On 29th October, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Amit Bansal, held that Section 20(1)(d) of the Domestic Violence Act makes it clear that the maintenance granted under the DV Act would be in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) and any other law for the time being in force.

The court also held that there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the DV Act and Section 125 of the Cr.PC or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. However, the only obligation imposed on the wife would be to disclose the earlier maintenance being granted to her in the previously instituted proceedings so that the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceedings could be fixed taking into account the maintenance already awarded in favour of the wife in any previously instituted proceedings.

Facts of the case:

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 5th March, 2020 passed by the Additional District Judge-1 whereby the application filed by the petitioner wife under Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been dismissed.

The petitioner wife had filed a suit under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 as an indigent person, claiming maintenance before this Court. The said suit was transferred to the Family Courts whereby she was awarded maintenance Rs.10,000/- It is the case of the petitioner wife that the aforesaid amount of maintenance has not been paid to her by the respondent husband and she has filed execution proceedings in respect of the same before the Family Court.

Contention of the petitioner:

The following contention has been submitted by the petitioner:

  1. It was submitted that the impugned order failed to appreciate that the application under Section 26 of the DV Act was not filed towards execution of the earlier maintenance order dated 28th March, 2018 granted in favour of the petitioner wife.
  2. It was also contended that the grievance raised by the petitioner wife fell within the definition of ‘domestic violence’ as defined under Section 3 of the DV Act being ‘economic abuse’ as per Explanation I to Section 3 of the DV Act.
  3. Further, relying upon the judgement of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. the counsel for the petitioner argued that , the maintenance awarded under DV Act is in addition to the maintenance awarded to the aggrieved woman under any other statutes.

Contention of the respondent:

The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted the following:

  1. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent husband also relied on the judgement of  Rajnesh’s case and stated that it would, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. Therefore, the impugned order of the Trial Court does not warrant interference as it would be inequitable to direct the respondent husband.
  2. The petitioner wife would be entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 26 read with Section 20 of the DV Act to seek monetary relief, including maintenance, which would be in addition to the maintenance granted to her vide the order dated 28th March, 2018.
  3. There is no bar to seek maintenance both under the DV Act and Section 125 of the Cr.PC or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
  4. The impugned order by the Trial Court is clearly erroneous inasmuch as it dismisses the application filed by the petitioner wife under Section 26 of the DV Act only on the basis that it has been filed towards execution of the maintenance already granted to the petitioner wife.

In the light of the above, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source : https://www.vakilno1.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/maintenance.jpg

 
Anusree