Bombay High Court Dismisses Husband's Petition Challenging Interim Maintenance to Wife Under Domestic Violence Act. Court upholds maintenance order holding that wife's earning does not absolve husband's obligation to maintain under Section 20 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 33
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Akhtar Jafar Bagwan, challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Cantonment Court, Pune, dated 27 March 2017, which directed him to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month to his wife, Respondent No. 1, and Rs. 3,000 per month towards rent, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner also challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, on 8 December 2017. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on 29 June 2014 according to Muslim rites. The respondent, a divorcee with a daughter from her first marriage, alleged that the petitioner insisted she leave her daughter in an orphanage and ill-treated her by not providing food, beating her, and stopping payment of rent and livelihood expenses. She filed an application under the DV Act seeking various reliefs. The Trial Court, after hearing both parties, granted interim maintenance. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the respondent was his second wife, she was insisting he divorce his first wife, and she was running a beauty parlour and earning well, while he had no sufficient income. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal. The High Court, after considering the submissions, found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the orders of the lower courts. The court noted that the wife is entitled to maintenance even if she is earning, as the husband's obligation to maintain arises from the marital relationship.

Headnote

A) Domestic Violence - Interim Maintenance - Section 20 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Entitlement of Wife - The wife filed an application under the DV Act alleging harassment and non-maintenance. The Trial Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 3,000 per month towards rent. The Sessions Court dismissed the husband's appeal. The High Court upheld the orders, holding that the wife is entitled to maintenance even if she is earning, as the husband's obligation to maintain arises from the marital relationship. (Paras 1-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order granting interim maintenance to the wife under the Domestic Violence Act is sustainable when the wife is earning and the husband claims no income.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition, upholding the orders of the Trial Court and Sessions Court granting interim maintenance to the wife.

Law Points

  • Interim maintenance under Domestic Violence Act
  • Entitlement of earning wife
  • Husband's obligation to maintain
  • Scope of Section 20 DV Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019:BHC-AS:23012

Criminal Writ Petition No. 207 of 2018

2019-08-05

S.S. Shinde, J.

2019:BHC-AS:23012

Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for Petitioner, Ms. Savita A. Prabhune for Respondent No. 1, Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for Respondent – State

Akhtar Jafar Bagwan

Sou. Nasim Akhtar Bhagwan, The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal Writ Petition challenging orders granting interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to quash the order of interim maintenance and dismissal of the wife's application.

Filing Reason

Petitioner aggrieved by the order of interim maintenance passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Sessions Court.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month to wife and Rs. 3,000 per month towards rent. Sessions Court dismissed the appeal.

Issues

Whether the order granting interim maintenance under the DV Act is sustainable when the wife is earning? Whether the husband's obligation to maintain is affected by the wife's income?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the wife is earning from her beauty parlour and has no right to maintenance. Petitioner claimed he has no sufficient income to pay maintenance. Respondent argued that she is unable to maintain herself and the husband is obligated to maintain her.

Ratio Decidendi

A wife is entitled to interim maintenance under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 even if she is earning, as the husband's obligation to maintain arises from the marital relationship and is not absolved by the wife's income.

Judgment Excerpts

The Trial Court after hearing both the parties passed the order directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/ per month to Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/ per month towards rent. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Trial Court, Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court at Pune. However, the said appeal was also dismissed.

Procedural History

The wife filed an application under the DV Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Cantonment Court, Camp, Pune. The Trial Court granted interim maintenance on 27 March 2017. The husband appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which dismissed the appeal on 8 December 2017. The husband then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 20
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Accused in Dacoity and Murder Case Under Section 396 IPC — Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt. The court held that the chain of circumstances, including last seen eviden...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in MPSC Scam Case on Parity with Co-Accused. Personal Secretary to Minister Entitled to Bail as Co-Accused with Similar Role Already Released by Supreme Court and High Court.