Domestic Violence Act Doesn't Provide Windfalls, Concrete Evidence Regarding Income Needed For Fair Assessment Of Maintenance: J&K High Court

Emphasising the need for concrete evidence of the husband's salary before quantifying maintenance, Justice Puneet Gupta observed,

"The court cannot pass in air the direction that the wife shall be entitled to 25% of the gross salary without knowing the actual salary of the husband. The trial court is required to have the income of the husband of the applicant-wife and then pass the order of maintenance as deemed fit in the light of the salary or other income of the husband”.

The petitioner, wife of respondent No. 01, sought the setting aside of the order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla. The trial court had directed the respondent to pay monthly interim monetary relief, lump sum compensation, and provide accommodation to the petitioner. The appellate court modified some of these directions, leading to the filing of the present petition.

The petitioner argued that the appellate court did not consider the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and deviated from Supreme Court judgments. The orders regarding accommodation and interim compensation were challenged, especially the modification of maintenance granted as a percentage of the husband's salary.

The respondents contested, asserting their readiness to provide accommodation on rent and disputing the justification for the awarded compensation. The appellate court's decision to set aside interim compensation was supported, emphasising the lack of evidence at this stage.

Delving into the intricacies of the case, particularly focusing on the modification of maintenance and accommodation orders Justice Gupta emphasized the need for concrete evidence of the husband's salary before quantifying maintenance.

The bench noted,

“There is nothing on record to substantiate the salary which is being earned on monthly basis by the respondent-husband. It is only after the salary amount is made known to the court that it can pass a direction for specific amount which is payable by the respondent-husband”.

Regarding shared accommodation, the bench upheld the appellate court's decision, directing the husband to provide reasonable and safe accommodation or pay for rented accommodation arranged by the wife.

On the issue of compensation, Justice Gupta held that the trial court's grant of Rs. 5.00 lakhs lacked justification and could not be sustained. The court stressed that the Domestic Violence Act does not intend to provide windfalls but requires evidence to grant compensation.

“There is no doubt that the Act has been framed with a reason to provide immediate relief and succor to the aggrieved party and is entitled to interim relief which the court may consider in the facts and circumstances of the case however it does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to windfall in the proceedings and to be paid the maintenance or compensation without exercising judicial discretion”, Justice Gupta recorded.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of in aforesaid terms.

Case Title: Mahroz Akhter Vs Dr Azmat Gouhar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 310

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment