Disability and Inpatient Medical Costs of Octogenarian Spouse Warrant Reduction of Interim Maintenance Quantum

The petitioner (husband), aged 83, and respondent (wife), aged 67, were married on July 28, 2010, and separated in January 2015.

The petitioner filed for divorce (M.C. No. 773/2021), during which the respondent filed I.A. No. 3 seeking interim maintenance under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

On September 20, 2025, the Family Court awarded the respondent Rs. 20,000 per month and Rs. 30,000 in litigation expenses.

The petitioner challenged this order, contending that the Family Court made clerical errors regarding names/gender of children and failed to account for his advanced age and high medical costs, noting his status as an immobile inpatient in a neuro-rehabilitation center since May 2024.

1. Whether clerical or factual oversights regarding names and gender of children in an interim order invalidate the substantive relief granted.

2. Whether the quantum of interim maintenance awarded was excessive given the petitioner's advanced age, chronic illness, and documented medical liabilities.

Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, regarding interim maintenance and litigation expenses.

Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for the rectification of clerical or arithmetical mistakes by the trial court.

Principles of equity established in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, which mandates that courts consider factors such as serious disability or ill-health of a spouse requiring constant care and recurrent expenditure.

The High Court observed that while the Family Court relied on the petitioner’s past income tax records (2020-2022), it failed to properly weight his current circumstances as an 83-year-old inpatient with significant medical debts.

The Court held that under the Rajnesh v. Neha framework, the petitioner’s health status is a "mandatory factor" requiring a realistic adjustment of the award.

Regarding the procedural errors in the Family Court's order (misnaming the respondent and misidentifying the gender of the children), the Court determined these did not invalidate the order but should be corrected via a Section 152 CPC application.

Balancing the respondent's needs in Bengaluru against the petitioner's medical liabilities, the Court found the original sum of Rs. 20,000 to be oppressive and justified a reduction.

The Court partly allowed the writ petition, directed the petitioner to clear arrears within eight weeks, and granted liberty to the parties to seek rectification of clerical errors before the trial court.