Supreme Court directs fresh maintenance proceedings in domestic dispute: Shalu Ojha vs. Prashant Ojha (23 July 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 23 July 2018
Citation: Not Available
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.
Can a court reduce maintenance awarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 based on a summary assessment of financial documents? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case between a wife and husband, where the husband challenged the initial maintenance order. The court ultimately directed the wife to initiate fresh maintenance proceedings under other applicable laws, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of evidence. The judgment was authored by A.K. Sikri, J., and the bench comprised of A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.

Case Background

The petitioner, Shalu Ojha, and the respondent, Prashant Ojha, were married on April 20, 2007, in Delhi. They lived together for only about four months before separating. In June 2009, the petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), seeking maintenance. The Metropolitan Magistrate initially granted interim maintenance of Rs. 2,50,000 per month, along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000, on July 5, 2012. The respondent failed to comply with this order, leading to an execution petition by the petitioner.

The respondent challenged the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order before the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Delhi. The ASJ initially directed the respondent to deposit the entire arrears of maintenance on January 10, 2013. When the respondent failed to comply, the ASJ dismissed his appeal on May 7, 2013. The respondent then approached the High Court, which allowed him to file a reply but did not grant a stay. The respondent challenged this order in the Supreme Court, which directed the parties to explore mediation. Mediation failed, and the High Court ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 5,00,000 by September 30, 2013, and another Rs. 5,00,000 by October 31, 2013. The petitioner sought modification of these orders, requesting the full arrears as per the Family Court’s order. The High Court continued the stay on execution proceedings, prompting the petitioner to file a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, on September 18, 2014, allowed the petitioner’s appeal, restoring the respondent’s appeal before the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court also directed the execution of the Magistrate’s maintenance order and instructed the Sessions Court to hear the appeal on merits only after the execution was completed. Despite these orders, the respondent did not clear the arrears and was sent to judicial custody until December 22, 2014. The ASJ, on February 13, 2015, reduced the maintenance to Rs. 50,000 per month from the date of filing the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act. The petitioner challenged this reduction in the High Court, while the respondent’s petition seeking further reduction was dismissed by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner initially filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, which led to the Metropolitan Magistrate granting interim maintenance. The respondent challenged this order, and the matter went through multiple appeals and proceedings in the Sessions Court, High Court, and Supreme Court. The Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) eventually reduced the maintenance amount, which led to the current proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), specifically Section 12 which deals with application to Magistrate seeking reliefs. The court also refers to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. Additionally, the court discusses the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which provide for maintenance.

Section 12 of the DV Act allows an aggrieved person to present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act. The relevant portion of the Act is not quoted in the judgment. The court has referred to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which states that:
“Saving of inherent power of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner argued that the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) had no valid reasons to reduce the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,50,000 to Rs. 50,000 per month.
• She submitted extensive documentation to show that the respondent was a man of means, owning multiple businesses, properties, and assets.
• She contended that the respondent was living an affluent lifestyle.
• The petitioner also submitted an income affidavit as per the format prescribed by the Delhi High Court in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, stating that her monthly expenditure is approximately Rs. 1 lakh, and she has no independent source of income other than the maintenance.
• She stated that the maintenance amount was insufficient to even pay for monthly rent of an apartment and she was compelled to live in her parents house.
• She argued that the respondent was indulging in falsehood by denying his business interests.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The respondent refuted the authenticity and relevance of the documents submitted by the petitioner.
• He claimed that he no longer had stakes in the businesses mentioned by the petitioner.
• He argued that some of the companies/firms mentioned by the petitioner never took off, and in others, he no longer held any stakes.
• He portrayed his financial condition as dire, stating that he had even been imprisoned for his inability to pay maintenance arrears.
• The respondent argued that the petitioner had other sources of income, evidenced by the fact that she had accumulated Rs. 49 lakhs in fixed deposits from the maintenance payments, suggesting she had not spent the money.
• He also denied the petitioner’s claims about his income and business interests, stating that he did not have any restaurant or bar in which he had any share or interest.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this judgment. However, the core issue was whether the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) was justified in reducing the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,50,000 to Rs. 50,000 per month based on the evidence presented before him.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (Delhi High Court): The Delhi High Court’s judgment was referred to for the format of the income affidavit to be filed by the parties.

Judgment

The Supreme Court did not make a final determination on the merits of the maintenance amount. Instead, it focused on the procedural aspects and the need for a detailed examination of evidence. The Court noted that the proceedings under the DV Act are summary in nature, and the ASJ’s decision was based on affidavits and documents without a thorough examination of evidence through cross-examination.

The Court observed that the petitioner had filed an income affidavit, as directed, but there were inconsistencies regarding her monthly expenditure and income sources. The respondent had also claimed that the petitioner had substantial bank balances, indicating that she might have other sources of income. The court also noted that the respondent had denied the petitioner’s claims about his income and business interests.

