Judgment Analysis

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE.

The present case is an appeal against the judgment of a learned single bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

The High Court dismissed a petition against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat confirming an interim order for the award of maintenance to the first respondent and her minor child under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The respondent herein alleged that after her marriage, the complainant and her spouse resided at a house which constitutes ancestral Hindu Joint Family Property. She and her husband resided on the ground floor of the residential accommodation. The appellant and the deceased spouse of the first respondent jointly carried on a business of a kiryana store at Panipat from which, it has been alleged, each had an income of about Rs 30,000 per month

The complaint further alleged that at the time of death of Vijay Kumar (Husband of respondent herein), the first respondent was pregnant and that she gave birth to a child on 31 January 2013. The travails of the first respondent are alleged to have commenced after the death of her spouse and she was not permitted to reside in her matrimonial home.

The learned Trial Judge by an order dated 3 July 2015 granted monthly maintenance in the tune of Rs 4,000 to the first respondent (wife of deceased) and Rs 2,000 to the second respondent (minor child of wife ). The award of maintenance was directed against the appellant (brother of deceased spouse of respondent herein) who was carrying on the above business together with the deceased spouse of the first respondent. This order of the Judicial Magistrate,  Panipat was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Panipat. The High Court, in a petition filed by the appellant, affirmed the view.

SUBMISSION BEFORE APEX COURT.

The submission made by appellant was that there was no basis under the provisions of the Act to fasten liability on the appellant who is the brother of the deceased spouse of the first respondent.”.

clarification by Apex Court:

By Referring the expression “respondent” is defined in Section 2(q) as follows:-

Section 2(q) “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner;

The substantive part of Section 2(q) indicates that the expression “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom relief has been sought. The proviso indicates that both, an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner, as the case may be.

Section 2(f) defines the expression “domestic relationship”:

Section 2(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;

Section 2(f) defines the expression ‘domestic relationship’ to mean a relationship where:

(a) two persons live or have lived together at any point in time;

(b) two persons have lived in a shared household

(c) when the two persons are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption; or

(d) when two persons are members living together as a joint family.

The expression “shared household” is defined in Section 2(s) as follows:-

Section 2(s) “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;

All these definitions indicate the width and amplitude of the intent of Parliament in creating both an obligation and a remedy in the terms of the enactment.

After clarification of the abovestated definition of respondent the apex court go through the Paragraph 10 of the original complaint of respondent, prima facie indicates that the case of the complainants is that the house where the first respondent and her spouse resided, belong to a joint family.  The appellant and his brother (who was the spouse of the first respondent and father of the second respondent) carried on a joint business. The appellant resided in the same household.

HELD

Ultimately, whether the requirements of Section 2(f); Section 2(q); and Section 2(s) are fulfilled is a matter of evidence which will be adjudicated upon at the trial.

The purpose of an interim order for maintenance there was material which justifies the issuance of a direction in regard to the payment of maintenance.  However, the Hon’ble court clarified that the present order as well as orders which have been passed by the courts below shall not come in the way of a final adjudication on the merits of the complaint in accordance with law.

The arrears were directed to be paid over within a period of four months by equal monthly installments. The Appeal thus was accordingly, disposed of

CONCLUSION

Hence, it can be concluded that in case the deceased husband of the petitioner (widowed lady) and her brother in law ran a joint business from which the deceased took a monthly sum for maintenance of his family then the widowed respondent herein would be all in her rights to take such amount from the business. 

You may contact me for your specific case by visiting Contact Us