No maintenance to wife in domestic feud case:Court
The Thane District court has set aside an order of a lower court granting maintenance to a housewife and her child.
Thane: The Thane District court has set aside an order of a lower court granting maintenance to a housewife and her child.
In his order, Additional Sessions Judge A P Raghuvanshi, on August 28, held that the housewife was not entitled to any relief under the provisions of Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The case related to one Ramji and Sheetal (names changed) who were married on April, 29, 2002 in Mumbai.
After 15 months of marriage, the husband had filed a divorce petition in the Bandra court on ground of cruelty, under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
He had stated in the petition that his wife was adamant, rude and quarrelsome and her conduct had led to the deterioration of their relationship.
However, before the counsellor, the wife reportedly admitted to her faults and a consent term was prepared and filed on January 1, 2004 and the couple started living together.
Later, the wife, after taking into possession all the jewellery which she had received during the marriage, filed an application for maintenance and also filed a complaint under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and lodged an FIR against her spouse.
The magisterial court then ordered a maintenance of Rs 3,000 each per month for the wife and their child.
The court also ordered the husband to return Rs 1.50 lakh, that he borrowed from his mother-in-law.
The husband and his parents then filed an appeal challenging the order of the lower court, which was allowed by the sessions court at Thane.
In his order, the judge observed that "all these allegations made by the wife clearly establish the probability in favour of husband that it is he who had tried to settle the mater from time-to-time and he even resided separately along with the wife, but still the dispute continued between them".
"In this position, the allegations made by wife that husband was not providing food to her and she had to sleep empty stomach are totally false," the court observed.
"This admission also establishes that when the husband
could not provide separate accommodation for his wife, he had even allowed her to cook separately by making partitions in the same house where his parents were living. Thus, it is the wife who did not cooperate with the husband even though, he tried to mould himself as per the whims of his wife," the court further observed.
The admission given by the wife in her cross-examination brushes aside the allegations of domestic violence committed by the husband, the court said.
As regards the payment of Rs 1.50 lakhs, the court stated that "the recovery of said amount is a transaction in between husband and the parents of his wife, for which civil suit is required to be filed by his in-laws. The said transaction has nothing to do with any act of domestic violence."
Setting aside the order of the lower court the district court observed, "JMFC has totally neglected the admissions given by wife during the cross-examination showing that her husband had provided all sorts of opportunities to her. The applicant has failed to establish any allegations against her husband. Therefore she is not entitled to any relief under the provisions of the Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005".
Therefore, the Magistrate has incorrectly passed the order in favour of the wife and the findings arrived by the lower Court require interference at the hands of this Court, the Judge added.