The Court observed that the veracity and evidential value of the documents and assertions made by both parties could only be finally determined after evidence was led and tested through cross-examination.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need for a thorough examination of evidence in maintenance cases, especially when there are conflicting claims about financial status. The Court emphasized that the summary nature of proceedings under the DV Act was not suitable for making a final determination on complex financial matters. The Court also noted the inconsistencies in the petitioner’s affidavit and the respondent’s denials, which required further scrutiny. The Court’s sentiment was that a fair and just decision could only be reached after both parties had the opportunity to present their evidence and be cross-examined.

The Court reasoned that the nature of the proceedings under the DV Act is summary. The court noted that the ASJ had reduced the maintenance based on the affidavits and documents filed by both parties, without a detailed examination of evidence. The court noted that the veracity and evidential value of such material could only be finally adjudged after evidence was led and tested through cross-examination. The court also considered the inconsistencies in the petitioner’s affidavit and the conflicting claims of the parties.

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the ASJ’s order was correct but rejected it because of the summary nature of proceedings under the DV Act. The court concluded that a final determination of the maintenance amount could only be made after both parties had the opportunity to lead evidence in a full-fledged trial.

The Supreme Court held that the appropriate course of action was to allow the petitioner to file a fresh application for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, or under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court also made it clear that any maintenance fixed in these new proceedings should not be less than Rs. 50,000 per month, which was the amount that had already attained finality.

The Court stated: “After giving conscious and objective consideration to the documents placed on record by both the sides, we are of the view that it is only after the evidence is led by both the parties, the veracity and evidential value of such material can be finally adjudged, more particularly, when the said material and assertions of the parties would be tested with their cross-examination.”

The Court further stated: “In these circumstances, the appropriate course of action would be to allow the petitioner to file an application for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 or under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 so that in these proceedings, both the parties lead their documentary and oral evidence and on the basis of such material, appropriate view is taken by the said Court.”

The Court also stated: “We also make it clear that any maintenance fixed shall not, in any case, be less than Rs.50,000/- per month which figure of maintenance has already attained finality.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. Both the judges concurred on the judgment.

The decision has implications for future cases involving maintenance under the DV Act, highlighting the need for a detailed examination of evidence, especially in cases involving complex financial claims. It clarifies that summary proceedings may not be suitable for determining the final maintenance amount, and parties should be given an opportunity to lead evidence in a full-fledged trial.

The judgment does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles, but it reinforces the importance of due process and a thorough examination of evidence in maintenance cases.

Key Takeaways

• Maintenance orders under the DV Act may not be final if they are based on a summary assessment of financial documents.
• In cases with complex financial claims, parties should be given an opportunity to lead evidence in a full-fledged trial.
• The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh maintenance application under other applicable laws, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of evidence.
• Any new maintenance fixed should not be less than Rs. 50,000 per month, which was the amount that had already attained finality.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to move an appropriate application for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, or under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court also directed that the concerned court should decide the application expeditiously and that the maintenance fixed should not be less than Rs. 50,000 per month. The respondent was directed to continue paying Rs. 50,000 per month to the petitioner in the meanwhile.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that maintenance orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which are based on a summary assessment of financial documents, may not be final, and a detailed examination of evidence is necessary for a just determination of maintenance. This case does not change the previous position of the law, but it reinforces the importance of due process and a thorough examination of evidence in maintenance cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court disposed of the petition by allowing the petitioner to file a fresh application for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, or Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court emphasized the need for a detailed examination of evidence in maintenance cases, particularly when there are conflicting claims about financial status. The Court also directed that the maintenance fixed in the new proceedings should not be less than Rs. 50,000 per month and that the respondent should continue to pay Rs. 50,000 per month to the petitioner in the meanwhile.

Category

Parent category: Family Law
Child categories: Maintenance, Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 125 CrPC
Parent category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child category: Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Parent category: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Child category: Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Shalu Ojha vs. Prashant Ojha case?
A: The main issue was whether the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) was correct in reducing the maintenance amount awarded to the wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, based on a summary assessment of financial documents.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court did not make a final determination on the maintenance amount. Instead, it directed the wife to file a fresh application for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, or Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where both parties could lead evidence for a proper adjudication.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court direct fresh proceedings?
A: The Supreme Court found that the proceedings under the DV Act were summary in nature and not suitable for making a final determination on complex financial matters. The court emphasized the need for a detailed examination of evidence, including cross-examination of witnesses.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for maintenance cases?
A: This judgment highlights that maintenance orders under the DV Act may not be final if they are based on a summary assessment of financial documents. It emphasizes the need for a thorough examination of evidence in maintenance cases, especially when there are conflicting claims about financial status.

Q: What does the court mean by “summary proceedings”?
A: Summary proceedings are those where the court makes decisions based on documents and affidavits, without a full trial that includes oral evidence and cross-examination of witnesses. The Supreme Court found that such proceedings are not suitable for complex financial matters.

Q: How does this decision affect future maintenance cases?
A: This decision clarifies that in cases with complex financial claims, parties should be given an opportunity to lead evidence in a full-fledged trial. It also sets a precedent that maintenance orders based on summary assessments may not be final.

Q: What is the interim arrangement for maintenance?
A: The respondent was directed to continue paying Rs. 50,000 per month to the petitioner in the meanwhile, and the Court directed that any new maintenance fixed should not be less than Rs. 50,000 per month.