A Mumbai sessions court refused a woman’s plea for ₹2 lakh monthly maintenance after finding that she enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle, owned properties, and travelled abroad frequently. The court said interim maintenance is meant only for those lacking financial resources.
MAHARASHTRA: A Mumbai sessions court recently refused to grant ₹2 lakh per month as interim maintenance to a woman who filed a case against her ex-husband under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA).
The court observed that her foreign vacations, income tax records, and property ownership clearly showed her “extraordinary financial position” and that she did not deserve such relief.
The woman had challenged a 2019 Bandra Magistrate Court order that had earlier rejected her plea for interim maintenance in a domestic violence case filed in 2015, which is still under trial.
However, Additional Sessions Judge Mujibodeen S. Shaikh dismissed her appeal and upheld the magistrate’s order, saying that she had “not proved” any domestic violence and was financially independent enough to support herself.
During the recent hearing, the court also noted that the ex-husband has been regularly paying ₹40,000 per month under a Bombay High Court order dated October 11, 2018, issued towards rent. In addition, he has been bearing the full educational expenses of their daughters, showing that he was already fulfilling his financial responsibilities.
The court recorded evidence showing that the woman has been living a lavish and luxurious life and taking multiple foreign trips to Europe and Eurasia. It was specifically mentioned that she had travelled to Ireland, which was even noted in a High Court order, and another trip to Turkey in November 2019.
The court remarked,
“All these foreign trips are sufficient to show her extraordinary financial position.”
The judge further pointed out that the woman files income tax returns, holds fixed deposits, and owns two flats jointly, proving that she has a stable financial background. The court also observed that she runs a well-established business and is financially well settled. The order stated:
“Interim maintenance is meant to address immediate needs where a party lacks resources, which is not the case with the woman.”
Emphasising the purpose of interim maintenance, the court highlighted that the relief is provided to those who genuinely need financial support during the case proceedings—not for individuals who already enjoy substantial income, assets, and financial comfort. Hence, her demand for ₹2 lakh per month was found to be unjustified.
Finally, the court upheld the magistrate’s earlier decision as “legal and proper” and ruled that there was no need for interference.
It dismissed the appeal while clarifying that the issue of maintenance and other reliefs will be decided after the trial court completes the domestic violence case hearing.
Explanatory Table: Relevant Laws & Sections in the Case
| Legislation | Section / Provision | Purpose & Explanation | How Applied in This Case |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) | Relief under interim maintenance (sections generally allow for relief during pendency) | Designed to provide immediate relief (including maintenance) to aggrieved women where domestic violence is alleged and protection order sought | The woman sought interim maintenance under the DV Act; the court held that interim maintenance is for those lacking resources and found she did not lack resources. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) | Section 125 (if applicable) – maintenance to wives, children, parents | Provides for maintenance in certain matrimonial/extra-marital contexts, ensuring dependents are not left destitute | Although the article references DV Act, the logic of maintenance eligibility (resources vs need) overlaps with principles under CrPC Section 125. The court’s reliance on financial position echoes jurisprudence under Section 125. |
| Income Tax Law / Property Law (implicit) | Income tax payer status, jointly purchased flats, fixed deposits | These are factual indicators of financial capacity and asset base | The court noted her being an income-tax payer, owning fixed deposits, jointly owning flats and foreign trips as showing “extraordinary financial position”. |
Case Summary
- Bench / Judge: Additional Sessions Judge Mujibodeen S. Shaikh (sessions court, Mumbai).
- Court: Sessions Court (Mumbai) dismissing appeal against a Magistrate Court (Bandra) order of 2019.
- Key Facts: The woman sought ₹2 lakh/month as interim maintenance from her ex-husband; the court found she had a strong financial position (income-tax payer, fixed deposits, jointly purchased flats, foreign trips).
- Legal issue: Whether interim maintenance under DV Act is justified when the aggrieved party is financially well-off.
- Outcome: Appeal dismissed; magistrate’s order upheld as “legal and proper”.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.