New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday laid down guidelines for interim compensation and quantum of maintenance in matrimonial cases to ensure uniformity and consistency in practice adopted by different courts.
A bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and R Subhash Reddy said directions are required to be passed to overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction and avoid conflicting orders.
The apex court issued guidelines on aspects of —Issue of overlapping jurisdiction, payment of interim maintenance, criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, date from which maintenance is to be awarded and Enforcement / Execution of orders of maintenance.
On overlapping jurisdiction, the top court directed that where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the court would consider an adjustment or set off of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding.
“It is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding. If the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding,” the bench said.
The bench directed that to avoid conflicting orders in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein.
“If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding,” the bench said.
On payment of interim maintenance, the apex court ruled that an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities annexed to the judgment should be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned family courts, district courts or magistrate courts throughout the country.
On the aspect of criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, the bench said that the concerned court shall consider the criteria enumerated in the judgment.
The apex court made it clear that the aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.
The top court pronounced its judgment in a matrimonial case from Maharashtra in which the question of maintenance of a wife and son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) had come before it. (PTI)
