AJAY KUMAR versus LATA @ SHARUTI & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 08-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
283
AJAY KUMAR
v.
LATA @ SHARUTI & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 617 of 2019)
APRIL 8, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 –
ss.2(f),2(q), 2(s), 12 – Award of maintenance – Complainant-first
respondent case that she resided with her husband at a house which
constituted ancestral Hindu Joint family property – The appellant
and her husband were brothers, who jointly carried on a business
– After the death of her husband, she was not permitted to reside in
her matrimonial home – Complainant sought maintenance for herself
and her minor child under the Act – Trial Court directed interim
award of maintenance against the appellant who was carrying on
the business together with the deceased spouse of the complainant
– This order was confirmed by the First appellate Court – Further,
this view was affirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held:
Sufficient averments in the complaint to sustain the order for award
of interim maintenance – Whether the requirements of ss.2(f), 2(q),
2(s) are fulfilled is a matter of evidence which would be adjudicated
upon the trial – At this stage, for the purpose of an interim order
for maintenance, there was material which justified the issuance of
a direction in regard to the payment of maintenance.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 617 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2018 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 44823 of 2018.
Anil Singal, Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
Dr. Nirmal Chopra, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 10 October 2018. The
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 283
283
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
High Court dismissed a petition against the judgment of the Additional
Sessions Judge, Panipat confirming an interim order for the award of
maintenance to the first respondent and her minor child under the
provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
20051.
3. The first respondent was married to Vijay Kumar Jindal on 12
December 2010. They have two children.
4. The first respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act
inter alia for the purpose of seeking an award of maintenance. The
complaint contains a recital of the fact that after her marriage, the
complainant and her spouse resided at a house which constitutes ancestral
Hindu Joint Family Property. She and her husband resided on the ground
floor of the residential accommodation. The appellant and the deceased
spouse of the first respondent jointly carried on a business of a kiryana
store at Panipat from which, it has been alleged, each had an income of
about Rs 30,000 per month.
5. The complaint alleges that at the death of Vijay Kumar, the
first respondent was pregnant and that she gave birth to a child on 31
January 2013. The travails of the first respondent are alleged to have
commenced after the death of her spouse and she was not permitted to
reside in her matrimonial home.
6. The learned Trial Judge by an order dated 3 July 2015 granted
monthly maintenance in the amount of Rs 4,000 to the first respondent
and Rs 2,000 to the second respondent. The award of maintenance was
directed against the appellant who was carrying on the above business
together with the deceased spouse of the first respondent.  This order of
the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panipat dated 3 July 2015 was
confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 14 August 2018.
The High Court, in a petition filed by the appellant, affirmed the view.
Hence these proceedings came to be instituted under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.
7. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant
is that there was no basis under the provisions of the Act to fasten
liability on the appellant, who is the brother of the deceased spouse of
the first respondent.   Learned counsel submitted that the sole basis on
1 “Act”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
285
which liability has been fastened is that the appellant and his deceased
brother carried on a joint business. It was urged that this cannot furnish
any lawful basis to direct the appellant to meet the award of maintenance.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents has relied upon the averments in the compla

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.