_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name: Rani Sethi v. Sunil Sethi
Case Citation: Civil Appeal no. 169/2009, decided on 31 March 2011
Relevant Sections:
Parties Involved:
Petitioner - Rani Sethi
Respondent - Sunil Sethi
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice G.S Sistani
Facts of the Case
Sunil Sethi and Rani Sethi got married on 06.12.1982. They started a business together after selling the ancestral property of the husband. But later it was run by the wife only.
Rani Sethi threw her husband out of his house with only a few clothes. Sunil Sethi filed a petition in the court of Addition District Judge to ask maintenance from his wife after their separation. The Trial Court directed the Rani Sethi (wife) to pay maintenance to her husband. The wife was supposed to pay Rs. 20,000 as expenses, Rs.10,000 as the cost of litigation, and allow a car for his use.
Rani Sethi challenged this order of Trial Court in the High Court where the decision of the Trial Court was dismissed.
Issues of the Case
Whether the wife was liable to pay maintenance to her husband?
Whether the amount fixed by the court maintainable?
Arguments of the Petitioner
Rani Sethi said she was the breadwinner of the family. She had to take care of her son and daughter. She also stated that there also were various expenses for her business.
She also had to take care of her general expenses. She also had certain medical issues because of which used to visit the doctors regularly.
Besides the husband was an able individual and could earn for himself. She also alleged that he earned money enough for himself (although she did not provide any document relating to this).
Arguments of the Respondent
The respondent stated that the business was set up after selling his ancestral property by both of them. But later the wife alone carried on and the business was making a good profit.
It was the wife who threw him out of his house with only a few pairs of clothes.
Even after that the respondent tried to start a new business but failed so he was liable to get maintenance from his wife.
Judgment of the Case
“The purpose of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is to provide support to a spouse who has no independent source of income and is incapable of maintaining himself/herself. It is trite law that the term support‟ is not to be construed in a narrow manner so as to mean bare subsistence. It means that the other spouse, who has no independent source of income, is provided with such maintenance so as to live in a similar status as was enjoyed by them in their matrimonial home. It is the purpose of Section 24 that the wife or the husband who has no sufficient source of income for her or his support or for the expenses of the proceedings must be provided with such reasonable sum that strikes equity between the spouses.”
It upheld the order of the Trial Court and the wife had to pay maintenance to the husband.
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Can a husband claim alimony?" by clicking the button below.