Here’s why the Supreme Court has reduced a man’s maintenance to his ex-wife

Going by Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Supreme Court has passed a judgment reducing the maintenance payable by a man to his ex-wife, because of a change in circumstances..A Bench of Justices R Banumathi and M Shantanagoudar ruled that since the appellant husband got re-married and had a child, he was liable to pay a lesser sum of maintenance to his ex-wife..The case has its genesis in 1996, when the respondent wife refused to go back to her matrimonial home after the birth of her child. When all else failed, the appellant husband filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the District Judge, Burdwan, who passed a decree in his favour in 2000..Meanwhile, the respondent wife then filed FIRs under sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and his parents. She also filed a suit for maintenance for herself and her then minor son, and appealed against the district judge’s order in the Calcutta High Court. When things did not work out between the couple, the High Court allowed the respondent wife’s appeal..Ultimately, a decree of judicial separation was passed by the District Judge, Hooghly, who also directed the appellant to pay a permanent alimony of Rs. 2000 per month to the respondent and Rs. 2500 to their son. The total sum of permanent alimony would then be increased to Rs. 8000, and then Rs. 16,000 per month. Then, in a later order, the High Court would enhance the amount payable to Rs. 23,000 a month. It was against this order that the appellant approached the Supreme Court..Advocate Piyush Roy, appearing for the appellant, claimed that the respondent was a qualified beautician and montessori teacher and earned Rs.30,000 per month and that the son had attained eighteen years of age. Hence, he argued, the enhanced maintenance amount of Rs.23,000 per month was on the higher side..The Bench held that as per Section 25(2), the court is empowered to modify the amount of maintenance payable, if it is convinced that there has been a change of circumstances. Section 25 (2) reads:.“If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.”.Referring to the apex court’s decision in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari and Anr., the Bench held that the appellant was liable to pay 25% of his salary as maintenance, and that the High Court was, therefore, justified in increasing the maintenance accordingly..“As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant-husband was getting a net salary of Rs.63,842/- after deduction of Rs.24,000/- on account of GPF and Rs.12,000/- towards income-tax. In February, 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs.95,527/… Since in February, 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs. 95,000/- per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount…”.Moreover, the court did not lay down any “benchmark” as such for the amount payable..“The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors.”.And going by this rationale, the Court deemed it fit to reduce the maintenance, in light of the fact that the appellant had remarried and had a child out of the new marriage..“However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs.23,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife and son.”.Read the judgment: