Right to maintenance is superior to statutory claims under SARFAESI Act, IBC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that the right to maintenance is commensurate with the right to sustenance, which is an integral part of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. [Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal v. Dolly & Others].A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that the right to maintenance holds precedence over the statutory rights of financial creditors, secured creditors, operational creditors and others under laws like the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.“In a way, the right to maintenance being equivalent to a fundamental right will be superior to and have overriding effect than the statutory rights afforded to Financial Creditors, Secured Creditors, Operational Creditors or any other such claimants encompassed within the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or similar such laws,” the apex court stated. .The Court made the observations while hearing an appeal against a Gujarat High Court order granting ₹1,00,000 per month as maintenance to a woman and ₹50,000 per month to each of the two children. The High Court had overturned a family court order which had previously awarded ₹6,000 per month to the wife and ₹3,000 per month to each child.Dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that income tax returns and other evidence disproved the wife’s claims about his income. He also claimed that the wife, being self-employed, did not require maintenance..In its July 2023 order, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court's enhanced maintenance, conditional upon the appellant paying interim maintenance of ₹50,000 to the wife and ₹25,000 each to the children, along with 25% of the arrears.The Court noted that the appellant was not in a position to pay maintenance at the rate awarded by the High Court, owing to certain setbacks suffered in business.It held that the maintenance it had ordered in July 2023 was fair and just. It partially allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court’s judgment, and directed the appellant to clear arrears within three months.“Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that the tentative maintenance, as granted by us vide order dated 07.11.2022, will be just and fair, as of now, for the sustenance of the respondents."The Bench added that if the appellant fails to pay the arrears of maintenance to the respondents, the family court may take coercive action, including auctioning immovable assets, to recover the arrears..However, the Court clarified that this order did not imply that the High Court’s enhanced maintenance order was entirely erroneous. It also allowed the respondent-wife and children to approach the Court under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for a modification of the maintenance order if they could present new evidence about the appellant’s income..The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, along with Advocates Krishnagopal Abhay, Chandratanay Chaube, Pari Bharadwaj and Anita Kanung.Advocates-on-Record Samar Vijay Singh and Swati Ghildiyal, along with Advocates Sabarni Som, Keshav Mittal, Fateh Singh, Sukhdev Sharma, Abhishek Kumar Suman, Nepal Singh, Rajat Nair, Devyani Bhatt and Sneha Menon appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]