The Delhi High Court recently remanded an application for interim maintenance back to a family court, and directed it to pass a detailed and reasoned order in the matter (Sheetal Joshan Roy v. Soumyajit Roy)..A Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh found that a judgment of the family court granting maintenance of ₹30,000 per month to the wife and ₹15,000 each to the two minor children failed to meet the test of adjudication..The Division Bench acknowledged that there can be no strait jacket formula for deciding the amount of maintenance and that several factors are to be considered for the same. However, it was stressed that the amount must be realistic and reasonable.“The objective of granting interim or permanent maintenance to a spouse is to ensure that they are not reduced to financial constraints, due to the failure of their marriage," reasoned the Court..While conveying the purpose of “adjudication”, the Court laid down the following parameters of what an order, judgment or decree is to include:a) see and appreciate the pleadings of the parties;(b) see and appreciate the supporting documents;(c) analyse the material before the Court;(d) apply the principles of law and the precedents and thereafter give a reasoned and speaking order which effectively adjudicates the pending disputes..The Court explained that the purpose of adjudication is to ensure that the parties are familiarised with the material, reasoning and thought process which led to the passing of the order. "After an order is passed, it should be clear as to what were the facts of the case, what was controversy that arose in the matter and ultimately the reasoning due to which the court came to its conclusion and decision," the Court added..Finding that these parameters were not met by the family court, the matter was remanded back. In the interim, the Bench directed continuance of payment of maintenance and school fees of the children. The family court was also directed to expedite the hearing in the case..Advocate Debopriyo Moulik appeared for the appellant/wife. The respondent/husband was represented by Advocate Rajesh Bhatia..[Read order here]
