Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4418
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J
REKHA SACHIN CHAUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
SACHIN NATHURAM CHAUDHARY AND ANR. – Respondent
REVN 409 / 2023
Mr. Prashant Aher, Mr. Abhay Singh and Ms. Vipul Patil for the applicant. Mr. Mohammad Shine and Ms. Drishti Singh for respondent No.1. Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP for the respondent-State.
Domestic violence includes economic abuse; interim maintenance should reflect the applicant's standard of living, not denied based on evidentiary requirements.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 23 - Interim maintenance - Applicant's claim for interim maintenance rejected by Metropolitan Magistrate and Sessions Judge - Court found prima facie case of domestic violence established, including economic abuse - Applicant entitled to maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month, with Rs.50,000/- already being paid - Orders of lower courts quashed. (Paras 2, 3, 13, 24, 25)
(B) Domestic Violence - Definition and scope - Domestic violence includes not only physical and sexual abuse but also economic abuse - Allegations of character assassination and surveillance constitute domestic violence under Section 3 of the DV Act. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The applicant filed for interim maintenance under the DV Act after alleging domestic violence, which was initially rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Sessions Court later granted interim maintenance, which was challenged and subsequently remanded. The applicant claimed economic abuse and suppression of income by the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant had made a prima facie case of domestic violence and economic abuse, warranting interim maintenance. The respondent's income was deemed to be suppressed, and the applicant was entitled to maintain her standard of living.
Issues: The main issues were whether a prima facie case of domestic violence was established and the appropriate quantum of interim maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the expansive definition of domestic violence under the DV Act includes economic abuse, and that interim relief should not be denied based on the need for evidence at this stage. The applicant is entitled to maintenance that reflects her standard of living.
Result: Revision application succeeds; orders of lower courts quashed and interim maintenance granted.
Judgment :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent taken up for final hearing.
2. By this revision, the applicant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 15th July 2023 passed by the Sessions Judge and the order dated 31st October 2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the applicant’s claim for interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [for short, “the DV Act”].
3. Facts of the case are that the applicant filed application under section 12 of the DV Act seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 and interim reliefs in terms of the prayers thereof under Section 23 of D.V. Act. The application came to be resisted by respondent no.1 by filing reply dated 3rd February 2018. Vide order dated 31st October 2018, the Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the application. As against the rejection, applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2018 before the Sessions Court, which came to be allowed by the Sessions Court by its judgment and order dated 2nd June 2022 granting interim maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of filing of complaint. The order granting maintenance was challenged by respondent no.1 before this Court by filing Revision Application No. 423 of 2022 wherein this Court by order dated 13th April 2023 remanded the matter to the Sessions Judge after quashing the order dated 2nd June 2022. The Sessions Judge after re-hearing the parties, dismissed the Appeal by its judgment and order dated 15th July 2023 resulting into confirming the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 13th October 2018.
4. During the pendency of aforesaid proceedings, the applicant preferred a petition before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai for restitution of conjugal rights being Petition No.A-1424 of 2016 and Petition No.D-85 of 2016 for the custody of children whereas respondent no.1 filed a petition for divorce being Petition No.A- 2201 of 2016. In the divorce petition filed by respondent no.1, the Applicant herein filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 seeking interim maintenance which came to be allowed by the Family Court by its order dated 19th July 2019 and a sum of Rs.1 lakh per month was granted as interim maintenance. Respondent no.1 challenged the grant of interim maintenance before this Court and this Court by order dated 18th November 2021 admitted the petition and stayed further proceeding before the Family Court subject to respondent no.1 depositing a sum of Rs.15 lakh towards the arrears of maintenance in the Family Court and further direction was given to respondent no.1 to continue to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month.
5. Heard Mr. Aher, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Shine, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1.
6. Mr. Aher, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the afÏdavit of disclosures filed by the respondent no.1 would indicate that respondent no.1 has suppressed his actual income. He submits that the Courts rejected the interim relief for the reason that the allegations and counter allegations are required to be proved by leading evidence. He submits that as regards the income of respondent no.1, the Sessions Judge held that unless the documents are proved by cogent evidence, it cannot be concluded that income of respondent no.1 is Rs.30 lakh as contended by the applicant. He submits that the Sessions Judge also took into consideration the fact that Family Court had awarded maintenance of Rs.1 lakh per month and failed to consider that by the order of this Court, respondent no.1 had been directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance. He submits that there is no discussion on the afÏdavit of disclosures filed by respondent no.1 and as such the income of respondent no.1 has not been considered. He submits that considering the standard of living and high income of respondent no.1, the applicant is entitled to th
