Taking note of several instances of delay by family courts (FCs) in considering applications filed by wife seeking interim maintenance from husband under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the High Court of Karnataka has set a timeline for FCs to decide the plea, while fixing six months as the outer limit.
Though Section 24 of the Act says that application seeking maintenance should be disposed of “as far as possible” within 60 days, the High Court said that the term “as far as possible” is being interpreted that the courts could pass orders even after six months. In some cases it was two years, three years, or even four years after filing the application.
“This delay in considering those applications for maintenance would defeat the very soul of the provision which is to give succour to the wife... Merely, because the provision directs disposal of the application as far as possible within 60 days, it cannot be stretched by the courts to an extent that the wife would not see the amount of maintenance for ages,” the High Court observed.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while noticing that an FC in Bengaluru city had granted interim compensation in August, 2022, on an application filed by the wife in February, 2020, and thereby taking 30 months to decide the application.
Notice
The High Court said that the notice on the application seeking interim compensation under Section 24 of the Act should be issued immediately and notice through e-mail/WhatsApp also be valid service in the eyes of the law.
Also, the FCs should grant two months to the husband to file objections to the application filed by the wife, who also should be given two months to file statements of assets and liabilities in support of the claim, the High Court said.
Later, the FC should consider the contentions of the parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders, within four months thereafter, if not earlier, the High Court said while making it clear that the FC should refrain from granting unnecessary adjournments.
Any delay beyond six months should be only on reasons recorded in writing by the FC in the order that would be passed, the High Court said.
