2021 (1) TMI 1315 - HC - Indian Laws

Claim of interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act - HELD THAT - The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. The object of Section 397 CrPC is to settle a patent defect or an error in exercising jurisdiction or if the order is perverse and no court would come to such a conclusion. The orders have been passed in an application for interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. Matrimonial proceedings are still pending between the parties. The findings of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as upheld by the learned Sessions Court is that the petitioner was not providing adequate maintenance to the respondent and since the adequate maintenance was not being paid, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards maintenance. The Company which was being run by the petitioner did not release her salary. The respondent had to move the court and fight for getting her legitimate salary. It is not in dispute that Mobisoft Telesolutions Pvt. Ltd. company was being run by the petitioner. After denying the respondent her salary, the petitioner is now trying to take advantage of his own wrong by stating that now since the respondent has got her salary and therefore, the order of maintenance should be modified. Even though the company is distinct from the petitioner but the company is being run by the petitioner and it can be assumed that the salary was not being paid to the respondent only at the instance of the petitioner. This court does not want to substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by the court below. It is open to the petitioner to raise all these contentions in the matrimonial proceedings pending between the husband and wife while deciding the issue of grant of alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against order of interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act.

Analysis:
1. The revision petition challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the Metropolitan Magistrate regarding interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner contended that the respondent concealed material facts, claiming she was unable to work due to being a Director in one company when she was actually a Director in another. The petitioner argued that since the respondent received salary as directed by the Company Law Board, the maintenance order should be modified.

2. The respondent's counsel argued that multiple courts upheld the maintenance order, and the petitioner's contentions were raised for the first time in the revision petition. The High Court noted that the order had already been challenged and dismissed in the Sessions Court, making it inappropriate to revisit the same issue in revision.

3. The High Court emphasized the narrow scope of interference in a revision petition, stating that the revising court does not extensively review facts and evidence but focuses on legality and propriety of findings. The court highlighted that the maintenance order had been upheld in appellate courts, and there was no perversity in the lower courts' decisions warranting interference.

4. The High Court further noted that the petitioner, who ran the company where the respondent worked, failed to pay her salary, leading her to seek legal intervention. The court found it unjust for the petitioner to now argue against maintenance payment due to the respondent receiving her salary, as it was likely withheld at the petitioner's behest. The court declined to substitute its conclusion for that of the lower courts.

5. The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, advising the petitioner to address these issues in the ongoing matrimonial proceedings regarding alimony under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court maintained that the lower courts' decisions regarding maintenance were justified given the circumstances and the petitioner's actions.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, providing insights into the arguments presented by both parties and the court's reasoning for dismissing the petition.