Court refuses ₹2-L maintenance to woman citing her extraordinary financial position

Emphasising the purpose of interim maintenance, the court held that the relief is meant to address immediate needs where a party lacks resources, which is not the case with the woman

MUMBAI: The sessions court recently denied interim maintenance to a woman who sought ₹2 lakh per month from her ex-husband, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, observing that her foreign trips and jointly owned properties indicated an ‘extraordinary financial position.’

Court refuses ₹2-L maintenance to woman citing her extraordinary financial position

Dismissing her appeal against a 2019 Bandra magistrate court order, additional sessions judge Mujibodeen S. Shaikh observed that the woman had ‘not proved’ domestic violence and that she was not entitled to interim relief in the 2015 domestic violence case, which is under trial.

During the hearing on Wednesday, the court noted that her ex-husband has already been paying ₹40,000 a month pursuant to a Bombay High Court order dated October 11, 2018, which was issued for rent, and has also been bearing the educational expenses of their daughters. Recording the husband’s submissions and material on record, the judge noted that the wife has been enjoying a lavish, luxurious life and travelling for multiple international vacations to Europe and Eurasia, including a trip to Ireland noted in a high court order and another trip to Turkey in November 2019. “All these foreign trips are sufficient to show her extraordinary financial position,” the court said.

The court further noted that she is an income-tax payer, has fixed deposits, and has even jointly purchased two flats, observing that she is well settled with her well-established business. Emphasising the purpose of interim maintenance, the court held that the relief is meant to address immediate needs where a party lacks resources, which is not the case with the woman.

Upholding the magistrate’s decision as legal and proper, the court ruled that no interference was warranted and dismissed the appeal. It clarified that the question of maintenance and other reliefs will be decided after the trial court’s hearing in the domestic violence case.