Interim Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act

 Interim Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act

The key problem becomes "maintenance" once a divorce petition is filed. Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from 1980 (CrPC), the Special Marriage Act from 1954, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act from 2005, a wife may ask her husband for maintenance after the marriage has ended. There are two types of maintenance – final and interim maintenance. The applicant is given interim maintenance while the court case is ongoing, and this arrangement lasts until the court issues its ruling. In order to prevent the applicant from suffering prior to the court's decision, the idea of interim maintenance was developed. The courts have the option to order interim maintenance; therefore, the respondent is not required to provide it.

 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

The Domestic Violence Act's provision for temporary relief is discussed in the two sections. Any relief allowed by this Act may be filed before a magistrate pursuant to Section 12, including interim relief. In contrast, Section 23 gives the magistrate the authority to issue ex-parte or interim orders.

 

PROCEDURE 

Under the statute, interim maintenance is not automatically granted; instead, a specific listing and application must be made. The party who feels aggrieved must submit an application in accordance with the guidelines established by the central government and establish a presumption in favor of paying maintenance. The main challenge in submitting a request for interim maintenance under the statute is this. The combined demands of proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt, the discussion of self-sufficiency, and the duty to notify the existence of any active legal proceedings: The preconditions for granting interim maintenance give the opposing party sufficient reason to cast doubt on their eligibility and the sincerity of the petition itself, making it extremely difficult to persuade a judge to rule in their favour even in the unlikely event that the Judge might be amenable to a decision.

 

Rajnesh vs Neha (2020) is a key judgement in more ways than one, as it addressed a number of difficulties, expedited the maintenance process, and established some rules for other courts to follow. The basic goal of the maintenance idea is to ensure that the woman, after her divorce lives with dignity and is not left out in the cold, not to burden or trouble the husband. In the present case, the court subsequently concluded that the following elements should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to award interim or permanent maintenance:

• The Supreme Court made this observation about the legal position when opposing interim maintenance because interim maintenance is primarily dependent on speculation and a presumed understanding of the facts. As a result, the court frequently either granted interim maintenance that burdened the husband too much or granted interim maintenance that was insufficient to support the widow. So as to avoid unfair interim maintenance orders, the Supreme Court, in the present case, instructed the parties to provide the courts with an affidavit listing all of their assets and debts in order to settle this issue.
• Along with the previously mentioned issue, there has always been debate over whether interim maintenance should be granted after the application or after the order. However, the Supreme Court made it quite plain that interim maintenance should be granted beginning on the date of the application.
• In the present case, the Supreme Court held that the other court hearing the case for the same parties should be informed that the wife has already been awarded a maintenance judgement if she receives one in one of the cases. In addition, the courts considering the latter case ought to take this into consideration and allow an adjustment or set-off of that sum.
• The biggest difficulty the applicants have to deal with is the enforcement of the maintenance order. If maintenance is not paid on time, the social welfare laws' basic purpose is defeated. For willful noncompliance, the competent Court may begin contempt proceedings.

 

CONCLUSION

Because domestic violence was not precisely defined anywhere, the 2005 Domestic Violence Act was created to address its complexities. Under the Act, interim maintenance was always a problem; sometimes, the wife received more than she should, and other times she did not. Furthermore, men were affected as well since, despite being capable of working, because women are protected by the Act, they would demand enormous maintenance payments from their husbands. However, given the latest developments, there has been a major improvement in the whole process of granting maintenance. More so than in precedent, the Act needs to reflect the time-bound treatment of domestic abuse cases. It is crucial that there be a suitable procedure or comity that can guarantee the prompt resolution of cases and address the problem of the woman not receiving support for several months even after the court grants her request.