Bombay HC Sets Aside Order Reducing Interim Maintenance
The Petitioner wife was represented by Sarah Kapadia from Vesta Legal
The Bombay High Court recently held that once court declined to exercise its discretionary power and stay the proceedings it was thereafter not open for the Appellate Court to review its own order and to reduce amount of maintenance from Rs.1,20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month.
The Petitioner/wife in the Present Writ Petition filed a Domestic Violence Complaint through her father/ next friend before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Mulund as the Petitioner due to suffering from an ailment, is bed-ridden and unable to appear in person.
The Trial Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,20,000/- per month to the Petitioner/wife to be paid from the date of the application and directed the husband to clear the arrears at Rs.1,00,000/- per month till the total of arrears was recovered. The husband challenged the order before the Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai which is pending adjudication and also sought for stay, the MA for stay was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner/ wife was in dire need of financial assistance.
Despite the stay of the DV proceedings being rejected by the Sessions Court, on an application by the wife for the husband to deposit arrears before the Appeal was heard, the Sessions Court held in favour of the wife but without any reasoning, reduced the amount to Rs, 25,000/- from the date of application. Hence, the WP was filed before the High Court of Bombay.
The matter was heard and decided by Justice Sharmila Deshmukh in 25th April 2024.
The High Court held that the order of the Appellate Court is completely bereft of any findings or reasoning on the basis of which reduction has been directed apart from the fact that the Appellate Court could not have reduced the amount of maintenance once having rejected the Application for stay.
The observations that there is not a single paisa deposited towards the interim maintenance and considering the overall facts and circumstances, the observations do not appear to be in consonance with the order which has been passed reducing the amount of maintenance and emphasised the need for immediate financial help for the Petitioner-wife due to her medical condition.
The Petitioner wife was represented by Sarah Kapadia from Vesta Legal.
