Separated Wife Gets Maintenance – What About Her Dogs? Bombay Court Says Yes..!

What is the Case?

A metropolitan magistrate from the Bandra court recently issued an interim order mandating a man to provide his 55-year-old separated wife (the applicant) Rs 50,000 monthly as temporary maintenance. The mentioned allowance aims to assist the applicant in caring for herself and her three pet dogs.

The court issued the order after rejecting the respondent's argument that maintaining pet dogs is not relevant.

“It is further contended that the applicant is seeking support for her three pets, specifically Rottweiler dogs.” Such ground cannot be taken into account. I do not concur with these submissions; pets are an essential aspect of a decent lifestyle. Pets are essential for humans to maintain a healthy life, as they address the emotional gaps caused by fractured relationships. "Consequently, this cannot serve as a basis to lessen the maintenance sum," the court stated.

The primary case was lodged under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the current application sought interim reliefs, primarily maintenance.

Justice walks on four legs too Bombay Court acknowledges a woman’s right to support her furry family

Overview of the case:

The applicant and the respondent got married on September 7, 1986. They possess two daughters who presently live overseas and are married. 

After a considerable time period of stable married life, some disagreements arose, and in 2021, the respondent sent the applicant to Mumbai, promising to provide maintenance and essential needs, yet he did not keep his commitment. Throughout their marriage, the respondent has committed several acts of domestic violence.

The applicant is ill and has several health issues. In addition to other needs, three dogs rely on her, while the respondent operates a business in Bengaluru and has several other income sources too. The applicant requested maintenance of Rs.70,000/- monthly, but the respondent rejected all these negative claims. The respondent similarly refuted claims that he had committed any acts of domestic violence as accused by the applicant.

Understanding Domestic Violence and Entitlement to Maintenance:

It is a socially beneficial law established to safeguard women against all forms of domestic violence. It came into effect on 26th October 2006.

It ensures strong safeguarding of the rights of women victimised by any form of violence occurring in the home. The preamble of this legislation clarifies that the scope of the Act encompasses all forms of violence, including physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, or economic, which are to be addressed by the law.

Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act enables the court to grant orders for financial compensation to address costs and losses suffered by the affected individual and any children as a result of domestic violence.

This assistance may cover costs related to healthcare, lost income, property damage, and additional expenses resulting from the violence.

Section 20(1)(d) provides for maintenance for the aggrieved individual and her children, if applicable, including an order under or alongside any maintenance order under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other current law.

Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

This provision deals with maintenance orders for wives, children, and parents who are unable to support themselves. It empowers a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class to direct a person with sufficient means to provide a monthly allowance for the maintenance of such dependents if they neglect or refuse to do so.

This section replaces Section 125 of the previous Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and is civil in nature. Its primary objective is to prevent destitution and vagrancy among dependents by ensuring they receive necessary financial support.

The maintenance regulations in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 apply to individuals of all faiths and are not connected to the personal laws of the involved parties.

Legal Perspective on Pet Maintenance in Domestic Violence Cases:

The magistrate court noted that “the applicant established a prima facie case of domestic violence against the respondent, and she is deserving of interim maintenance relief.”

The court noted that, although the woman's age and health issues needed to be taken into account for her plea, the pets she owned were also adding financial responsibility to her.

The magistrate determined that there is no evidence in the record “that would prevent the respondent from receiving maintenance, as established facts evidently represent economic violence.”

The court noted that there was “no tangible evidence” demonstrating that the respondent had experienced business losses and that he could not furnish maintenance. The court stated that even if he experienced such losses, it would still "not suffice to deny responsibility."

“The parties had a solid financial standing, the support should be ensured, and it should align with her lifestyle and needs,” it stated.

The magistrate also opposed the husband's argument regarding the maintenance requested by the separated wife for pet care, expressing that this "cannot serve as a reason to reduce the maintenance sum."

The court partially granted the request and ordered the separated husband to provide Rs 50,000 as interim maintenance to the woman from the date she submitted her application until a verdict is reached on her main plea.

Conclusion:

In an important decision, the Bandra Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Mumbai has awarded temporary maintenance of ₹50,000 monthly to a 55-year-old woman under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court highlighted that pets are essential to a good quality of life and significantly contribute to addressing emotional voids created by fractured relationships. The woman, who claimed domestic abuse and is now estranged from her husband, requested financial support for herself and her three Rottweiler dogs. The husband disputed this, asserting that pet care should not factor into the maintenance claim. The court decisively dismissed this argument, emphasising that the emotional support from pets is vital for human well-being and should not be overlooked when evaluating financial necessities. The magistrate remarked that the husband did not present solid proof of business losses and that both individuals had stable financial backgrounds. As a result, the court determined that the woman had demonstrated a prima facie case of domestic violence and was eligible for temporary relief, which included assistance for her pets, until a final ruling on her primary request is made.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now