Summary
The Supreme Court sustained interim maintenance against a deceased husband’s brother under the domestic-violence legislation. Allegations of residence in a joint-family household, a joint business with the deceased, and the appellant’s residence in the same household supplied sufficient material at the interim stage. Final proof of the statutory relationships remained for trial. The decision did not impose maintenance on every brother-in-law merely because of kinship or a business connection.
Issues
- Whether the complaint supported interim maintenance against the deceased husband’s brother.
- Whether the interim findings determined the complaint finally.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(f) and 2(s), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005The definitions of domestic relationship and shared household were considered with allegations of joint-family residence; their ultimate satisfaction remained a matter for evidence. (¶ 11–15)
Held
- The statutory definitions reflect the breadth of the obligation and remedy. Allegations that the woman and her husband occupied the joint-family home, that the appellant resided there, and that the brothers carried on a joint business furnished sufficient material for interim maintenance. (¶ 9–15)
- Whether the statutory requirements were ultimately fulfilled had to be adjudicated on evidence at trial. Neither the Supreme Court’s order nor the orders below would obstruct final adjudication on merits. (¶ 15–16)
- The existing monthly maintenance of Rs 4,000 for the woman and Rs 2,000 for her minor child was sustained; arrears were to be paid in equal monthly instalments within four months. (¶¶ 6, 17–18)
Result
Appeal disposed of, sustaining interim maintenance and directing payment of arrears in equal monthly instalments within four months. Final adjudication on the complaint’s merits expressly preserved. Pending applications disposed of.