CPC, 1908 – Ss. 10, 13 – FOREIGN JUDGMENT – FOREIGN DIVORCE DECREE – IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN NOT A RECOGNISED GROUND – COMPETENT JURISDICTION – DECISION ON MERITS – BINDING NATURE – Y. NARASIMHA RAO PRINCIPLES APPLIED –

HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 – S. 18 – HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 – Ss. 13, 24, 25 – CrPC, 1973 – S. 125 – DIVORCED HINDU WIFE – RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE – EFFECT OF FOREIGN DIVORCE DECREE –

Husband and wife married in 1980; two sons; husband took VRS and settled in New Zealand; wife returned to India in 2008 alleging desertion and neglect and has been living separately at Visakhapatnam – wife first initiated legal proceedings for maintenance in India alleging desertion – thereafter husband filed divorce OP in Family Court, Visakhapatnam and, during pendency of Indian proceedings, independently obtained divorce from Auckland Court, New Zealand, on ground of two years’ separation / irretrievable breakdown of marriage, without disclosure of Indian proceedings either to Auckland Court or to Indian Court – no notice or legal notice prior to filing divorce proceedings; wife did not participate in foreign proceedings except sending a reply narrating that she was forced to return to India and was living separately on account of desertion – husband admitted having a second wife (Ms. Tapaswini Mahapatra) and that she had also instituted proceedings including DVC against him – wife and son (PW.1 and PW.3) spoke to desertion and to husband’s second relationship; no effective denial or suggestion in cross-examination.

Held, wife/petitioner had shown justification for separate living on account of desertion and husband’s second marriage; husband cannot take advantage of his own wrong to seek to defeat her rights. Grounds such as cruelty, desertion etc. contemplated for divorce are to be strictly construed “for that purpose alone”; even if findings in divorce proceedings may disconnect jural relationship as husband and wife, “they cannot take away the right of wife for maintenance, which is an incident follows with social institution of marriage and the marital bond. Disconnection of marital tie does not, by itself, terminate the right to maintenance, when such right is recognised by the statute.” (Para 31)

Section 18(2)(a) HAMA entitles a Hindu wife to live separately without forfeiting maintenance where husband is guilty of desertion / wilful neglect; S.18(2)(d), (e), (g) preserve her claim where he has “any other wife living”, keeps / resides with concubine, or where “there is any other cause justifying living separately”. In the present case respondent has admittedly contracted a second marriage and faces bigamy and allied proceedings; hence “right of the petitioner/wife is absolutely intact”. (Paras 27, 28, 34(4))

Even assuming that divorce had been validly granted, “even a Hindu divorced wife [is] entitled to claim maintenance against her husband, if her maintenance is not settled in terms of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act or otherwise under any law and if she is able to establish grounds contemplated under Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, subject to the limitations provided thereunder.” (Para 35(b)) Section 18 HAMA does not define “wife” so as to exclude a divorced wife; S.125 CrPC expressly defines “wife” to include a divorced wife who has not remarried; S.25 HMA itself contemplates grant of permanent alimony and maintenance “at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto” for a term not exceeding life of wife – by virtue of S.25, divorce does not extinguish right to maintenance, but rather recognises it as continuous, subject to variations on remarriage / unchastity etc. (Paras 23, 26, 28–30, 35(b))

Court emphasised that “Hindu marriage is a sacrament”; the promise before sacred fire that husband will take care of his wife is to be kept in view; legislative framework under S.125 CrPC, Ss.24 & 25 HMA, S.18 HAMA and Domestic Violence Act, though overlapping, all safeguard a woman’s right to maintenance. “Upon divorce, a husband cannot completely wash away his hands, stating that he is not responsible for the remaining part of the life of his wife, unless there are legally recognized exceptions and excusable reasons, under the statute, such as her remarriage or proven adultery etc.” (Para 31)

Accordingly held:

(a) Divorce said to have been granted by Auckland Court does not operate as a bar for the wife to claim maintenance.

(b) A Hindu divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance against her husband if no permanent alimony has been settled under S.25 HMA or otherwise, and if she establishes grounds under S.18 HAMA, including S.18(2)(g) “any other cause justifying her living separately”. (Paras 32, 35(a), (b))

CPC, 1908 – Ss. 10, 13 – FOREIGN JUDGMENT – FOREIGN DIVORCE DECREE – IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN NOT A RECOGNISED GROUND – COMPETENT JURISDICTION – DECISION ON MERITS – BINDING NATURE – Y. NARASIMHA RAO PRINCIPLES APPLIED –

Foreign divorce decree of Auckland Court relied on by husband to resist wife’s claim – detailed / full judgment not produced; only notice (Ex.A20) showing application for dissolution on ground that marriage “broke down irretrievably”; wife was not residing in Auckland at relevant time; notices sent to India and addressed to her advocate; wife did not participate in proceedings and did not “apply notice of hearing” in FB-20; respondent admitted that Registrar granted divorce basing on affidavit / materials; decree not shown to be after contest on merits.

