Supreme Court Upholds Interim Maintenance Order Against Brother-in-Law in Domestic Violence Case: Ajay Kumar vs. Lata @ Sharuti (2019)

Date of the Judgment: April 8, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 338
Judges: Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. This was a two-judge bench, and the judgment was authored by Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.

Can a brother-in-law be held liable to pay maintenance to his deceased brother’s wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case where a woman sought maintenance from her brother-in-law, arguing that he was part of a joint family and business. The court examined the scope of “domestic relationship” and “shared household” under the Act, ultimately upholding the interim maintenance order against the brother-in-law.

Case Background

The first respondent, Lata @ Sharuti, married Vijay Kumar Jindal on December 12, 2010. They had two children. After her husband’s death, she filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance. She claimed that after her marriage, she and her husband resided in a house that was part of an ancestral Hindu joint family property. She and her husband lived on the ground floor of the house. The appellant, Ajay Kumar, and her deceased husband jointly ran a kiryana store in Panipat, each earning approximately Rs 30,000 per month.

The complaint also stated that at the time of Vijay Kumar’s death, the first respondent was pregnant and later gave birth to a child on January 31, 2013. After her husband’s death, she was allegedly not allowed to live in her matrimonial home.

The Trial Judge, on July 3, 2015, ordered a monthly maintenance of Rs 4,000 for the first respondent and Rs 2,000 for the second respondent, to be paid by the appellant. The Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, confirmed this order on August 14, 2018. The High Court also upheld the order, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panipat, initially granted the interim maintenance order on July 3, 2015. The Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, confirmed this order on August 14, 2018. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appellant’s petition against the order on October 10, 2018. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court analyzed several provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

• Section 12(1) of the Act allows an aggrieved person to apply to a Magistrate for relief.
• Section 20(1) empowers the Magistrate to direct the respondent to pay monetary relief, including maintenance, to the aggrieved person and her children. This can be in addition to orders under Section 125 of the CrPC or any other law.
• Section 2(q) defines “respondent” as any adult male person in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, against whom relief is sought. It also includes a proviso that allows an aggrieved wife or a female in a relationship like marriage to file a complaint against a relative of the husband or male partner. The court noted that the substantive part of Section 2(q) indicates that the expression “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom relief has been sought. The proviso indicates that both, an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner, as the case may be.
• Section 2(f) defines “domestic relationship” as a relationship where two persons live or have lived together in a shared household, related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as family members living together in a joint family. The court observed that Section 2(f) defines the expression ‘domestic relationship’ to mean a relationship where two persons live or have lived together at any point of time in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are members living together as a joint family.
• Section 2(s) defines “shared household” as a household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, either singly or with the respondent. It includes a household owned or tenanted by the aggrieved person or the respondent, or a household belonging to a joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title, or interest in the shared household. The court noted that all these definitions indicate the width and amplitude of the intent of Parliament in creating both an obligation and a remedy in the terms of the enactment.

Arguments

The appellant argued that there was no legal basis under the Act to hold him liable for maintenance, as he was merely the brother of the deceased husband of the first respondent. The appellant’s counsel contended that the sole basis for fastening liability was the joint business he had with his deceased brother, which could not justify directing him to pay maintenance.

The respondents argued that the complaint contained sufficient averments to sustain the interim order. They highlighted that the first respondent and her husband lived in a house that was part of a joint family property, and the appellant and her husband had a joint business.

The respondents relied on the averments in the complaint and submitted that at this stage, there was no reason or justification for the Court to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India particularly against an interlocutory order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the appellant, being the brother of the deceased husband, could be held liable to pay interim maintenance to the first respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, based on the fact that they were part of a joint family and had a joint business.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court did not explicitly cite any case laws or books. However, the court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: This section allows an aggrieved person to present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act.
• Section 20(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: This section empowers the Magistrate to direct the respondent(s) to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence.
• Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: This section defines “respondent” as any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act. The proviso allows an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship like marriage to file a complaint against a relative of the husband or male partner.
• Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: This section defines “domestic relationship” as a relationship between two persons who live or have lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.
• Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: This section defines “shared household” as a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a house hold whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.

Judgment

The Court held that at this stage, for the purpose of an interim order for maintenance, there was material which justifies the issuance of a direction in regard to the payment of maintenance. The Court clarified that the present order as well as orders which have been passed by the courts below shall not come in the way of a final adjudication on the merits of the complaint in accordance with law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to provide immediate relief to the aggrieved woman and her child, while also ensuring that the legal process was followed. The court emphasized the following points:

• Sufficient Averments: The court noted that there were sufficient averments in the complaint to indicate a domestic relationship and shared household.
• Interim Relief: The court stressed that the order was for interim maintenance, and the final decision would be based on evidence presented at trial.
• Joint Family and Business: The court considered the fact that the appellant and the deceased husband were part of a joint family and had a joint business as relevant factors in determining liability for interim maintenance.
• Protection of Women: The court’s interpretation of the Act was aligned with its intent to protect women from domestic violence and provide them with immediate relief.

The sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court’s reasoning indicates a strong emphasis on the need to provide immediate relief to the aggrieved woman and her child, while also ensuring that the legal process was followed. The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual averments in the complaint, indicating a fact-centric approach in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Broad Interpretation of “Respondent”: The Supreme Court’s decision indicates a broad interpretation of the term “respondent” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, potentially including relatives of the husband if they are part of a domestic relationship and shared household.
• Interim Relief: The court prioritized providing immediate relief to the aggrieved woman and her child, even while acknowledging that the final decision would be based on evidence presented at trial.
• Joint Family and Business: The court considered the joint family and business aspects as relevant factors in determining liability for interim maintenance.
• Importance of Complaint Averments: The court emphasized the importance of the averments made in the complaint in determining whether an interim order for maintenance can be issued.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the arrears of maintenance should be paid within four months from the date of the order, in equal monthly installments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for the purpose of interim maintenance, a brother-in-law can be held liable under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if there are sufficient averments in the complaint indicating a domestic relationship and shared household. This decision clarifies that the definition of “respondent” can include relatives of the husband if they are part of a joint family and business, and that the court will consider the factual averments in the complaint when determining the issue of interim maintenance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the interim maintenance order against the brother-in-law, emphasizing the broad scope of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court considered the joint family and business aspects as relevant factors in determining liability for interim maintenance. This decision underscores the importance of providing immediate relief to aggrieved women while ensuring the due process of law.