IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that economic abuse constitutes domestic violence under the DV Act, and that interim relief can be granted based on a prima facie case rather than requiring conclusive evidence.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The marriage of the petitioner-Wife and the respondent no.1- husband was solemnized on 22/12/2017. On 26/4/2018, the couple went to United States of America(USA).

2. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that while in USA, there arose some dispute between the couple at a Halloween party on 30/10/2020. It is alleged by the wife that one of respondent no.1's friend misbehaved with her. It is alleged that on 31/3/2023, the petitioner on her own left the matrimonial house in USA and started residing separately in an Apartment. It is the husband's case that the deposit and rent was paid by him. On 25/8/2021, the petitioner left USA and came to Goa. There were some settlement talks for a divorce by mutual consent. The same did not materialise as according to the respondents, the demand of the petitioner was exorbitant.

3. The petitioner approached the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa on 6/12/2021 by filing proceedings under Ss. 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( hereinafter referred to as "said DV Act'' for short). An application seeking interim relief under Sec. 23 of the DV Act was filed. The trial Court was of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for interim order of maintenance. The petitioner's challenge to the order passed by the trial Court failed before the Appellate Court. The concurrent orders passed by the Courts below denying interim relief to the petitioner are challenged in this petition.

4. The Appellate Court was of the opinion that merely because the petitioner is stating that there is domestic violence cannot be accepted as a gospel truth and the same has to be established by leading evidence. The Appellate Court further held that the petitioner failed to prove prima facie case that she was subjected to domestic violence. Further according to the Appellate Court, granting the interim relief would amount to virtually allowing the complaint of the petitioner, which is not be permissible. In paragraph 17, the Appellate Court records thus:-

"Perused the case papers produced by the applicant. It is the case of the applicant that respondent no.1 was not supporting her financially whereas it is a case of respondent no.1 that he was giving all financial assistance to the applicant. Here the point has to be decided whether the respondent no.1 was financially assisting or not on merits. Prima facie there is nothing to say that there was financial abuse. Hence point is answered in negative."

5. Thus the Appellate Court was of the opinion that whether respondent no.1 was financially assisting the petitioner or not is a point to the decided on merits. The Appellate Court proceeds on the footing that there was nothing on record to show that there was financial abuse.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the Courts below in the teeth of the provisions of DV Act and therefore calls for interference.

7. Mr. Kapse, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, invited my attention to the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and submitted that there is no material on record to establish that the respondent no.1 subjected the petitioner to any domestic violence. It is his case that the petitioner was always treated with respect and on her own volition left USA and came back to India. Learned counsel for the respondents argued in support of the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondents, on instructions, without prejudice to the rights and contention of the respondents even in this petition, voluntarily submitted that as a grace the respondent no.1 is willing to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.50, 000.00 per month during the pendency of the proceedings and subject to the final order that may be passed by the trial Court and even willing to pay to the petitioner the arrears at the rate of Rs.50, 000.00 per month from the date of the interim application filed before the trial Court. Learned counsel