लव ओं मत्रिमोनिअल दिस्पुतेस

PADMJI SHARMA V/S. RATAN LAL SHARMA;
AIR 2000 SC 1398

Maintenance- Defined-

Mainentance has not been defined in the Act. We can therefore, go to Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 ( For short the `Maintenance Act') to understand the meaning of the maintenance. In clause (b) of Section 3 of this Act "maintenance includes (i) and in all cases, provisions for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment; .....


Hindu Marraiage Act- Among all types of misfortunes like death, disease,factual and jural separation, the most important is divorce. The concept of Divorce is as old as the discontent and rift cropping up in marriages. According to Letourneau,"Divorce as an institution is the final milestone in the process of freeing the woman from the slavery of men in marital relationship." It may be vice-versa also.


Responsibility of Grandparents and Third Parties Living in a Joint Household at Marriage Breakdown of Principal Partners
When a family is joint, united in mess and worship, living under a single roof, a variety of benefits (and of course tensions) accrue to all members of the joint family. However, when marriage between the principal partners breaks down, it is not only they but also other members of the family who suffer. For example, the grand-children will no longer have the care and company of grand-parents who will have to acquire separate accommodations or live with their son without his wife or vice versa.
Such a situation would of course not occur in India where the daughter-in-law would usually be the one who will be 'kicked out' of the ancestral home. But overseas, the situation is reversed; the older folks would usually be living in their son's (or daughter's) house and his/her spouse. In the hypothetical situation detailed earlier in this paper, we might wish to consider the situation of man's parents who have been living with their son and his wife; the later having supported them for most of her married life.
Since the husband's parents have been living the married couple, say for 10-20 years, during which time they have made little financial contribution to the family's household expenses, but have certainly cost one of the spouses (in this case, the wife) substantial expenses for boarding and lodging them for such a long period of time. Hence the wife has suffered significant depletion of her financial resources to support two extra adults who have in the meanwhile, during their stay with the married couple, cumulated significant savings through employment and government benefits.
The question being asked here is this: Since the older folks are members of the husband's family, are there any legal grounds or precedents to add their assets to the husband's NFP to equalize the net worth of the divorcing couple?
Unfortunately there is no reported case on this subject as far as I know, but a case is currently proceeding through Ontario courts which might be of some relevance here. In this case, a daughter-in-law is suing her parents-in-law for child support since they had previously shown filial interest in the grandchild, and the old folks had been a part of the (joint) family. The divorcing wife's husband in this case is unable to make any child support payments (presumably he is unemployed) but his parents are financially independent.
If the woman in this case prevails, then surely the wider family (members of the joint family, living with the married couple in the same household, and having been supported by the couple during earlier times) could be regarded as a legitimate target in calculating the assets of one or the other spouse.
But, the woman in this case may have another avenue open for her to consider, i.e., of constructive trust and undue enrichment. If it can be shown that the woman have served her in-laws in the hope that she had indeed treated them as her parents during her matrimonial life from whom she expected and received counsel in happy and difficult times, and that she had hoped that they would pass on their estate at their death to their son or grandchildren. It is also possible that the woman may be thinking that the moneys that they were saving by not paying any boarding or lodging expenses, was in fact being held in trust for her and her family.