SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court asserted that a clear presentation of the husband’s income is essential for determining maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. Justice Puneet Gupta emphasised the necessity for concrete evidence of the husband’s salary, stating that the trial court must be informed of the actual salary to make an appropriate maintenance order.
Justice Gupta remarked, “The court cannot arbitrarily direct that the wife should receive 25 per cent of the gross salary without knowing the husband’s actual salary. The trial court must ascertain the husband’s income and then decide on the maintenance order based on that information.”
The petitioner, the wife of respondent No 01, sought to overturn the order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla.
The trial court had mandated the respondent to provide monthly interim monetary relief, lump sum compensation, and accommodation. The appellate court altered some directives, prompting the current petition.
The petitioner contended that the appellate court ignored Domestic Violence Act provisions and departed from Supreme Court judgments. Challenges were raised against orders concerning accommodation, interim compensation, and the modification of maintenance as a percentage of the husband’s salary.
The respondents argued their readiness to offer rental accommodation and questioned the rationale behind the awarded compensation. The appellate court’s decision to annul interim compensation was supported, citing insufficient evidence at this stage.
Examining the case intricacies, especially the modification of maintenance and accommodation orders, Justice Gupta stressed the imperative of concrete evidence of the husband’s salary.
The bench highlighted, “There is no documented proof of the monthly income earned by the respondent-husband. Only after revealing the salary to the court can a specific amount payable by the respondent-husband be determined.”
Concerning shared accommodation, the bench upheld the appellate court’s decision, instructing the husband to provide reasonable and secure accommodation or cover the cost of accommodation arranged by the wife.
On the compensation matter, Justice Gupta asserted that the trial court’s grant of Rs. 5.00 lakhs lacked justification and couldn’t be sustained. The court underscored that the Domestic Violence Act does not aim for windfalls but requires evidence for granting compensation.
Justice Gupta recorded, “The Act is designed to provide immediate relief to the aggrieved party, entitled to interim relief based on the case’s facts. However, this doesn’t mean the petitioner is entitled to windfall maintenance or compensation without the exercise of judicial discretion.”
Consequently, the petition was disposed of accordingly.
