The necessity for parties to place on record affidavits and material to assist the court in arriving at a justifiable figure towards interim maintenance.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - By this petition, the petitioner has challenged concurrent orders passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Court under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. The respondent filed an affidavit in form III claiming interim maintenance from the petitioner. She claimed that there was a religious marriage between the two and that in terms of the requirements of law, the petitioner had co-operated at the stage of first signature, but at the stage when second signature was to be appended to signify the marriage between the parties, he had refused to do so. This was one of the grounds taken by the respondent while initiating proceedings under the aforesaid Act.

3. The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent was marked as Exh.C1, wherein she claimed specific amounts towards interim maintenance under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner filed his reply and denied the claims of the respondent. By order dated 15.4.2019, the Magistrate rendered prima facie finding of domestic relationship between the parties and thereupon held that the prayer for interim monetary relief made on behalf of the respondent deserved to be partly allowed. The Magistrate directed that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent till the proceedings were pending under the aforesaid Act.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 29 of the aforesaid Act before the Sessions Court. By judgment and order dated 17.3.2021, the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the order passed by the Magistrate.

5. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the affidavit in form III filed on behalf of the respondent would show that it was not in the form of an application and that it was merely in the format under the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act. It was submitted that the affidavit ought to have been supporting an application for grant of such interim reliefs. The application on record was nothing but the main application filed under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act, seeking reliefs under various heads. It was submitted that even in the said application the amounts separately claimed on behalf of the respondent did not add up to Rs.17000/- towards interim maintenance as claimed by the respondent.

6. Apart from this, it was submitted that a perusal of the impugned order would show that prima facie finding regarding domestic relationship was not supported by proper reasoning and that the Magistrate had found that the respondent failed to justify her needs to the tune of Rs.17,000/- It was also found that she had failed to place on record any documentary proof about the income of the petitioner. It was a matter of the conjecture on the part of the Magistrate to hold that the petitioner earned Rs.32,000/- per month and on that basis the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was fixed towards interim maintenance. There was no inquiry as to what were the needs of the respondent and there was no inquiry into the quantum of the maintenance that could justify her needs. The Sessions Court failed to appreciate the error committed by the Magistrate. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing of the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders deserved to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, Mr. S. Keny, learned counsel appearing for the respondent invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vishal Damodar Patil Vs. Vishaka Vishal Patil, 2009 Cri. L. J. 107, wherein it was categorically held that an affidavit filed in form III appended to the Rules was sufficient for the Magistrate to exercise jurisdiction to consider the prayer of the parties for grant of interim relief and that a separate application was not required. On this basis, it was submitted that there was no substance in the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. On the question of quant