Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Lata @ Sharuti & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 617 of 2019 (@ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 652 of 2019)
Decided On : 08-04-2019
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 12(1) and 20(1) – Award of maintenance – First respondent is a widow – Liability to pay maintenance fastened on appellant, who is brother of deceased spouse of first respondent – Appellant and his brother (who was spouse of first respondent and father of second respondent) carried on a joint business – Appellant resided in same household – Ultimately, whether requirements of Section 2(f), Section 2(q) and Section 2(s) are fulfilled is a matter of evidence which will be adjudicated upon at trial – At this stage, for the purpose of interim order for maintenance, there was material which justifies issuance of direction in regard to payment of maintenance – However, present order as well as orders which have been passed by courts below shall not come in way of a final adjudication on merits of complaint in accordance with law. (Paras 18 and 19)
Facts of Case:
Present appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 10 October 2018. High Court dismissed petition against judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat confirming an interim order for award of maintenance to first respondent and her minor child under provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Findings of Court:
At present stage, there are sufficient averments in complaint to sustain order for award of interim maintenance. Paragraph 10 of complaint prima facie indicates that case of complainants is that house where first respondent and her spouse resided, belong to a joint family. Appellant and his brother (who was spouse of first respondent and father of second respondent) carried on a joint business. Appellant resided in same household. Ultimately, whether requirements of Section 2(f); Section 2(q); and Section 2(s) are fulfilled is a matter of evidence which will be adjudicated upon at trial. At this stage, for the purpose of an interim order for maintenance, there was material which justifies issuance of direction in regard to payment of maintenance.
Result : Directions issued.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a dispute under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, specifically concerning the award of interim maintenance to the first respondent (a widow) and her minor child (!) (!) .
The appellant is the brother of the deceased spouse of the first respondent. The court has considered whether he can be held liable for maintenance, given that he and his deceased brother (the respondent's husband) jointly carried on a business and resided in the same household (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the liability of the appellant to pay maintenance is based on the fact that he resided in the same household and was involved in a joint business with the deceased spouse, which constitutes a domestic relationship under the law (!) (!) (!) .
The complaint details that the household where the first respondent and her deceased husband resided was part of joint family property, and the appellant's residence in the same household and participation in joint business support the finding of a domestic relationship (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that whether the specific legal requirements for liability (such as fulfilling the criteria of a domestic relationship and shared household) are met is a matter of evidence to be determined at trial. However, at this stage, there was sufficient material to justify an interim maintenance order (!) (!) .
The court confirmed that the interim order for maintenance does not preclude a final adjudication on the merits of the case, which will be conducted in accordance with law (!) .
The arrears of maintenance are to be paid within four months in equal monthly installments (!) .
The appeal was disposed of with the directions outlined, and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of accordingly (!) .
These points summarize the court’s reasoning and the legal principles applied regarding liability for maintenance in the context of domestic relationships and shared households.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 10 October 2018. The High Court dismissed a petition against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat confirming an interim order for the award of maintenance to the first respondent and her minor child under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“Act”).
3. The first respondent was married to Vijay Kumar Jindal on 12 December 2010. They have two children.
4. The first respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act inter alia for the purpose of seeking an award of maintenance. The complaint contains a recital of the fact that after her marriage, the complainant and her spouse resided at a house which constitutes ancestral Hindu Joint Family Property. She and her husband resided on the ground floor of the residential accommodation. The appellant and the deceased spouse of the first respondent jointly carried on a business of a kiryana store at Panipat from which, it has been alleged, each had an income of about Rs 30,000 per month.
5. The complaint alleges that at the death of Vijay Kumar, the first respondent was pregnant and that she gave birth to a child on 31 January 2013. The travails of the first respondent are alleged to have commenced after the death of her spouse and she was not permitted to reside in her matrimonial home.
6. The learned Trial Judge by an order dated 3 July 2015 granted monthly maintenance in the amount of Rs 4,000 to the first respondent and Rs 2,000 to the second respondent. The award of maintenance was directed against the appellant who was carrying on the above business together with the deceased spouse of the first respondent. This order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panipat dated 3 July 2015 was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 14 August 2018. The High Court, in a petition filed by the appellant, affirmed the view. Hence these proceedings came to be instituted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
7. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that there was no basis under the provisions of the Act to fasten liability on the appellant, who is the brother of the deceased spouse of the first respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the sole basis on which liability has been fastened is that the appellant and his deceased brother carried on a joint business. It was urged that this cannot furnish any lawful basis to direct the appellant to meet the award of maintenance.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied upon the averments in the complaint and submitted that at this stage, there is no reason or justification for the Court to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India particularly against an interlocutory order.
9. Section 12(1) provides that an aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act. Under the provisions of Section 20(1), the Magistrate while dealing with an application under sub- Section (1) of Section 12 is empowered to direct the respondent(s) to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence. This may include but is not limited to an order for maintenance of the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC or any other law for the time being in force.
10. The expression “respondent” is defined in Section 2(q) as follows:-
2(q) “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marri
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
