A mahila court has denied maintenance from the husband to a woman in a case of domestic violence and said that she was “highly qualified and capable of finding a source of income for herself”.
The woman named Shiny Verma Bakshi, had sought an interim maintenance of Rs 50,000 per month from her husband Guneet Singh Bakshi, who is an orthopaedic surgeon.
However, the metropolitan magistrate Swayam Siddha Tripathy said in last month’s order that “𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝘂𝘀𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝘄𝗶𝗳𝗲.”
The magistrate said that the wife has to first “show her inability to sustain, survive and manage even the basic necessities. Additionally, she also has to show that the husband earns and has a better lifestyle whereas she has been left to fend for herself. The complainant has to prove that either she is not earning, or her income is not sufficient to maintain the same standard of living provided to her in the matrimonial house.”
Magistrate Tripathy while hearing hearing Shiny’s appeal, filed under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, said: “In the present case, the complainant is an MBA graduate and is qualified on a par as her husband. The complainant is able-bodied and well-educated. However, she has chosen not to seek employment and instead be dependent on her husband. Further, the complainant has failed to show that respondent number 1 (the husband) is maintaining a better standard of living than her. Respondent number 1 is unemployed and cannot be said to be living a luxurious life,” the court said.
Shiny and Guneet got married in 2018. In her complaint, filed in 2020, she alleged that she was beaten up by Guneet and her in-laws.
The mahila court said that a lower court had granted Rs 8,000 per month as relief to Shiny but the order was challenged before the high court. The court dismissed the plea, observing that the complainant was wealthier than her husband. The court noted that the observation made by the high court does not deprive the woman from seeking remedies under the anti-domestic violence law.
The court said “the intention of the legislation was not to encourage willful unemployment and unnecessary dependence on the husband. The power of granting maintenance was not intended to be exercised for equalising the income of the parties”.
The court noted that the complainant was “from a well-to-do family” and had received compensation from her first husband. “The complainant is highly qualified and capable of finding a source of income for herself. Allowing maintenance to her will only promote idleness and dependency,” the court said.
“Therefore, I am not inclined to grant any maintenance to the complainant in view of her capacity to earn.”
