LexSonic

In a recent case of Rekha Sachin Chaudhary v/s Sachin Nathuram Chaudhary & Another, the court provided critical insights into the entitlement of interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), highlighting the interplay of domestic violence allegations, economic abuse, and the determination of maintenance quantum. The case revolves around the applicant's claim for interim maintenance after allegations of domestic violence were made against her spouse. After multiple rounds of litigation, the applicant succeeded in obtaining a favorable ruling, which significantly impacted the application of domestic violence law and maintenance awards.

The applicant filed a petition under Section 12., Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - 2005, seeking various reliefs, including protection from domestic violence, residence orders, financial support, and compensation for emotional abuse. Along with this, she sought interim relief under Section 23 of the DV Act. However, the initial application for interim maintenance was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate in 2018. The applicant then appealed, and the Sessions Court, in 2022, granted interim maintenance of ?20,000 per month. This decision was challenged by the respondent (husband) in a revision application, which resulted in the matter being remanded back to the Sessions Court by the High Court in April 2023. After re-hearing the case, the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Magistrate's decision to reject interim maintenance.

Simultaneously, the applicant had filed a petition before the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights and the custody of children, while the respondent filed for divorce. In these proceedings, the Family Court awarded the applicant interim maintenance of ?1 lakh per month in 2019. However, the respondent challenged this order in the High Court, which stayed the Family Court’s order and reduced the maintenance to ?50,000 per month.

The key issue in the present revision application was whether the applicant was entitled to interim maintenance under the DV Act and, if so, the appropriate quantum. The applicant argued that the income of the respondent was not accurately reflected in his disclosure affidavits, and that he had suppressed key information regarding his financial capacity. He had presented himself as an employee of a firm, but the applicant claimed that he was actually the proprietor of the firm and thus had a much higher income than he admitted. The applicant further contended that despite these financial resources, no provision had been made for her maintenance.

The respondent countered these claims, arguing that the applicant had failed to establish a prima facie case of domestic violence. He also pointed out that the Family Court had already granted the applicant interim maintenance, which should be taken into account when determining any additional amount under the DV Act.

The court began by emphasizing the expansive definition of domestic violence under the DV Act, which includes physical, sexual, emotional, and economic abuse. In this case, the applicant’s allegations—especially those of emotional abuse, character assassination, and economic abuse—were found to meet the criteria for domestic violence. Specifically, the claim that the respondent had hired private detectives to spy on the applicant and the subsequent allegations of adultery were significant. The court held that these acts, along with the financial hardships faced by the applicant, constituted domestic violence under the DV Act.

The court also pointed out that economic abuse, which is often overlooked, played a key role in the applicant's claim for maintenance. The fact that no provision for her maintenance had been made, despite the respondent's alleged significant wealth, was a clear indication of economic abuse.

In determining the quantum of interim maintenance, the court referred to the landmark judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for determining maintenance in matrimonial disputes. According to the court, factors such as the status of the parties, their reasonable needs, the spouse’s ability to pay, and the standard of living of the applicant must all be considered when deciding maintenance amounts.

The court noted that while the applicant was already receiving ?50,000 per month under the Family Court’s order, there was no provision for her housing or adequate standard of living. Additionally, it was evident that the respondent had suppressed his income and wealth, as shown in his affidavits of disclosure. Despite claiming a salary of ?1,12,000 per month, the respondent had provided a loan of ?1.82 crore to his family business, a claim that was difficult to reconcile with his declared salary.

The court highlighted that the applicant was entitled to the same standard of living she had enjoyed during her marriage, and thus, she was justified in claiming a maintenance amount that reflected this. The ?50,000 per month maintenance already paid under the Family Court’s order was not sufficient to cover her needs, considering the respondent’s financial standing and the applicant’s claim for a decent standard of living.

The court ruled in favor of the applicant, directing the respondent to pay an additional ?50,000 per month as interim maintenance under the DV Act, bringing the total interim maintenance to ?1 lakh per month. This was in addition to the ?50,000 per month already awarded by the Family Court. The court also gave a timeline for the respondent to clear any arrears within six months.

The court’s decision underscores the importance of accurate financial disclosure and the right to adequate maintenance, particularly when there is evidence of economic abuse and financial manipulation. The ruling also affirms that domestic violence includes both physical and economic forms of abuse, and that maintaining a reasonable standard of living is a fundamental right for those experiencing domestic violence.

This case serves as an important reminder that maintenance claims under the DV Act are not only about the immediate physical safety of a victim but also their right to financial independence and dignity. It emphasizes the responsibility of the courts to ensure that interim relief is granted promptly, especially when there is a clear prima facie case of domestic violence. The court’s decision also highlights the need for fair disclosure of financial information to ensure that maintenance is set at a reasonable and just level.