Held, foreign judgment not of assistance and divorce not proved “as required by law”: judgment is (i) “not on merits”; (ii) mere reply by wife does not amount to voluntary and unconditional submission to jurisdiction; (iii) petitioner did not participate in proceedings; (iv) detailed order copy not filed though burden was on husband. (Para 20–21)

Further, applying S.13 CPC and principles in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, 1991 (3) SCC 451, only that Court is “of competent jurisdiction” which the law under which parties are married recognises as such; decision must (a) be on a ground available under that law, and (b) be result of contest where respondent is duly served and voluntarily and unconditionally submits – on facts, none of these conditions satisfied. Ground of irretrievable breakdown / two years’ separation is not a statutory ground under HMA; such ground can be invoked only by Supreme Court in exercise of Art.142 as explained in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 (14) SCC 231, and not by High Courts / Family Courts – as also clarified by Delhi High Court in Deepti v. Anil Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5829. Foreign decree therefore falls within S.13(a), (b), (c), (f) CPC and is not conclusive or binding in India; does not estop wife from maintaining maintenance proceedings. (Paras 18–19, 24–25, 32, 34(1)–(3), (5), (6))

CrPC, 1973 – S. 125 – “WIFE” – INCLUDES DIVORCED WIFE – MAINTENANCE – PARALLEL STATUTORY RIGHTS –

Explanation (b) to S.125 CrPC provides “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried – Court relied on this inclusive definition and corresponding definition under S.144 BNSS, 2023 to reinforce interpretation under S.18 HAMA and S.25 HMA that a divorced Hindu wife retains right to claim maintenance, subject to statutory limitations. (Paras 23, 35(b))

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – Ss. 106, 114 Ill. (g) / BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 – Ss. 106, 119(g) – BURDEN OF PROOF – ADVERSE INFERENCE – HUSBAND’S MEANS – QUANTUM OF MAINTENANCE –

Husband admitted he is a retired employee drawing pension; owns house at Lawson’s Bay Colony, Visakhapatnam, worth about Rs. 1 crore, and another property at Vepagunta (400 sq. yds., Plot No.95), which he valued at Rs.40 lakhs; he did not produce best evidence within his exclusive knowledge, i.e., bank statements, pension details, etc. – Court applied S.106 and drew adverse inference under S.114(g) Evidence Act / S.119(g) BSA that his income and means are sufficient, rejecting bare oral plea of financial difficulty. (Paras 41–43)

FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 – Ss. 7, 10 – CPC, 1908 – S. 34 – INTEREST ON ARREARS OF MAINTENANCE – NATURE OF DECREE – FAMILY COURT AS CIVIL COURT –

Proceedings under S.18 HAMA before Family Court are civil in nature; by virtue of S.10(1) Family Courts Act, CPC applies and Family Court is deemed a Civil Court for such proceedings – Decree for maintenance is a “money decree”; S.34 CPC therefore applies – Pre-suit interest governed by contract; pendente lite interest discretionary; post-decretal interest generally capped at 6% p.a. (where not a commercial transaction) and intended to ensure prompt payment – Here, Court directed that arrears of maintenance shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from date of judgment till date of deposit or realisation, if not paid within three months. (Paras 46–49, 50[ii])

MAINTENANCE – QUANTUM – FACTORS – PARTLY REDUCED –

Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha, 2021 (2) SCC 324, and Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, (2025) 3 SCC 686, Court reiterated that quantum of maintenance depends on (i) status of parties; (ii) reasonable needs of wife and dependants; (iii) qualifications and employment; (iv) independent income and assets; (v) standard of living in matrimonial home; (vi) sacrifices made for family; (vii) financial capacity / obligations of husband, etc. – On facts, considering long duration of marriage, age of parties, husband’s pension, ownership of valuable immovable properties and absence of full disclosure by husband, entitlement of wife for maintenance upheld – however, quantum slightly moderated:

• Monthly maintenance from Rs.15,000/- p.m. reduced to Rs.12,000/- p.m. from date of petition (07-04-2011);

• Past maintenance from Aug. 2008 to 06-04-2011 reduced from Rs.10,000/- p.m. to Rs.8,000/- p.m.;

• Entire arrears to be paid within three months, failing which arrears to carry interest @ 6% p.a. from date of judgment till payment. (Paras 36–45, 50[i]–[ii])

Appeal partly allowed; decree for maintenance confirmed with modification of quantum and with direction as to time for payment and interest; no order as to costs. (Para 50)