Whether brother in law can be directed to pay maintenance to widow?

The submission which has been urged on behalf of the Appellant is that there was no basis under the provisions of the Act to fasten liability on the Appellant, who is the brother of the deceased spouse of the first Respondent. Learned Counsel submitted that the sole basis on which liability has been fastened is that the Appellant and his deceased brother carried on a joint business. It was urged that this cannot furnish any lawful basis to direct the Appellant to meet the award of maintenance.

That it is worthwhile to mention here that after the marriage of Complainant No. 1, both brother Sh. Vijay Kumar Jindal and Ajay Kumar Jindal were running their joint business of M/s. Ajay Kumar Vijay Kumar Kiryana Store, at Jatal Road, Sanjay Chowk Panipat, very smoothly and both brothers were taking/deciding Rs. 30,000/- P.M. each, out of the income of the said business, for the maintenance of their respective families. However after the death of Sh. Vijay Kumar, the Respondent No. 2 has been running the said business and the Complainants are equally entitled to the amount which the Respondent No. 2 has been deducting from the said joint business or at least Rs. 30,000/- P.M. which the Complainant No. 1 has been receiving during the life time of Sh. Vijay Kumar Jindal.

18. At the present stage, there are sufficient averments in the complaint to sustain the order for the award of interim maintenance. Paragraph 10 of the complaint prima facie indicates that the case of the complainants is that the house where the first Respondent and her spouse resided, belong to a joint family. The Appellant and his brother (who was the spouse of the first Respondent and father of the second Respondent) carried on a joint business. The Appellant resided in the same household. Ultimately, whether the requirements of Section 2(f); Section 2(q); and Section 2(s) are fulfilled is a matter of evidence which will be adjudicated upon at the trial. At this stage, for the purpose of an interim order for maintenance, there was material which justifies the issuance of a direction in regard to the payment of maintenance.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 617 of 2019 

Decided On: 08.04.2019

 Ajay Kumar  Vs.  Lata and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Print Page

Whether Court can direct brother in law of a widow to pay maintenance to her under Domestic Violence Act?

The submission which has been urged on behalf of the

appellant is that there was no basis under the provisions of

the Act to fasten liability on the appellant, who is the

brother of the deceased spouse of the first respondent.

Learned counsel submitted that the sole basis on which

liability has been fastened is that the appellant and his

deceased brother carried on a joint business. It was urged that

this cannot furnish any lawful basis to direct the appellant to

meet the award of maintenance.

The expression “respondent” is defined in Section 2(q) as

follows:-

2(q) “respondent” means any adult male person

who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship

with the aggrieved person and against whom the

aggrieved person has sought any relief under

this Act:

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living

in a relationship in the nature of a marriage

may also file a complaint against a relative of

the husband or the male partner;

13. That it is worthwhile to mention here

that after the marriage of Complainant No. 1,

both brother Sh. Vijay Kumar Jindal and Ajay

Kumar Jindal were running their joint

business of M/s. Ajay Kumar Vijay Kumar

Kiryana Store, at Jatal Road, Sanjay Chowk

Panipat, very smoothly and both brothers were

taking / deciding Rs. 30,000/- P.M. each, out

of the income of the said business, for the

maintenance of their respective families.

However after the death of Sh. Vijay Kumar,

the Respondent No. 2 has been running the

said business and the Complainants are

equally entitled to the amount which the

respondent No. 2 has been deducting from the

said joint business or at least Rs. 30,000/-

P.M. which the Complainant No. 1 has been

receiving during the life time of Sh. Vijay

Kumar Jindal.”

At the present stage, there are sufficient averments in

the complaint to sustain the order for the award of interim

maintenance. Paragraph 10 of the complaint prima facie

indicates that the case of the complainants is that the house

where the first respondent and her spouse resided, belong to a

joint family. The appellant and his brother (who was the

spouse of the first respondent and father of the second

respondent) carried on a joint business. The appellant resided

in the same household. Ultimately, whether the requirements of

Section 2(f); Section 2(q); and Section 2(s) are fulfilled is a

matter of evidence which will be adjudicated upon at the trial.

At this stage, for the purpose of an interim order for

maintenance, there was material which justifies the issuance of

a direction in regard to the payment of maintenance.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 617 OF 2019

AJAY KUMAR  Vs  LATA @ SHARUTI 

Dated:APRIL 8, 2019.

Citation: (2019) 15 SCC 352.

Print Page

How to appreciation of evidence when Modesty of women is outraged by her brother in law?

The incident transpired at 1.00 a.m on 21st October, 2007 when 

respondent No.2 was sleeping with her minor child in the kitchen. Her husband was out of the house. She felt that some one had put a hand on her person. She woke-up, she saw that it was her brother-in-law, the 

applicant herein. He was not having his clothes on his person. He was in 

her bed. When she started shouting ,he pressed her mouth. He was sitting on her body. Somehow she rescued herself. She called her mother-in-law. Rather than helping her, her mother-in-law told her that her husband was 

going to leave her and she should assume that her brother-in-law was her husband. There was strained relations between the complainant and her family members. Her husband was having an affair with another lady. He 

used to come once in a week to the house. Only her father-in-law was a good person. Hence her mother-in-law did not come to her assistance. She tried to run away outside the house when her brother-in-law and mother-in-law caught her and her mother-in-law poured kerosene on her and both of them beat her. Somehow she ran away from there and went to the house of her sister to narrate the incident. 

5. This is the substance of the complaint. Such evidence can be given 

only by the victim herself. There is no other to see, depose or corroborate such evidence. There have been certain divorce proceedings between the 

complainant and her husband. The complainant was living in the same house with her child. The family members would naturally not help her if such an incident transpired. She has been cross examined at length. 

However no descrepancies are pointed out in her evidence. No other can 

depose on her behalf. It was contended that there was no independent witness. There would be none under such circumstances. Only her little 

son was present with her. The incident happened after midnight. Hence the neighbours would be asleep. She was not allowed to shout when she tried to shout because the applicant herein closed her mouth. He would 

overpower her. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that 

multiplication of witnesses is unnecessary and such evidence needs no corroboration of any sort. He has further correctly observed that no women would take recourse to such type of incident to falsely implicate 

anyone by putting her character at stake.

Bombay High Court

C vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 June, 2013

Bench: R. S. Dalvi

Citation ; 2013 CR L J(NOC)563 bombay

Print Page