The Bombay High Court recently overturned a sessions court order that had reduced the interim maintenance amount a man was required to pay his wife, who is in a vegetative state, for her medical expenses.
Initially, a trial court had mandated the man to pay ₹1.2 lakhs per month as interim maintenance following proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act initiated by the wife. However, the sessions court reduced this amount to ₹25,000 per month on appeal, despite not staying the trial court’s order.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh of the High Court set aside the sessions court’s decision, restoring the trial court’s order of ₹1.2 lakhs per month. The High Court ruled that the sessions court could not reduce the maintenance amount without providing a valid reason, especially after declining to stay the trial court’s order.
The High Court criticized the sessions court for reducing the maintenance despite acknowledging that the wife required immediate financial assistance and that the husband had not deposited any interim maintenance.
The case involved a couple who had been living in the UK after their marriage in 2016. The wife allegedly suffered domestic violence and, in 2017, experienced a medical condition that left her in a vegetative state. She was brought back to India for better treatment and care, accompanied by her husband. The wife’s family claimed that the husband had promised to send ₹1.5 lakhs per month for her medical expenses but failed to do so, leading to the maintenance claim under the Domestic Violence Act.
In July 2022, the trial court ordered the husband to pay ₹1.2 lakhs per month as interim maintenance and ₹1 lakh per month towards arrears. The husband appealed this decision but the sessions court only reduced the interim maintenance without providing a stay.
After the reduction was challenged, the High Court directed the domestic violence case trial to be concluded within three weeks from June 18.
Advocates Sarah Kapadia, Ankita Pachouri, and Anoushka Ajoy Thangkhiew represented the petitioner. Advocate Akshay R. Kapadia represented the husband, and Additional Public Prosecutor A.R. Metkari represented the State.
