Allowed

Uma Priyadarshini S v. Suchith K Nair

Supreme Court6 Jan 20222022 INSC 172022 INSC 17

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against a High Court order denying maintenance to an employed wife and reducing child maintenance. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the family court for a fresh decision on maintenance, ordering interim payments for the child and litigation expenses.

What did the court decide?

High Court order set aside; matter remanded to family court for fresh decision; interim maintenance and educational/medical expenses fixed pending final order; litigation expenses awarded.

What the court decided

Uma Priyadarshini S versus Suchith K Nair — Maintenance and Alimony | Supreme Court (2022)

¶1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

¶2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 204-206 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 33511-33513/2018

¶4

UMA PRIYADARSHINI S. … Appellant(s)

¶5

SUCHITH K NAIR … Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T

¶6

Leave granted.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

These appeals are against a judgment and order dated 19.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 890 and 3625 of 2017 and CMP No.4366 of 2017 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶9

These Civil Revision Petitions were filed by the Appellant and the Respondent against an order dated 23.11.2016 of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in IA No. 93 of 2015 in HMOP No.368 of 2014.

¶10

By the aforesaid order, the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee disposed of the Application being IA No.93 of 2015 filed by the Appellant for maintenance for herself and her minor son born of the wedlock between the Appellant and the Respondent, inter alia, by directing the Respondent to pay the Appellant a sum Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2022.01.1216:13:42 of Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance and to pay IST Reason:

¶11

the actual educational expenses of the child.

¶12

¶13

The High Court has, by the impugned judgment and order held that the Appellant is not entitled to any maintenance as she is gainfully employed. The interim maintenance for the son has been reduced to Rs.15,000/- per month and actual educational expenses Rs.15,000/- per month for maintenance of the child is a pittance, too meagre. The impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained and is set aside.

¶14

Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, emphatically argued that the Respondent is willing to discharge and has been discharging his obligations towards his son, and has been incurring expenditure in the region of over Rs.1,00,000/- for the educational expenses of his son.

¶15

Ms. Shenoy, learned senior counsel also argued that the Respondent is a Pilot. The aviation industry has adversely been hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many commercial flights had to be grounded. The emoluments of the Pilots, which are directly linked to the number of flying hours have gone down drastically.

¶16

The issue of maintenance has to be decided afresh by the concerned court/family court in accordance with law, taking into account all relevant factors including the income of the respective spouses, the number of persons actually dependent on the spouses etc. A final decision shall be taken by the concerned court/family court as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. The parties shall make a disclosure of their income, assets, savings, etc. before the concerned court.

¶17

¶18

In the meanwhile, the respondent shall bear all educational and medical expenses of the child as per actuals. In addition, the Respondent shall pay Rs.30,000/- per month towards the expenses of the child on account of food, clothing etc. and a further sum of Rs.11,000/- per month towards house rent that is being paid by the Appellant. Needless to mention that the respective parties may apply to the court concerned in case of change of circumstances in future and/or in the interregnum.

¶19

The Respondent shall also pay a lump-sum amount of

¶20

Rs.1,00,000/- to the Appellant towards litigation expenses. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶21

………………………………………………………,J. (Indira Banerjee)

¶22

………………………………………………………,J. (J.K. Maheshwari)

¶23

New Delhi; January 06. 2022.

Uma Priyadarshini S v. Suchith K Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Uma Priyadarshini S v. Suchith K Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. versus Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd.

Malkeet Singh Gill versus the State of Chhattisgarh

Aman Sharma versus Umesh

M/S. Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. versus Vinita Mehta