The Supreme Court recently prioritized the maintenance rights of a man’s wife and children over creditors’ claims in recovery proceedings, emphasizing that the right to maintenance is equivalent to a fundamental right. The Court held that such rights take precedence over statutory rights under business laws, including those of creditors.
“A person’s right to maintenance is integral to their right to sustenance. This right is a subset of the right to dignity and a dignified life, both of which stem from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In this context, the right to maintenance is equivalent to a fundamental right and will override statutory rights granted to financial creditors, secured creditors, operational creditors, or similar claimants under laws such as the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, or the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,” stated a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Court directed that arrears of maintenance payable to the wife and children would have a preferential claim over the appellant-husband’s assets, superseding the rights of secured creditors or other claimants in recovery proceedings. It also instructed relevant forums to ensure that arrears of maintenance are released promptly to the respondents, barring any objections or claims from creditors.
Further, the Court stated that if the appellant fails to clear the arrears, the Family Court should take coercive measures, including auctioning his immovable assets.
Initially, a Family Court had awarded maintenance of ₹6,000 per month to the wife and ₹3,000 per month to each child. The Gujarat High Court, however, enhanced the amounts, granting ₹1 lakh per month to the wife and ₹50,000 per month to each child, noting the appellant’s substantial business interests, including ownership of a diamond factory. The High Court also drew an adverse inference from the appellant’s failure to submit income-tax documents.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant produced his income-tax returns and argued financial incapacity to pay the enhanced amounts. In 2022, the Court issued interim orders, reducing maintenance to ₹50,000 per month for the wife and ₹25,000 per month for each child, pending a final decision.
Acknowledging the appellant’s claims of business losses but noting that such matters involve factual assessments, the Supreme Court concluded that the interim maintenance amounts set in 2022 were fair and sufficient for the respondents’ sustenance. It upheld the High Court’s higher maintenance rate only up to the date of its judgment.
The Supreme Court directed the appellant to pay arrears within three months, specifying that arrears calculated at the enhanced rates awarded by the High Court would apply only up to the date of the High Court order.
Case Title: Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 5148-5149 of 2024
