The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that maintenance in domestic violence cases should be awarded from the date of application, not from the date of the court order. This significant judgment was delivered by Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar in Criminal Revision Case No. 1115 of 2023 on July 16, 2024.
Background:
The case involved a married woman and her minor child (the petitioners) who had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband/father (respondent) seeking various reliefs. During the pendency of the main case, they filed an interim application seeking maintenance.
The trial court (IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam) granted interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 10,000 per month to the child from the date of filing the petition (April 24, 2019). However, on appeal, the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam modified the order to grant maintenance only from April 1, 2022, citing the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on salaries.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision:
1. Date of awarding maintenance: The High Court held that the appellate court erred in modifying the date from which maintenance was to be paid. Justice Krupa Sagar cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) which stated that maintenance should be awarded from the date of application in all cases, including those under Section 125 CrPC.
2. Consideration of facts not on record: The court observed that the appellate court’s reasoning about COVID-19 affecting salaries was based on facts not present in the case record. The judge stated, “Deciding a case based on material that was never part of the record amounts to impropriety requiring interference from this court in terms of Section 397 and 401 of the CrPC.”
3. Legal obligation to maintain: The court emphasized that there is a legal obligation on a husband to maintain his wife and minor child. It noted that when the spouse and minor child are not receiving allowances from the husband, they are entitled to seek relief by moving an appropriate petition.
Important Observations:
Justice Krupa Sagar made several noteworthy observations:
1. On maintenance from the date of application: “Awarding maintenance from the date of application was in the interest of Justice and fair play.”
2. On the need to establish marriage: “The complainant’s need to establish a marital relationship was not essential in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. A relationship akin to marriage would suffice for the application’s maintainability.”
3. On the husband’s financial capacity: “The fact is that R2/husband is an employee in Bank of America earning Rs.93,000/- per month. This is seen from the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by him before the trial court.”
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the appellate court’s order, and restored the trial court’s order granting maintenance from the date of application. The husband was directed to deposit the arrear maintenance within six weeks and continue paying monthly maintenance as per the trial court’s order.
Also Read
Parties and Lawyers:
Petitioners: Palaparthi Shebha and Others
Respondents: The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Lawyer for Petitioners: Arrabolu Sai Naveen
Lawyer for Respondents: Public Prosecutor (AP), Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava
