The Bombay High Court held that a government-employed doctor earning Rs 1.38 lakh per month is financially independent and capable of maintaining herself decently and with dignity. The Court therefore set aside the maintenance awarded to her under the Domestic Violence Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: In a significant ruling on maintenance jurisprudence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Bombay High Court partly allowed a criminal revision filed by a husband and set aside the maintenance granted to his wife, who is employed as a Medical Officer with the State Government.
The Court, however, maintained the maintenance awarded to the minor son, recognising the father’s continuing responsibility towards the child.
Background of the Case
The parties, both medical practitioners, were married in May 2010, and a son was born from the wedlock. Due to strained relations, the wife began residing separately with the child from August 2010.
In 2012, the wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Udgir, alleging domestic violence and seeking maintenance of ₹25,000 per month for herself and the child.
Orders of the Lower Courts
- JMFC (03 August 2019) awarded ₹12,000 per month to the wife, ₹10,000 per month to the son, ₹7,000 towards rent and ₹1,00,000 as compensation
- Additional Sessions Judge (31 January 2023) dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the order.
Aggrieved, the husband approached the Bombay High Court in revision.
Arguments Presented
Husband’s Arguments
The husband contended that:
- The wife holds an MBBS and an MD degree and is appointed as a Medical Officer through MPSC.
- She draws a gross monthly salary of ₹1,38,192, has government accommodation benefits, and is an income tax payer.
- She is financially independent and self-sufficient, and therefore not entitled to maintenance.
- He expressed willingness to continue paying maintenance for the child, but not for the wife.
Wife’s Arguments
The wife argued that:
- Domestic violence was established, justifying relief under the DV Act.
- Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), she claimed that employment is not a bar to maintenance.
- She asserted that maintenance was necessary to enable her to maintain the same standard of living she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
- She listed various personal and child-related expenses, including rent, transport, school fees, EMIs, and loans.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Abhay S. Waghwase reiterated the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, relying on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra (2012).
The Court observed that interference is justified only where the order:
- Is illegal, perverse, or arbitrary
- Ignores material evidence
- Results in miscarriage of justice
Referring to Rajnesh v. Neha and Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, the Court clarified:
“Even if the wife is earning, it would not operate as a bar to maintenance. However, the Court must determine whether her income is sufficient to maintain herself in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband.”
The High Court carefully examined the financial status of the wife and noted that she is a Class-I officer employed with the State Government, drawing a substantial monthly salary of ₹1,38,192. The Court observed that although the wife claimed to be incurring ₹20,000 per month towards house rent, her salary slip clearly reflected that she was receiving House Rent Allowance (HRA), thereby casting doubt on her assertion.
Further, while she claimed to be repaying a housing loan and other liabilities, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate these claims. The Court also took note of the fact that the wife was paying EMIs for a vehicle loan, indicating ownership of a car.
In view of these circumstances, the Court concluded that the wife had independent means, stable income, her own shelter, and essential amenities, and was therefore capable of maintaining herself comfortably and with dignity.
The court observed:
“With her above quoted income, she definitely can maintain herself decently and with dignity.”
While setting aside the maintenance awarded to the wife, the Court:
- Noted the absence of documentary proof regarding claimed child expenses
- Accepted the husband’s willingness to support the child
- Confirmed maintenance of ₹10,000 per month for the son
Final Decision of the Court
The High Court partly allowed the revision and ordered:
- Maintenance awarded to the wife is set aside
- Rental allowance granted to the wife is quashed
- Maintenance of ₹10,000 per month to the minor son is upheld
- All other reliefs granted by the trial court remain intact
Case Title:
Deepak Gangadhar Dadge vs. Sou. Vijaya w/o Deepak Dadge and Another
Criminal Revision Application No. 31 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance