor 21BAL144

Institute of Law, Nirma University Akshat Jain

21BAL087
 CASE ANALYSIS

ON

RAJNESH VS NEHA

4 NOVEMBER, 2020

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2020

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9503 of 2018)

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant's wife (the respondent) has been awarded interim maintenance in the amount of
INR 15,000/- per month by the Nagpur Family Court. The appellant's kid, who lived with his
mother, was also awarded a monthly sum of INR 5,000/- for two years, followed by an increased
amount of INR 10,000/- per month. Until further orders from the court, these payments would
continue. The spouse (the appellant) in this case appealed the above decision to the Nagpur bench
of the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Family Court in
Nagpur.

The appellant took their case all the way to the Supreme Court because they did not agree with
the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench's decision upholding the Family Court's ruling in
Nagpur. The applicant subsequently took the aforementioned "interim maintenance order" to the
Supreme Court. The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that he was unable to provide
financially for the respondent since he was out of work. He also did not have any land to call his
own. He further argued that a thorough review of his 2006 tax returns did not support the family
court's decision to require him to pay the aforementioned sum in interim financial assistance.
During that period, he also looked into other business possibilities to increase his income and
hence his ability to provide for his family in the future. But it must be borne in mind that he had
serious difficulties supporting his family during that time.

The wife claimed in her rebuttal that the husband had made secret investments in real estate and
other businesses with the objective to deceive the court. This gentleman was giving his parents a
large portion of the money he made from the aforementioned investment. In addition, it was
uncovered that the husband was unwilling to return the "Stree-Dhan" that belonged to his wife,
which he had been retaining illegally. The husband is showing noncompliance with the
aforementioned judicial rulings despite the Supreme Court directives and the ongoing legal actions
pursuant to the Domestic Violence Act. Furthermore, there was a noticeable lack of trust among
the relevant parties because of the current conditions, which effectively eliminated the possibility
of reconciliation.

Following a trial, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions in this case:

• The Family Court in Nagpur's ruling was maintained by the Bombay High Court in
Nagpur.
• The spouse challenging the ruling was given a twelve-week deadline to pay the remaining
balance of INR 15000/- each month. Until the proceedings under Section 125 of the
 Criminal Procedure Code 1are finalised, he must also comply with the provisional
maintenance order imposed by the Family Court in Nagpur.
• If the appellant does not make the required amount, the court has threatened to act under
section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Family Court in Nagpur, India, or any
other appropriate legal process.
• Finally, the Family Court was ordered to wrap up the case within six months of the date
of this verdict because of the protracted nature of the proceedings.

ISSUES & POINTS OF CONSIDERATION

Specifically, the Court posed the following questions it believed needed to be answered in order
to settle future matrimonial disputes in India on the topic of maintenance jurisdiction

• The present concern is to the matter of overlapping jurisdictions within the many
maintenance laws present in the legal framework of India.
• Confusion arises as to when the maintenance amount should be considered to have begun
accruing, whether from the date of the order, the date of the application, or some later
date.
• How long should permanent alimony be awarded for, and what factors should be
considered when deciding how much permanent alimony to award?
• What criteria should be utilized to determine the quantum of maintenance?
• Whether or not it is possible to have the defence struck down as a remedy for the
respondent's failure to pay maintenance.
• The Court also issued orders regarding the following two issues, which are summarised
below:

• The payment of interim maintenance; and

• The enforcement of the maintenance order.

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

The court noted that various acts in Indian law include provisions for awarding maintenance. A
few examples are found in Sections 36 and 37 of the Special Marriage Act of 1954 ("SMA"), Section
125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 ("CrPC"), the Protection of Women from Domestic

1
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 125, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India)
Violence Act of 2005 ("D.V. Act"), Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955
("HMA"), and Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1965 ("HAMA"). The
court recognised that claims for maintenance could be made under any of these provisions, or
even under multiple statutes at once. This is due to the fact that various laws do not interact with
one another, despite often providing remedies that are slightly different from one another.

In this case, an interim maintenance was filed under section 125 of CrPC which states that-

‘Order for maintenance for wives, children and parents ’.

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority,
where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain
itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may,
upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the
maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five
hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as
the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of
a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority,
if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not
possessed of sufficient means. Explanation.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-

(a) " minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875
); is deemed not to have attained his majority;

(b) " wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her
husband and has not remarried.

