{"id":2952,"date":"2025-01-03T12:41:13","date_gmt":"2025-01-03T12:41:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=2952"},"modified":"2025-03-12T16:18:06","modified_gmt":"2025-03-12T10:48:06","slug":"neeta-rakesh-jain-v-rakesh-jeetmal-jain-2010-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/neeta-rakesh-jain-v-rakesh-jeetmal-jain-2010-case-summary\/","title":{"rendered":"Neeta Rakesh Jain v Rakesh Jeetmal Jain 2010 (Case Summary)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"2952\" class=\"elementor elementor-2952\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-917020f elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no\" data-id=\"917020f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-5aa9190\" data-id=\"5aa9190\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-0360c7f elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no\" data-id=\"0360c7f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-f71d46a\" data-id=\"f71d46a\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d818b36 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d818b36\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Neeta Rakesh Jain v Rakesh Jeetmal Jain AIR 2010 SC 3540 (Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e246dd3 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"e246dd3\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1312\" height=\"736\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-digital-illustration-of-the-indian-sup_Ry_vczPFRoqNpHrKAQi1-Q_5jP40vDuTBCsY57i2fz6vA.jpeg\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-2968\" alt=\"Neeta Rakesh Jain v Rakesh Jeetmal Jain AIR 2010 SC 3540\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-digital-illustration-of-the-indian-sup_Ry_vczPFRoqNpHrKAQi1-Q_5jP40vDuTBCsY57i2fz6vA.jpeg 1312w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-digital-illustration-of-the-indian-sup_Ry_vczPFRoqNpHrKAQi1-Q_5jP40vDuTBCsY57i2fz6vA-300x168.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-digital-illustration-of-the-indian-sup_Ry_vczPFRoqNpHrKAQi1-Q_5jP40vDuTBCsY57i2fz6vA-1024x574.jpeg 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-digital-illustration-of-the-indian-sup_Ry_vczPFRoqNpHrKAQi1-Q_5jP40vDuTBCsY57i2fz6vA-150x84.jpeg 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-digital-illustration-of-the-indian-sup_Ry_vczPFRoqNpHrKAQi1-Q_5jP40vDuTBCsY57i2fz6vA-768x431.jpeg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1312px) 100vw, 1312px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-0d9ee86 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"0d9ee86\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the question of fair interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case revolves around the financial rights of a spouse during pending divorce proceedings, calling into question the economic disclosures made by the husband and the standard of living established during the marriage.<\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/neeta-rakesh-jain-v-rakesh-jeetmal-jain-2010-case-summary\/#Facts_of_Neeta_Rakesh_Jain_v_Rakesh_Jeetmal_Jain\" >Facts of Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/neeta-rakesh-jain-v-rakesh-jeetmal-jain-2010-case-summary\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/neeta-rakesh-jain-v-rakesh-jeetmal-jain-2010-case-summary\/#Subordinate_Court_Judgment\" >Subordinate Court Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/neeta-rakesh-jain-v-rakesh-jeetmal-jain-2010-case-summary\/#Judgment_of_Neeta_Rakesh_Jain_v_Rakesh_Jeetmal_Jain\" >Judgment of Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/neeta-rakesh-jain-v-rakesh-jeetmal-jain-2010-case-summary\/#Click_here_to_Read_the_Judgment\" >Click here to Read the Judgment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Neeta_Rakesh_Jain_v_Rakesh_Jeetmal_Jain\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The parties, Neeta Rakesh Jain (wife) and Rakesh Jeetmal Jain (husband), were married on May 8, 1995.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What should be the appropriate amount of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, considering the financial capacity of both parties?<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the High Court rightly assessed the husband\u2019s income in determining interim maintenance?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subordinate_Court_Judgment\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Subordinate Court Judgment<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Family Court, Pune, granted an ex-parte divorce decree on April 7, 2005, dissolving the marriage. The wife appealed to the Bombay High Court, which stayed the ex-parte decree and restrained the husband from remarrying.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Bombay High Court fixed interim maintenance at Rs. 12,000\/- per month, based on the husband&#8217;s assertion that his income was Rs. 30,000\/- per month. The wife contested this amount, claiming it was insufficient given the husband&#8217;s qualifications and business earnings.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Neeta_Rakesh_Jain_v_Rakesh_Jeetmal_Jain\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The case primarily concerns Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for maintenance and expenses of proceedings.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must carefully examine the financial capabilities of the parties when determining interim maintenance. Given the husband\u2019s qualifications and employment history, the Court found the High Court&#8217;s reliance on his claimed income of Rs. 30,000\/- per month to be \u201cinherently improbable\u201d (Para 9). The Court underscored that interim maintenance should be based on a realistic assessment of the husband&#8217;s earning potential, which was considerably higher.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court set aside the High Court\u2019s order fixing interim maintenance at Rs. 12,000\/- per month and remanded the case for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to reassess the interim maintenance application before hearing the main appeal.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Click_here_to_Read_the_Judgment\"><\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Neela-Rakesh-Jain-v-Rakesh-Jeetmal-Jain-AIR-2010-SC-3540.pdf\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Click here to Read the Judgment<\/strong><\/span><\/a><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-8af0c99 elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"8af0c99\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Neela-Rakesh-Jain-v-Rakesh-Jeetmal-Jain-AIR-2010-SC-3540.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the question of fair interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case revolves around the financial rights of a spouse during pending divorce proceedings, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":2968,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[67,71,12],"class_list":["post-2952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-family-law","tag-hindu-marriage-act-1955","tag-maintenance","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2952","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2952"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2952\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4626,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2952\/revisions\/4626"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2968"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2952"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}