Calcutta High Court Orders Cricketer Mohammed Shami To Pay Interim Monetary Relief Of Rs. 4 Lakhs In Domestic Violence Matter To Divorced Wife And Daughter

The Calcutta High Court granted interim monetary relief of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month to the divorced wife and Rs. 2,50,000/- to the daughter to ensure financial stability, till the disposal of the main application.

An application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) was filed by the Shami’s divorced wife, inter alia praying for monetary relief including an interim monetary relief.

The Bench of Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed, “Considering above mentioned submissions made by both the parties and materials so far placed on record including the observations of the courts below, it is not clear what was the basis of fixing of interim maintenance amount awarded to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and 80, 000/- in the context of affidavit of assets and liabilities and other materials placed on record in support of income. In view of materials placed before me and considering the elements for determination of quantum of maintenance as held in the salutary judgments, I am of the view that the quantum of interim monetary relief as fixed by the Court below requires revision. The opposite party/husband’s income, financial disclosure and earnings established that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The petitioner wife who has remained un-married and is living independently with the child is entitled to a levelled maintenance that she enjoyed during her continuance of marriage and which reasonably secure her future as well as future of the child.”

Advocate Imtiaz Ahmed represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Sandipan Ganguly represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The Petitioner contended that after marriage the divorced wife and her minor daughter were subjected to enormous physical as well as mental torture at the instance of the cricketer and his family members and for which she lodged a written complaint which was treated as an FIR under section 498A/328/307/376/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The application seeking interim monetary relief was considered by the Magistrate and Session Judge, granting meagre monetary relief. Being aggrieved by the same, the wife contended that while passing the impugned order, the learned Court below put unnecessary reliance upon the written objection filed by the husband and treated the same as gospel truth.

It was also contended that contended that the courts below failed to keep it in mind the object of beneficial and protective legislation like the PWDV Act, 2005 which has been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to the dependent wife and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy and that the enactment came in the light of Article 15(3) re enforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

Court’s Analysis

The Court highlighted that the condition precedent for interim monetary relief is that the magistrate has to satisfy himself, though prima facie, that there was a domestic relationship between the parties and the claimant has made out a case of commission of domestic violence by the respondent.

The Court further noted that the divorced wife in her affidavit of assets and liabilities shown her meagre income of Rs. 16,000/- per month from bank interest but it is settled law that even if the wife is earning some amount of money, it is not sufficient to rule out the application for monetary relief.

“Therefore while it is true that the question of awarding an excessive amount of monetary relief to make an attempt for equalization of wealth with the husband/ opposite party does not arise but at the same time awarding of very low amount of monetary relief also cannot be accepted which does not match with the standard of living of the parties. In this context court is not supposed to accept in one hand the submission of the petitioner/wife that the maintenance must be equal to husband’s wealth to award exorbitantly inflated amount but on the other hand he is also not supposed to accept the submission of the opposite party/husband in the absence of sufficiently proven fact that the wife is financially secured enough to sustain herself and the child and that there is no requirement for the husband to discharge his paternal duties or can absolve himself from his duty by paying meagre amount of monetary relief in terms of his income”, the Calcutta High Court observed.

Further, the Court noted that most of the accusations of parties are based on paper publication and media reports and it is also true that personal life of both the contending parties is under the vigil of media and public but the same cannot take the seat of prima facie material or have any such convincing value in the eye of law.

In the light of the above, the Court opined that the quantum of interim monetary relief as fixed by the Court below requires revision.

“In my considered opinion a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month to the petitioner no.1(wife) and Rs. 2,50,000/- to her daughter would be just fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for both the petitioners, till disposal of the main application. Such amount is to be paid by the opposite party/husband form the date of filing of the application under section 23 of the PWDV Act, as decided by the Apex Court in Rajnish Vs. Neha (supra). However as regards petitioner’s child the husband /opposite party No.2 will always be at liberty to voluntarily assist her with educational and/or other reasonable expenses, over and above the aforesaid amount.”, the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Application was disposed of.

Cause Title: Hasin Jahan Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Ms. Ghazala Firdaus, Mr. Sk. Saidullah, Mr. Mithun Mondal and Mr. Md. Arsalan

Opposite Party: Advocates Sandipan Ganguly, Mr. Sompriya Chowdhury, Mr. B. Kumar and Mr. I. Basu

Click here to read/download Judgment.