In the Matter of: KANUPRIYA SHARMA VS STATE & ANR( Delhi High Court) Held That :-
An application under Section 23(1) of the D.V. Act is an application for fixing interim maintenance. Interim maintenance is fixed on taking a prima facie view of the matter. Serious disputed questions of facts raised at that stage, requiring evidence cannot be gone into. Unless undisputed evidence is produced by the husband clearly establishing that the wife is gainfully employed, relief of interim maintenance cannot be declined.
“whether Petitioner is actually earning or qualified and capable of earning are again two different things. As noticed above, no material has been produced by Respondent no. 2 to show that the Petitioner is gainfully employed or receiving any salary and actually earning. The pleas raised by the Respondent no. 2 would be required to be established at trial. Till Respondent no. 2 establishes by leading cogent evidence that Petitioner is gainfully employed and receiving salary, there is no justification to deny maintenance to the Petitioner-wife.”
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
In the Matter of: KANUPRIYA SHARMA VS STATE & ANR( Delhi High Court) Held That :-
it may be seen that claim of maintenance by a wife under section 125 Cr.P.C. is qualified by the expre it may be seen that claim of maintenance by a wife under section 125 Cr.P.C. is qualified by the expression “unable to maintain herself”.
- There are no such qualifying words under the DV Act. Under section 12 of DV Act, an aggrieved person can approach the Magistrate seeking one or more of the reliefs under the DV Act. Under section 20 DV Act, the magistrate has powers to direct Respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may inter alia include the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force. Under section 20(2) the monetary relief granted has to be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.
- The grant of maintenance under the DV Act has not been made dependent upon the expression “unable to maintain herself”. Further, the expression “unable to maintain herself” does not mean capable of earning.
- In the present case, whether Petitioner is actually earning or qualified and capable of earning are again two different things. As noticed above, no material has been produced by Respondent no. 2 to show that the Petitioner is gainfully employed or receiving any salary and actually earning. The pleas raised by the Respondent no. 2 would be required to be established at trial. Till Respondent no. 2 establishes by leading cogent evidence that Petitioner is gainfully employed and receiving salary, there is no justification to deny maintenance to the Petitioner-wife.
ssion “unable to maintain herself”.
- There are no such qualifying words under the DV Act. Under section 12 of DV Act, an aggrieved person can approach the Magistrate seeking one or more of the reliefs under the DV Act. Under section 20 DV Act, the magistrate has powers to direct Respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may inter alia include the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force. Under section 20(2) the monetary relief granted has to be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.
- The grant of maintenance under the DV Act has not been made dependent upon the expression “unable to maintain herself”. Further, the expression “unable to maintain herself” does not mean capable of earning.
- In the present case, whether Petitioner is actually earning or qualified and capable of earning are again two different things. As noticed above, no material has been produced by Respondent no. 2 to show that the Petitioner is gainfully employed or receiving any salary and actually earning. The pleas raised by the Respondent no. 2 would be required to be established at trial. Till Respondent no. 2 establishes by leading cogent evidence that Petitioner is gainfully employed and receiving salary, there is no justification to deny maintenance to the Petitioner-wife.
The Supreme Court of India in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 has held that :-
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.
The rationale for grant of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. as expounded by the Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh (supra) applies on all fours to the grant of maintenance under the DV Act.