Court’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court revised the interim monetary relief granted to a woman and her minor daughter under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It enhanced the relief from Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 80,000 respectively to Rs. 1,50,000 per month for the wife and Rs. 2,50,000 per month for the daughter, holding that the lower courts erred in awarding inadequate relief despite clear evidence of the husband’s substantial income and the parties’ prior standard of living during the marriage.
Facts
The petitioner married the opposite party in 2014, and a daughter was born in 2015. Alleging severe physical and mental abuse, the petitioner filed a police complaint resulting in criminal proceedings under serious charges including Section 498A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. She also filed an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act seeking Rs. 7 lakhs monthly for herself and Rs. 3 lakhs for her daughter. The Magistrate initially denied interim maintenance to the petitioner but allowed Rs. 80,000 for the daughter. The appellate court modified the order to grant Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner in addition to Rs. 80,000 for the daughter. Dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the interim monetary relief granted to the petitioner and her daughter was adequate, fair, and reasonable under the PWDV Act.
- Whether the quantum of maintenance should reflect the standard of living during the subsistence of the marriage.
- Whether the wife’s income and post-marital conduct disentitled her from higher interim relief.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the court mechanically relied on the husband’s objections and failed to consider the actual lifestyle the couple shared. It was contended that despite the husband earning over Rs. 7 crores in the assessment year 2020–21, she and her daughter were granted a paltry sum. Her affidavit showed a monthly income of only Rs. 16,000 with expenses exceeding Rs. 6 lakhs. She stressed that the purpose of the PWDV Act is to prevent destitution and ensure dignity and sustenance in line with constitutional protections under Articles 15(3) and 39. The petitioner cited several precedents affirming that earning capacity of the husband and standard of living during marriage must guide maintenance orders.
Respondent’s Arguments
The husband, represented by senior counsel, argued that the petitioner was already a financially independent model and actress with considerable earnings and had misrepresented her income in her affidavits. He asserted she had not disclosed key documents in earlier maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, he emphasized that maintenance cannot be a tool for wealth equalization. The respondent maintained that Rs. 1.3 lakhs per month already ordered was adequate and accused the petitioner of forum shopping.
Analysis of the Law
The court clarified that interim monetary relief under Section 20 of the PWDV Act must be adequate, fair, and consistent with the standard of living the woman was accustomed to. Relying on Rinku Baheti and Rajnesh v. Neha, the court held that maintenance is not meant to equalize wealth but also cannot be symbolic or inadequate if the husband enjoys substantial means. The wife’s earning capacity does not negate the husband’s legal and moral duty, especially when her earnings are modest.
Precedent Analysis
- Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3801) – Maintenance cannot aim to equalize wealth; standard of living during marriage must guide relief.
- Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (1975) 2 SCC 386 – Maintenance must allow modest living consistent with the family’s status.
- Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Interim relief should be fair and based on evidence of needs and income.
- Zahir Abdullah v. Oman Abdullah (2023 SCC OnLine Del 5321) – Meagre income of the wife does not disentitle her to monetary relief.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court observed that the petitioner had indeed established prima facie domestic violence and a valid domestic relationship. The trial court’s refusal to grant her interim relief was overturned by the appellate court, and the only question before the High Court was the quantum. The High Court noted the lack of clarity in how the lower courts assessed the maintenance amounts and held that Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 80,000 were grossly inadequate considering the husband’s high income. It reiterated that maintenance must reflect the status the woman was accustomed to during the marriage and rejected the husband’s arguments based on the petitioner’s profession and media portrayal.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the revision application, enhancing interim relief to Rs. 1,50,000 for the petitioner and Rs. 2,50,000 for the minor daughter from the date of the original application. The trial court was directed to expedite the main case and decide it within 60 days from the first hearing, in accordance with Section 12 of the PWDV Act. The judgment clarified that interim orders shall not influence the final decision on merits.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that interim maintenance must be realistic and grounded in marital standard of living, not tokenistic. It provides crucial guidance on determining maintenance in high-profile matrimonial disputes involving wealthy individuals. The court’s reaffirmation that maintenance is not for wealth parity but to prevent destitution strengthens the remedial nature of the PWDV Act.
Judgments Referred
- Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3801): Maintenance cannot be equated to equalization of wealth; relief must consider living standards.
- Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (1975) 2 SCC 386: Maintenance must provide for modest living, not luxury or destitution.
- Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324: Elaborates on criteria for awarding interim and final maintenance.
- Zahir Abdullah v. Oman Abdullah (2023 SCC OnLine Del 5321): Wife’s small income does not bar maintenance claims.
FAQs
1. Can maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act equal the husband’s income?
No. The court reiterated that maintenance is not intended to equalize wealth but must reflect a standard of living reasonably consistent with what the woman was accustomed to during marriage.
2. Is a wife disqualified from interim relief if she earns an income?
Not necessarily. A meagre income does not automatically disentitle a woman from maintenance if it is insufficient to sustain her prior standard of living, especially in cases of proven domestic violence.
3. Can interim relief be granted even if the final decision is pending?
Yes. Interim relief under Section 23 of the PWDV Act is to provide immediate financial support and does not prejudice the final outcome, which must be based on detailed evidence.
