District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Deprivation of Property Rights Constitutes Economic Abuse; Maintenance Right Intact Despite Ownership Claims Through Will: Bombay HC in Domestic Violence Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Bombay High Court upheld the entitlement of a daughter-in-law to Rs.60,000 monthly maintenance in a domestic violence case, emphasizing the recognition of economic abuse and property rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The case revolved around the petitioner, a mother-in-law, challenging the interim maintenance awarded to her daughter-in-law, citing the non-existence of a domestic relationship and ownership of properties via a will. Key issues included assessing the validity of economic abuse claims, property rights, and the determination of the maintenance amount.

Economic Abuse and Property Rights: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed, "The pleadings demonstrate the specific case of not only verbal and emotional abuse but also economic abuse by way of depriving the Respondent No 2 of the properties and business of her late husband..." The court examined the economic abuse allegations and the dispute over property ownership through the will.

Quantum of Interim Maintenance: The judgment referenced "Rajnesh vs. Neha," underlining the principle that maintenance must reflect the standard of living in the matrimonial home. The court scrutinized financial disclosures, noting inconsistencies in the petitioner’s income declarations.

Income Suppression in Maintenance Calculation: The court pointed out, "It is therefore clear that the Petitioner has suppressed the income earned from the said businesses from the Court." The income suppression by the petitioner was a pivotal factor in determining the maintenance amount.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the monthly maintenance of Rs.60,000. An extension of ad-interim relief was granted for four weeks following the judgment's uploading, in consideration of the existing support since March 2023.

Date of Decision : 21  March 2024.

Rekha Anandrao Ranbhare vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News