Landmark Judgment on Maintenance Rights: Reema Salkan vs. Sumer Singh Salkan

The case of Reema Salkan vs. Sumer Singh Salkan brought before the Supreme Court of India revolved around the issue of maintenance rights of a wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court’s ruling on September 25, 2018, significantly impacted how maintenance disputes are handled, especially in cases where one spouse resides abroad. The judgment provided clarity on the quantum of maintenance and the responsibilities of a husband towards his wife.

Background of the Case

Reema Salkan and Sumer Singh Salkan were married on March 24, 2002, as per Hindu rites. Sumer Singh was a permanent resident of Canada, and he had assured Reema that he would take her to Canada on a tourist visa after marriage. However, their relationship soon became strained, and Sumer Singh returned to Canada without making any arrangements for his wife’s visa. He even went to the extent of informing the Canadian Immigration Department not to issue a visa to her.

Left behind in India, Reema filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws before the Women Cell. Subsequently, on July 16, 2003, she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 2 lakh per month from her husband.

Legal Proceedings

The case saw multiple rounds of litigation over more than a decade:

• The Family Court in Delhi initially fixed an interim maintenance amount.
• The interim maintenance issue reached the Supreme Court, which, on October 28, 2014, directed the husband to pay Rs. 20,000 per month to Reema as interim maintenance.
• On January 28, 2015, the Family Court finally ruled that Reema was entitled to Rs. 10,000 per month from July 17, 2003, to December 8, 2010, but denied any maintenance thereafter.
• Reema challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court, which modified the Family Court’s order and directed Sumer Singh to pay Rs. 9,000 per month from December 9, 2010, onwards.
• Unsatisfied with the quantum, Reema approached the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Reema Salkan)

Reema Salkan challenged the quantum of maintenance and argued that:

• The Supreme Court had already ordered interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month in 2014, and since there had been no change in circumstances, this amount should not be reduced.
• Her husband owned significant assets, including 26.50 bighas of agricultural land in Meerut, UP.
• Sumer Singh had an MBA from Kentucky University, USA, and had worked in the USA, Dubai, and Canada for nearly 20 years, making it unlikely that he was unemployed as he claimed.
• His last disclosed salary in 2010 was CAD $48,372.34 per year, equivalent to around Rs. 21,28,368 annually at the exchange rate then.
• Even with a modest increase of 5% per year, his estimated monthly salary by 2018 would be around Rs. 2.5 lakh, plus agricultural income, making him financially capable of providing a higher maintenance amount.

Arguments of the Respondent (Sumer Singh Salkan)

Sumer Singh defended the lower maintenance amount, arguing that:

• He had resigned from his job in Canada in November 2010 and had been unemployed since then.
• The Family Court had correctly observed that Reema was well-educated and capable of earning on her own.
• Reema had filed multiple cases against him, including allegations against his family members, which showed her vindictive approach.
• Maintenance should not be a means to enrich the wife but only to support her basic needs.
• He questioned why Reema had made no effort to find employment despite her educational qualifications.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court critically examined the reasoning behind the lower courts’ maintenance awards and noted several important aspects:

• The Family Court and the High Court had already determined that Reema was unemployed and financially dependent on her husband.
• Sumer Singh had failed to provide any proof of his unemployment and had not disclosed his assets properly.
• The High Court’s decision to assume Delhi minimum wage as a benchmark for determining maintenance was incorrect.
• Courts must consider the living standard of the husband when determining maintenance, rather than assuming the lowest possible income level.
• “The husband being an able-bodied person is duty-bound to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself under the personal law arising out of the marital status and is not under a contractual obligation.”
• The Supreme Court found the High Court’s award of Rs. 9,000 per month inadequate and decided to enhance it.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• The husband must pay Rs. 20,000 per month from January 2010 onwards.
• The maintenance amount must increase to Rs. 25,000 per month from June 1, 2018, onwards.
• All arrears must be cleared within eight weeks.
• Reema had the right to withdraw the maintenance amounts deposited in court.

Impact and Legal Significance

This judgment sets a significant precedent in maintenance cases, especially in situations where:

• The husband resides abroad and tries to avoid financial obligations.
• Maintenance calculations must be based on the husband’s actual financial capacity and standard of living rather than assumed minimum wages.
• Even if a husband claims unemployment, courts can assume notional income based on qualifications and past earnings.

The ruling reaffirmed that maintenance is not a privilege but a legal right that ensures a wife’s dignity and sustenance post-separation.

Petitioner Name: Reema Salkan.
Respondent Name: Sumer Singh Salkan.
Judgment By: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 25-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Reema Salkan vs Sumer Singh Salkan Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Alimony and Maintenance
See all petitions in Property Division in Divorce Cases
See all petitions in Domestic Violence
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Divorce Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Divorce Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Divorce Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Divorce Cases Category