Mumbai, February 20: The Supreme Court has upheld interim maintenance granted to a woman, who was denied the same by the sessions court as she allegedly lived in adultery. The apex court refused to entertain an appeal by her husband, whose father owns a popular restaurant in Bandra. The man had challenged the order of the Bombay High Court that directed him to continue paying interim maintenance, which was revised down to Rs40,000 from Rs75,000.
The couple married on January 17, 2007 and have four daughters. After disputes, the woman left the matrimonial home along with her daughters in 2020. She filed a complaint with the police alleging cruelty under the Indian Penal Code.
Magistrate Grants Maintenance To Wife
She also approached the magistrate under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), alleging harassment and violence at the hands of her husband. She filed an application on January 18, 2020 seeking interim maintenance till her plea was decided. The magistrate court on August 18, 2021, directed the man to pay Rs75,000 as monthly maintenance and Rs35,000 towards rent.
Following an appeal by the man, the sessions court on December 24, 2021, set aside the order observing that the woman was in a live-in relationship and not entitled to maintenance under section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which disentitles a woman to maintenance if she is living in adultery. The woman challenged this before the HC.
High Court Sets Aside 'No Maintenance' Order
Her advocate Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh argued that the woman was raped by her husband’s friend and she has filed a rape complaint with the police.
The HC set aside the sessions court’s order and directed the man to pay maintenance, observing that his family business in the upmarket restaurant in Bandra and that he “appears to be earning sufficiently from it”. The court noted that the sessions judge gave premature findings that there is no domestic violence; the aggrieved person was in a live-in relationship; and that the woman earns.
The man challenged this before the SC where he was represented by Advocate Siddharth Dave. Disposing of the man’s appeal, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta upheld the maintenance and directed to clear any pending arrears within six weeks.
