Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70100
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
S. Bakthavatchalu – Appellant
Versus
Vasuki – Respondent
CRP.No.428 of 2025 | DVC No.259 of 2017 | Crl.A. No.228 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.V. Seshachari
For the Respondents: Inthu Karunakaran
An award of monetary maintenance under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 requires a prerequisite finding of domestic violence and proof that the aggrieved party lacks sufficient personal financial means to maintain themselves.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 20 - Monetary relief - Maintenance - Entitlement - Where the Trial Court found no evidence of domestic violence, the granting of maintenance under the Act without such a finding is legally unsustainable - Maintenance under this Act is contingent upon proof of domestic violence and the financial necessity of the aggrieved party.
(B) Financial Capacity - The court held that where a party possesses independent financial resources, including a stable pension and additional rental income, they are not entitled to claim maintenance under the Act - Mechanical award of maintenance without assessing financial capacity is improper.
Facts of the case:
The husband challenged an order awarding maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month in Domestic Violence Proceedings, despite the Magistrate having rejected all allegations of cruelty and dismissed other reliefs sought by the wife. The wife, a pensioner, was found to have sufficient independent income.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that monetary relief under Section 20 of the DV Act requires a prerequisite finding that domestic violence has occurred. Since the allegations were dismissed and the wife was found financially capable, the maintenance award was set aside.
Issues: Whether maintenance can be awarded under Section 20 of the DV Act in the absence of a finding of domestic violence and whether a financially self-sufficient spouse is entitled to maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: Maintenance under Section 20 of the DV Act is intended to mitigate losses resulting from domestic violence; without a finding of such violence and proof of financial necessity, the grant of maintenance is unjustified and contrary to the Act's objective.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition challenging maintenance arrears and family background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the interpretation of section 20 of the dv act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. necessity of establishing domestic violence before granting monetary relief under the dv act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. assessment of financial capacity and self-sufficiency in maintenance claims. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. final conclusion setting aside the maintenance order due to lack of necessity. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment dated 29.10.2024 passed in Crl.A. No.228 of 2023 by the learned XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai confirming the order dated 30.08.2022 by the learned Additional Mahila, Magisterial Level, Egmore, Chennai in DVC No.259 of 2017.
**********
ORDER
The husband aggrieved by the order passed in DVC No.259 of 2017 directing payment of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, which order came to be confirmed in Crl.A. No.228 of 2013, is the revision petitioner.
2. I have heard Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Inthu Karunakaran, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent/wife had initiated domestic violence proceedings before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore in DVC. No.259 of 2017, not only against the revision petitioner but also against his two sisters. Though the allegations were found to be not proved and the Magistrate, proceeding to dismiss all other reliefs sought for by the respondent/wife, the Magistrate has erroneously proceeded to award maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the respondent/wife. He would further state that the Appellate Court also has erroneously confirmed the said order, without taking into consideration the several contentions that were advanced by the revision petitioner.
4. Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the petitioner and the respondent admittedly being husband and wife are aged 75 and 77 respectively, the wife being two years elder to the husband. They are blessed with two sons who were reasonably well settled in life, one having been born in 1984 and the other being born in 1987. Admittedly, the respondent/wife was working in the Department of Economic and Statistic and post retirement, the wife is getting substantial pension. Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would further state that the husband also retired from BSNL and he is also entitled to pension, but however, the respondent is getting a higher pension amount than the petitioner. He would also point out that the petitioner had to suffer an open-heart bypass surgery and has been finding it difficult to be make both ends meet. He would further contend that the sons are taking good care of the respondent and there was absolutely no necessity for the Courts below to award maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month.
5. As regards the reference to the voluntary payment of Rs.10,000/- being made by the petitioner Mr.M.V.Seshachari, would contend that was a period when the second petitioner was studying and only in order to support his education, the amount was being paid to the respondent and not towards maintenance of the respondent/wife. She also owns immovable property from which substantial rental income is also accruing from the petitioner. Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel for the petitioner would also take me through the bank statements with regard to the income and expenditure of the parties to fortify his contentions that the respondent is leading a lavish lifestyle and she does not require any maintenance amount and he would therefore pray for the revision being allowed. He would rely on the following two judgments in support of his contentions:
(i) Ashok Subramaniam Vs. C.Srividhya , rep
