Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of an appeal against an interim maintenance order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The first respondent, Lata @ Sharuti, married Vijay Kumar Jindal on 12 December 2010 and had two children. After her husband's death, she filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act seeking maintenance, alleging that she was not permitted to reside in her matrimonial home. The complaint stated that she and her husband lived on the ground floor of a house that was ancestral Hindu Joint Family Property, and that her husband and the appellant (his brother) jointly ran a kiryana store, each earning about Rs 30,000 per month. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panipat granted monthly maintenance of Rs 4,000 to the first respondent and Rs 2,000 to the second respondent (minor child) against the appellant. This was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appellant challenged the order in the Supreme Court, arguing that there was no legal basis to fasten liability on him as the brother of the deceased. The Supreme Court examined the definitions under the Act, particularly Section 2(q) (respondent), Section 2(f) (domestic relationship), and Section 2(s) (shared household). The Court noted that the proviso to Section 2(q) allows a complaint against a relative of the husband. The complaint contained sufficient averments that the house was joint family property and that the appellant and his brother carried on a joint business, and the appellant resided in the same household. The Court held that at the interim stage, there was material to justify the maintenance order, but clarified that the final adjudication on merits would not be prejudiced. The Court directed that arrears be paid within four months in equal monthly installments and disposed of the appeal.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence Act - Interim Maintenance - Section 12, 20, 2(q), 2(f), 2(s) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The Supreme Court upheld the interim maintenance order against the appellant (brother-in-law) based on prima facie allegations that the complainant and her husband lived in a shared household belonging to the joint family and that the appellant and his deceased brother carried on a joint business. The Court held that at the interim stage, sufficient averments exist to sustain the order, leaving the final determination of whether the requirements of Sections 2(f), 2(q), and 2(s) are fulfilled to be decided at trial. (Paras 5-7) B) Domestic Violence Act - Definition of Respondent - Section 2(q) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The proviso to Section 2(q) allows an aggrieved wife to file a complaint against a relative of the husband. The Court noted that the appellant, being the brother of the deceased husband, falls within this ambit, and the complaint contains allegations of domestic relationship and shared household. (Paras 4-5) C) Domestic Violence Act - Shared Household - Section 2(s) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The complaint alleged that the house where the complainant and her husband resided was ancestral joint Hindu family property. The Court found this sufficient to prima facie establish a shared household for the purpose of interim maintenance. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, brother of the deceased husband, can be directed to pay maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 based on allegations of joint family business and shared household.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the interim maintenance order. The Court directed that arrears be paid within four months from the date of the order by equal monthly installments. The Court clarified that the orders shall not prejudice final adjudication on merits.
Law Points
- Interim maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 can be granted against a relative of husband if prima facie case of domestic relationship and shared household exists
- Definition of respondent under Section 2(q) includes relatives of husband by virtue of proviso
- Interim orders do not prejudice final adjudication
