Supreme Court of India has ruled that arrears of maintenance payable to a wife and children will take precedence over claims by secured creditors, operational creditors, and other financial claimants. This decision was made in the case of Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Ors., emphasizing that the right to maintenance is a subset of the fundamental right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ด๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ
The appellant-husband, a businessman who owned a diamond factory, faced a steep financial downturn due to business losses, leading to recovery proceedings against him. Despite claiming reduced income, the High Court of Gujarat had earlier directed him to pay enhanced maintenance: โน1,00,000 per month to his wife and โน50,000 per month to each of his two children. These amounts were significantly higher than the maintenance awarded by the Family Court, which had initially granted โน6,000 to the wife and โน3,000 per child.
The husband challenged the High Court’s order, citing his inability to pay due to financial hardships. However, the Supreme Court upheld the wife and children’s right to maintenance, modifying the amounts slightly but asserting that maintenance arrears must take precedence over creditor claims.
๐ฆ๐๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐’๐ ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐ฒ
• ๐ฟฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ขฬฒ ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ ฬฒ๐ผฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ: The Court held that the wife and children’s right to maintenance arises from their right to dignity and sustenance, which outweighs the statutory rights of financial creditors under laws like the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
• ๐ธฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ ฬฒ๐ณฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ: The Court noted that the wife and children, being financially dependent, require maintenance for a dignified life, even amid the husband’s financial struggles.
• ๐ฑฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ ฬฒ๐พฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ๐ฬฒ: The Court directed that arrears of maintenance must be recovered first, even from the sale of the husband’s assets, before settling claims of secured creditors or other claimants.
Sign Up on mentblue here: 
And check out each of mentblue offerings here:
In My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court delved into the interplay between the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA). The case centered on whether the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Actโwhich extends deadlines when courts are closedโapplies to the 30-day condonable period under Section 34(3) of the ACA. The appellants filed an applic...
On January 10, 2025, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi appeared virtually before a Pune court in connection with a defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The case pertains to alleged derogatory remarks made by Gandhi about the Hindutva ideologue during a speech in London in 2023.
On January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed review petitions challenging its October 2023 verdict, which declined to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. The five-judge bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, B.V. Nagarathna, P.S. Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta, considered the review pleas in chambers and found no apparent error in the original judgment, concluding that no interference was warranted.