Amit Agarwal
Recently, a metropolitan magistrate of the Bandra court passed an interim order requiring a man to pay his 55-year-old estranged wife (the applicant) Rs 50,000 per month as interim maintenance. The said allowance is intended to help the applicant support herself and her three pet dogs.
The court passed the order after refusing to accept the submission of the respondent that the maintenance of pet dogs cannot be considered.
“It is also argued that applicant is also claimed maintenance for her three pets i.e. Rottweiler dogs. Such ground can not be considered. I am not agree with these submissions, the pets are also part and parcel of descent lifestyle. Pets are necessary for human beings to lead healthy life as they fulfill the emotional deficit occurred on account of broken relationships. Therefore, this can not be ground to mitigate the maintenance amount,” the court remarked.
The main case was filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the present application was for interim reliefs, mainly maintenance.
Facts of the Case
The respondent and the applicant were married on September 7, 1986. They have two daughters who currently reside abroad and are married.
After a considerable period of settled, married life, some differences occurred, and in the year 2021, the respondent sent the applicant to Mumbai, assuring her of providing maintenance and other basic necessities, but he failed to follow his promise. During married life, the respondent has caused various acts of domestic violence.
The applicant is ill and has health issues. Three dogs are also dependent on her, besides other requirements, while the respondent runs a business in Bengaluru, and he is having various other earning sources as well. Therefore, the applicant claimed maintenance of Rs.70,000/- per month, but the respondent denied all these adverse allegations. The respondent also denied that he had caused any act of domestic violence as alleged by the applicant.
As per the summary of the respondent, the applicant left the house on her own without any fault on the part of the respondent, and he has no means of income as claimed by the applicant. He suffered losses in the business and was unable to provide any maintenance.
“So far as reliefs claimed are concerned the applicant mainly sought maintenance. Though it is denied that respondent has suffered business losses and unable to provide maintenance, there is no concrete material produced to draw any such inference. Further, even if it is presumed that he has suffered any such losses this fact itself is not enough to disown liability. The parties belonged to good financial background, the maintenance must be granted and that too with a lifestyle and requirements suitable to her,” the court further observed.
Bench: Komalsing Rajput, Metropolitan Magistrate