Girgaon Magistrate Court Awards ₹1 Lakh Interim Maintenance to Wife in Domestic Violence Case: Advocate Aditya Pratap Represents Victim of Economic Abuse

The Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Girgaum, Mumbai granted interim relief to an elderly housewife in a high-profile domestic violence case. Passing interim orders under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Learned Magistrate awarded interim maintenance of Rupees One Lakh per month to the aggrieved wife. In addition, the Court also restricted the husband from creating any third party rights on the matrimonial home. Advocate Aditya Pratap represented the aggrieved wife and argued the case before the Court of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Girgaum, Mumbai. 

Facts of the Case:

Appearing for the applicant wife, Advocate Aditya Pratap laid out the facts of the case before the Hon’ble Court. He submitted that his client had been married to her husband for over 40 years. Despite having multiple children from the marriage, the husband had inflicted enormous financial, emotional and psychological abuse upon the wife. Elaborating further upon the agonizing state of his client, Advocate Pratap submitted that her husband had ceased financial support, deprived her of access to joint accounts and confiscated her jewellery, leaving her destitute and dependent. Thus the conduct of the Respondent Husband was tantamount to inflicting “Domestic Violence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005.

Plea For Urgent Interim Maintenance under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act:

Continuing his submissions for his client, Advocate Aditya Pratap brought the attention of the Court to her precarious financial position and heavy monthly expenses. He sought to present a compelling case, highlighting the applicant wife’s lack of income, deteriorating health and financial dependence on her husband, whose vast business empire demonstrated his ability to n, there were heavy monthly expenseprovide for her. In additios on medicines, food and staff members, none of which were being shouldered by the husband.

In his submissions before the Hon’ble Court, Advocate Aditya Pratap meticulously outlined the economic abuse faced by the applicant, emphasizing the respondent’s legal duty to maintain his wife. He argued that the applicant lacked independent income and was in urgent need of financial assistance for her basic needs and medical treatments. Drawing attention to the absence of a definitive maintenance provision by the respondents, Advocate Pratap contended that the applicant’s situation constituted prima facie economic abuse, a recognized form of domestic violence under Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Oppodent and Rebuttal by Advocsing Arguments by the Responate Aditya Pratap

The respondent husband tried to oppose the wife’s arguments by claiming that she could sell her immovable property to fund her living expenses. At this point, Advocate Pratap immediately rebutted, relying on time honoured judicial precedents that the term ‘maintenance’ implies a regular source of income on a regular basis and not a one-time bonanza from sale of immovable property. Since maintenance is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same has to come in the form of regular payments from the husband. If a woman is forced to sell her property to sustain herself, it is a clear indication that she is unable to maintain herself, thereby making out a fit case for grant of interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005.

Reasoning of the Court:

After considering submissions from both sides, the Court found that the applicant wife, represented by Advocate Aditya Pratap, had established a prima facie case of economic abuse within the meaning of Section 3(d)(iv) of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005. Passing Interim Orders under Section 23 of the Act, the Court directed the respondent husband to pay Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh) per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application. Additionally, the Magistrate Court also passed interim residence orders under Section 19, restraining the respondent husband from dispossessing the applicant wife from their shared household or alienating the property during the pendency of the case.

The order marked a significant deliverance of justice for the applicant wife, affirming her right to financial and residential security. Elaborating his thoughts on the case, Advocate Aditya Pratap believes that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act must be initiated and pursued in right earnest. Prompt passing of interim maintenance orders under Section 23 offer immense respite to aggrieved parties, enabling them to sustain themselves till the final disposal of the case on merits.