New Delhi:
A sessions court here has directed a magisterial court to decide afresh a woman's plea for interim maintenance which was denied on the ground that she deserted her husband and that there was nothing to prove that she was subjected to cruelty.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sanjay Sharma asked the magisterial court to hear the woman again on the issue of interim maintenance, saying that it (magistrate) had made a "serious error of law" by reaching the conclusion without considering the material on record.
The magistrate had denied any maintenance amount to the woman, but had directed her husband to pay Rs. 1,800 per month in favour of their minor daughter.
"Trial court has not considered the material placed on record by the petitioner (woman) as well as the respondent (husband) in forming an interim opinion as to whether she had sufficient cause not to live with him," ASJ Sharma said.
The judge also said, "Ordinarily, an Indian woman does not leave her matrimonial house without any sufficient cause." The judge's observation came on an appeal filed by the woman, a resident of Delhi, against the magistrate's 2012 order denying her interim maintenance in a case of domestic
violence.
The sessions court allowed the woman's appeal and remanded the case back to the trial court saying that it "must hear" her on the issue of maintenance and decide it within 30 days.
"Trial court has committed material irregularity by forming an opinion for declining maintenance to the woman on the basis of absence of police complaint," the judge said, while relying on the copy of a complaint made by the woman in the Crime against Women Cell alleging physical and mental torture at the hands of her estranged husband and in-laws soon after her marriage in 1998.
The judge also noted that the copy of a compromise deed of 2009 was also submitted by the woman before the magistrate showing that her husband had agreed to treat her properly. "From a reading of the compromise deed of 2009, it can be safely stated that the respondent (husband) was consuming liquor and subjecting the woman to mental as well as physical cruelty," the judge said.
The woman in her appeal had claimed that the magistrate had not considered that her refusal to stay with her husband was due to the persistent demand of dowry, harassment and beatings.
The trial court in its 2012 order had held that the woman had deserted her husband and as per law, she was not entitled to receive any maintenance from the man. It had also said that there was no evidence on record to show that the woman was subjected to torture.