Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Taron Mohan - Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Revision Petition No. 646 of 2018
Decided On : 25-01-2021
Domestic Violence Act - Interim Maintenance - Section 23, Section 25 - The court discussed the application of Section 23 and Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Act in the context of a dispute over interim maintenance. The court emphasized the importance of considering the standard of living and change in circumstances when determining maintenance under Section 25. The court also highlighted the role of the company run by the petitioner in the context of the respondent's salary and maintenance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and respondent's marriage led to a dispute over interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. The respondent, a director in the petitioner's company, sought maintenance after claiming desertion. The courts upheld the maintenance order, leading to the petitioner's challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders of the lower courts upholding the maintenance were not perverse and did not warrant interference. It emphasized the narrow scope of revisionary jurisdiction and declined to substitute its conclusion. The court also noted the petitioner's attempt to take advantage of withholding the respondent's salary.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the maintenance orders, the change in circumstances regarding the respondent's salary, and the petitioner's challenge to the orders of the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the narrow scope of revisionary jurisdiction, the importance of considering the standard of living and change in circumstances for maintenance under Section 25, and the petitioner's attempt to benefit from withholding the respondent's salary.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court declined to interfere with the maintenance orders upheld by the lower courts.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - This revision petition filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C is directed against the order dated 28.04.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket District Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.204157/2016. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 14.05.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Courts, South East, Saket, Delhi in an application titled as Gyatri Mohan v. Taron Mohan & Ors. for claiming interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act.
2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to this revision petition are:-
a) The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 15.12.2002 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
b) After marriage, the respondent/wife was inducted as a whole time Director in the company run by the petitioner/husband, namely, Mobisoft Telesolutions Pvt. Ltd.
c) The respondent/wife started living separately claiming that she was deserted by the petitioner on 20.01.2009 after which she filed an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as "The Domestic Violence Act") for seeking interim maintenance.
d) It is stated in the petition that as a Director of Mobisoft Telesolutions Pvt. Ltd. she was getting a salary of Rs.2,00,000 and after differences arose between the parties, no salary was being paid to the respondent.
e) It is stated in the petition for interim maintenance that the respondent was unable to take any job as she was continuing as a Director in the said company. It is claimed by the petitioner that since she does not have any job and is also not getting any salary from the company she is unable to maintain herself.
f) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 14.05.2011 granted a maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the complaint till the disposal of the case on merits. The said order was challenged in Criminal Appeal 75/11 filed by the petitioner before ASJ-05 South-east Saket Courts, New Delhi, and the same has been rejected by order dated 04.11.2011.
g) The respondent had approached the Company Law Board for a direction that she should be paid salary during the period she served as a Director of the company. The Company Law Board allowed the petition and directed the company i.e. Mobisoft Telesolutions Pvt. Ltd to pay the salary to the respondent from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011.
h) The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Act seeking for a modification of the order dated 14.05.2011 claiming that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011 for the reason that the respondent is now getting Rs.2,00,000/- per month as salary from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011 as directed by the Company Law Board.
i) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 29.07.2013 in CC No.426/3 rejected the application for modification on the ground that the quantum of maintenance to an estranged wife is decided keeping in mind the standard of life she was used to while living with her husband since marriage. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate observed that in the present case what was assessed was as to whether her earnings alone are sufficient to provide her the same level of comfort which she was enjoying earlier it was found that despite her earnings, her lifestyle was substantially supported by her husband while the couple was residing together. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has observed that merely because the respondent has received her salary for the period in question (i.e. from 30.09.2009 to 30.12.2011), it does not automatically disentitle her to the maintenance from the husband. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was of the opinion that while considering an application for modification under Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Act, the two factors here to be kept in mind are; firstly, t
The main legal point established is the narrow scope of revisionary jurisdiction and the importance of considering the standard of living and change in circumstances for maintenance under the Domesti....
A wife must establish a prima facie case of domestic violence to be entitled to interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, considering both parties' financial statuses.
The determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the parties and the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.
The court emphasized that the interim maintenance should be adequate, fair, and reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living of the aggrieved person. The court also highlighted the presumpt....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution and support the wife and children.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 23 of the Act No. 43 of 2005, which empowers the Magistrate to grant interim monetary relief to aggri....
The potential for earning does not preclude a spouse from claiming maintenance under the DV Act if they have no independent income sufficient for support.
The court established that the interim maintenance awarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act must address the immediate financial needs of aggrieved persons, reflecting their s....
A spouse's educational qualifications do not negate their right to interim maintenance if they lack sufficient independent income, reinforcing the provisions of the DV Act and relevant case law.
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
