Additional Sessions Court Enhances Interim Maintenance to Rs. 35,000 – Advocate Aditya Pratap’s Victory for the Wife

Case Background:

The Additional Sessions Judge at Greater Mumbai delivered a key judgment in a Criminal Appeal related to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The case involves an appeal filed by a wife seeking enhanced interim maintenance.

The appellant, a housewife, had been married to the respondent since April 2, 1995, and they have two children. Alleging mental and physical ill-treatment by the respondent, the appellant started living separately. Without an independent source of income, she filed an application under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 3,00,000 per month.

The trial court had directed the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 per month. Dissatisfied with the amount, the appellant filed an appeal seeking an increase in the interim maintenance amount.

Appellant’s Contentions:

Represented by Advocate Aditya Pratap, the appellant argued that:

1. The respondent is a businessman in the shipping industry and other ventures.
2. The respondent’s income is substantial, with evidence of selling ancestral properties and engaging in profitable business activities.
3. The appellant, a 61-year-old senior citizen, requires adequate financial support for nutritious food, medical care, and daily expenses.
4. The interim maintenance granted by the trial court was insufficient to cover the appellant’s basic needs, especially considering the rising cost of living and the respondent’s financial capacity.

Advocate Pratap supported his arguments with references to landmark judgments, such as:

• P.N. Elumalai vs. E. Soundaravalli: The Madras High Court stressed the necessity of timely maintenance for the dependent spouse.
• Khem Chand vs. Bhagwati and Ors.: The Delhi High Court emphasized that concealment of income does not absolve the duty to pay maintenance.
• Jaiveer Singh vs. Sunita Chaudhary: The Delhi High Court upheld the maintenance order, balancing the husband’s earning capacity and the wife’s financial needs.

These judgments underscored the argument that the trial court’s order underestimated both the appellant’s financial needs and the respondent’s ability to pay.

Respondent’s Stand:

The respondent failed to appear and contest the appeal, despite being duly served through paper publication in both English and Marathi newspapers. This absence led the case to proceed ex-parte.

Court’s Findings:

After reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Hon’ble Sessions Court observed:

1. The marriage and the children’s birth were undisputed.
2. The appellant had no independent income and required financial support.
3. The respondent’s business ventures, including East India Shipping Agency, indicated his financial capability.
4. As a senior citizen, the appellant required adequate financial support for essential needs like food, medical expenses, and daily living costs.

The court agreed with Advocate Aditya Pratap’s contention that the trial court’s maintenance order was inadequate, particularly given the respondent’s ability to pay and the appellant’s need for support.

Key Observations by the Court:

• The appellant, aged 61, requires sufficient financial support for nutritious food, medical care, and daily expenses.
• The respondent, being a businessman, has the means to pay adequate maintenance.
• The maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000 granted by the trial court was insufficient, considering the appellant’s daily needs and the respondent’s income.

Hon’ble Sessions Court’s Decision:

The Hon’ble Court partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs. 35,000 per month. The key directives included:

• The respondent shall pay Rs. 35,000 per month to the appellant from the date of application (August 2020) until the disposal of the main application.
• Arrears of maintenance at the enhanced rate must be cleared by April 30, 2023.
• Future payments must be made by the 10th of each month.