Supreme Court Upholds Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act: Brother-in-Law Held Liable

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ajay Kumar v. Lata @ Sharuti & Ors., upheld the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which directed the brother-in-law of a widow to pay interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA). The ruling clarifies the extent of financial liability in domestic violence cases, particularly concerning extended family members.

Background of the Case

The first respondent, Lata @ Sharuti, was married to Vijay Kumar Jindal on December 12, 2010. They had two children. After Vijay Kumar’s death, Lata filed a petition under Section 12 of the PWDVA, seeking maintenance for herself and her minor child. She alleged that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home after her husband’s death and was denied financial support by her in-laws.

The Trial Court, through an order dated July 3, 2015, directed the petitioner, Ajay Kumar, brother of the deceased, to pay Rs. 4,000 per month to Lata and Rs. 2,000 per month to the minor child as interim maintenance. The Additional Sessions Judge and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld this order. The petitioner, Ajay Kumar, challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

• Whether the brother-in-law of the complainant could be held liable to pay maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
• Whether a woman has a right to claim maintenance from relatives of her deceased husband.
• Whether the complainant and her child could claim rights in the shared household.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Ajay Kumar)

• The appellant argued that he was not legally obligated to provide maintenance as he was merely the brother of the deceased husband.
• He contended that there was no basis under the PWDVA to fasten liability on him solely because he carried on a business jointly with his deceased brother.
• The award of maintenance was unjustified as he did not share a domestic relationship with the complainant.
• The claim was based on assumptions and lacked legal grounds.

Arguments by the Respondent (Lata @ Sharuti)

• Lata argued that she had a right to reside in the shared household under Section 2(s) of the PWDVA.
• She alleged that her deceased husband and his brother jointly carried on a business, from which each earned Rs. 30,000 per month.
• After her husband’s death, she and her child were deprived of financial support, making maintenance necessary.
• She also asserted that the appellant was part of the joint family and should bear financial responsibility.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, made key observations regarding the interpretation of the PWDVA.

1. Definition of ‘Respondent’ Under PWDVA

The Court examined Section 2(q) of the Act, which defines the term ‘respondent.’ It held:

“The term ‘respondent’ means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. The proviso allows an aggrieved wife to file a complaint against a relative of the husband.”

Based on this interpretation, the Court found that the brother-in-law could be considered a ‘respondent’ in the case.

2. Shared Household and Financial Obligations

The Court referred to Section 2(f) of the Act, which defines ‘domestic relationship,’ and Section 2(s), which defines a ‘shared household.’ It held:

“The complainant had lived in the shared household, and the business run by her husband and the appellant was a family enterprise. This indicates financial interdependence.”

3. Interim Maintenance Justified

The Court ruled that there was sufficient material to justify the award of interim maintenance, stating:

“At this stage, there are enough averments in the complaint to sustain an interim order for maintenance.”

4. Clarification on Final Adjudication

However, the Supreme Court clarified that the present order was limited to interim maintenance and did not preclude a final adjudication:

“This order, as well as those of the lower courts, shall not come in the way of a final adjudication on the merits of the complaint.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower courts’ decision, stating:

“The arrears shall be paid over within a period of four months in equal monthly installments.”

Key Takeaways

• Extended Family Members Can Be Held Liable: The ruling establishes that relatives of the husband, including brothers-in-law, can be directed to pay maintenance under the PWDVA.
• Shared Household Concept Is Broad: The judgment clarifies that financial obligations are not limited to the husband but can extend to family members involved in joint family arrangements.
• Interim Maintenance Does Not Preclude Final Trial Outcome: The Court highlighted that the final adjudication could alter maintenance obligations based on further evidence.
• Wider Interpretation of Domestic Violence Protections: The ruling strengthens protections for widows facing financial hardship after the death of their spouse.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajay Kumar v. Lata @ Sharuti & Ors. reinforces the broad protective measures of the PWDVA. By holding the brother-in-law financially accountable, the ruling highlights the evolving interpretation of financial responsibilities in domestic violence cases. This decision ensures that widows and their children are not left without support due to rigid interpretations of family obligations.

Petitioner Name: Ajay Kumar.
Respondent Name: Lata @ Sharuti & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Panipat, Haryana.
Judgment Date: 08-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ajay Kumar vs Lata @ Sharuti & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category