(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of
the application for maintenance.2

2
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 125, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India)
Reference has also been made towards article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, which provides
that “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women
and children.”

THE USAGE AND APPLICATION OF RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

The court has attempted here to lay out some ground rules for pursuing maintenance claims when
jurisdictions overlap, bearing in mind that various statutes offer different remedies designed to
achieve various ends. After the wife's application under Section 125 languished in court for seven
years and she filed multiple applications to have it enforced, the court issued rules regarding the
filing and payment of maintenance applications.

The Court has stated that there are no limitations on pursuing maintenance through several legal
channels, despite the potential for jurisdictional conflicts. It was ruled unjust, however, to require
the spouse to pay support in each proceeding independently of the relief awarded in the prior
proceedings. Therefore, if one spouse has received maintenance through a different legal process,
that information must be disclosed to the Court by the spouse seeking support. The Court should
also consider any prior maintenance orders in an effort to modify or balance the amount of
maintenance awarded.

In light of the frequent practise of parties hiding their financial condition and the delays in legal
actions relating to interim maintenance, the Court has simplified the interim maintenance process.
In an effort to speed things up, it mandated the use of standard affidavit templates for parties to
use when disclosing their respective financial positions. Within four weeks, the respondent must
submit their financial records to the court, and within four to six months, the appropriate court
must rule on interim maintenance.

The Court acknowledged that there is no universally applicable criteria for determining
maintenance payments. It highlighted the need of striking a balance between the needs of the
spouse asking for support and the resources of the supporting spouse.

To ensure the implementation of maintenance orders, it was stipulated that an order or decree for
maintenance could be executed under the provisions of:

1. Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956

2. Section 20(6) of the Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act)

 3. Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), where relevant.

CONCLUSION

There are a number of the Court's well-reasoned rulings that are likely to last forever. The court
has dealt with a number of issues, such as how to divide up maintenance jurisdictions and when
to start paying maintenance. The court carefully and thoroughly reviewed the relevant judgements
from several Indian high courts, many of which expressed contrasting perspectives. After careful
consideration, the court established a body of principles from these rulings that are now accepted
as the country's definitive legal standards. There does not seem to be enough substance here for a
thorough study to be possible.

There is evidence to suggest that the guidelines established by this judgement will have a substantial
and positive effect on maintenance matters across the country. The endeavour described above,
also known as Rajnesh Versus Neha, will go down in history as a major factor in revamping India's
maintenance lawsuit and adjudication system. This ruling could be a watershed event in Indian
maintenance and marriage law. The aforementioned judgement clarified a number of procedural
difficulties and legal misunderstandings associated with maintenance cases in the country's
magistrate courts and family courts. The court used an interdisciplinary approach to examine the
case in light of the emphasis placed on the maintenance jurisprudence relating to section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in order to provide a comprehensive resolution rather
than simply issuing instructions regarding the implementation of that section.

The court has issued regulations that include maintenance obligations from other legislation in
addition to those already in existence and applied by the parties. The court was informed of prior
events that are analogous to the present case. The court takes a comprehensive approach, analysing
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and considering provisions relating to maintenance
from other statutes such as the Special Marriage Act, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
Hindu Marriage Act, Domestic Violence Act, and other relevant statutes. Taking this method
greatly enhances the usefulness of the suggestions made.

Anyone who has read, is reading, or will read this judgement, whether a lawyer or a layperson, will
be emboldened by the suggestive suggestions offered by the Court outlining the numerous reliefs
one can acquire under the Indian legal system when desperately in need of maintenance money.
The court also detailed the many avenues available in Indian maintenance law to those in need of
financial support, as well as the remedies available to the decree holder/applicant in the event that
the judgement debtor/non-applicant disobeys the court's maintenance instructions. The
requirement that both parties in a maintenance dispute provide straightforward affidavits of
disclosure has resolved many operational and procedural concerns. The full worth of this new
requirement, however, will only become apparent with the passage of time. The ruling was
significant in two respects, in my opinion. The establishment of these guidelines helped to
eliminate a lot of ambiguity in the law and educated individuals on their rights in regards to
maintenance and their choices in the event of a violation of the order. Legal experts in the field
will already be familiar with all the options for resolving maintenance issues, but these principles
will help laypeople, law students, interns and junior advocates get a foot in the door. The recent
attempts to overcompensate victims of biased legislation and court decisions in our country have
failed miserably. Therefore, the court's moderation is admirable.