Husband’s HCL Job, No Proof He Was Unemployed: Madras HC Upholds ₹15,000 Monthly Interim Maintenance For Wife And Child

In brief

The question

1. Whether the courts below were justified in awarding interim maintenance to the wife and child despite the husband’s claim that he was unemployed and the wife had an income.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the husband and dismissed the civil revision petition, holding that the interim maintenance awards were not unreasonable and disclosed no ground for interference.

It also directed

The awards of ₹5,000 per month to the wife and ₹10,000 per month to the child were to continue until disposal of the DVC proceedings.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and sought interim maintenance of ₹25,000 per month for herself and ₹15,000 per month for the parties’ child, along with litigation expenses.

p. 2 · ¶ 2–4

She alleged that the husband worked for Wipro and earned ₹1,00,000 per month; the husband claimed he had resigned and had no income, and alleged that the wife earned from a boutique business.

p. 2 · ¶ 2–4

The Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional Mahila Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹5,000 per month to the wife and ₹10,000 per month to the child.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5–6

The Principal District and Sessions Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and confirmed that order. The husband then filed this civil revision petition.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the courts below were justified in awarding interim maintenance to the wife and child despite the husband’s claim that he was unemployed and the wife had an income.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 7–10

ii.2. Whether the concurrent orders awarding ₹5,000 per month to the wife and ₹10,000 per month to the child warranted interference in the civil revision petition.

p. 5 · ¶ 10–12

03Law Applied

The proceedings arose under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The Court applied the principle that a husband has a duty to maintain his wife and child, and assessed the interim maintenance claims in light of the parties’ evidence concerning the husband’s employment and the wife’s alleged income.

p. 5 · ¶ 9–11

The judgment cited no precedent or further statutory provision governing the interim-maintenance assessment.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12

04Reasoning

The Court found that the husband had produced no valid document establishing that he was unemployed and no evidence showing that the wife earned enough to maintain herself and the child.

p. 5 · ¶ 9–10

It also noted the submission that he was working for HCL, a reputed software company, and considered the ordered amounts reasonable in light of the prevailing cost of living.

p. 5 · ¶ 10

On that basis, it found no infirmity in the concurrent orders granting interim maintenance pending disposal of the Domestic Violence Case.

p. 5 · ¶ 11–12