8 hours ago
Bombay HC stays interim order in domestic violence case, subject to ex-minister depositing 50% maintenance amount
The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted an interim stay on a trial court order that directed a Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader and former minister to pay monthly interim maintenance to his estranged partner in a domestic violence case. However, the high court said that the stay is subject to his depositing the 50 per cent amount awarded in favour of the estranged partner in the court.
The high court will hear the leader's plea after eight weeks.
A single-judge bench of Justice Manjusha A Deshpande was hearing the NCP leader's plea, argued through advocates Shardul Singh and Sayali Sawant, that challenged an April 5 sessions court order that rejected his appeal against an interim order by a magistrate directing him to pay Rs 1.25 lakh to his estranged partner and Rs 75, 000 to their daughter.
On February 4, a magistrate court in Bandra had partly allowed the woman's plea and ordered interim maintenance. The magistrate had observed that there was a prima facie proof of domestic violence against the former minister.
However, the ex-minister approached the sessions court, challenging the magistrate's order. He claimed that he had never married the woman, and as the domestic relationship between them had ceased to exist, she could not file a plea under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The sessions court, while rejecting the leader's appeal, had noted that he and his estranged partner and their daughter 'are entitled for the same lifestyle which is being enjoyed by the appellant. Even if it is presumed that respondent (estranged partner) is earning, she is also entitled for maintenance to maintain their lifestyle as of the appellant (NCP leader)'.
Aggrieved by the same, the NCP leader approached the high court, claiming that documents relied upon by the respondent woman were 'fabricated and forged', and he had filed a police complaint regarding the same, and therefore the trial court order based on the same was 'erroneous'.
The petitioner further claimed that the woman had a substantial income, which is reflected in her earlier election affidavit, which the trial court failed to consider. He added that he was not contesting the maintenance amount granted in favour of the daughter.
