- In the case of Sarita Bakshi vs State and anr. the Hon’ble Delhi HC has held that in India, the bond between siblings and their dependence on each other may not always be financial but it is expected that a brother or sister will not abandon or neglect his or her sibling in the time of need.
- The Court, thus, observed that though the divorced sister can legally and morally claim maintenance from her husband, however, the respondent brother in this case, must be spending and is expected to spend some amount for his sister on special occasions and in times of need.
- The instant revision petition was filed against the order of the lower Court, by which maintenance of Rs. 6000 was granted to the revisionist from the date of the order, after taking into account that the salary of the respondent would have to be utilised in taking take care of his father, who is 79 years old, and his divorcee sister as well. The respondent/ex-husband had remarried and had a wife and a child from that wedlock.
- The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent was directed to pay maintenance from the date of the order, but as per the mandate laid down in the case of Rajnesh vs Neha (2021) SCC he should have been directed to pay maintenance from the date of the filing of the maintenance petition.
- The Court, at the outset, referred to a catena of judgements like Bhagwan Das vs Kamla Devi 1975 CrLJ to observe that the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is consistent with the status of her marital family, neither luxurious nor penurious in comparison.
- The Court went on to observe that the respondent has a dependent father, who is 79 years old, and a divorcee sister. Even though the sister is entitled to receive maintenance from her husband, the brother cannot be a mute spectator to her misery if and when she needs any help. Thus, some provision needs to be made to the respondent’s list of expenditures to support his sibling.
- The Court also observed that it is the moral and legal duty of the respondent to look after his father in his golden years and ensure that he gets all the comfort and support that his son can provide. Even though the father of the respondent was not present in Court to ask for maintenance, there is no proof of him being financially independent and thus, it can very well be presumed that the respondent must be spending some resources towards his maintenance.
- Holding the same, the Court enhanced the maintenance granted to the petitioner from Rs.6000 to Rs.7500/- per month, from the date on which the respondent received his first enhanced salary.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
