 "Court asks husband to pay wife Rs 50,000 a month for pets' maintenance")
A court in Mumbai recently observed that “pets are also part and parcel of a decent lifestyle and they are necessary for human beings to lead a healthy life as they fulfill the emotional deficit that occurred on account of broken relationships.”
The magistrate court made these observations while allowing a plea by a 55-year-old woman under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act, who sought maintenance from her estranged husband citing her age, health issues, and three Rottweiler dogs dependent on her.
The court said the maintenance amount cannot be mitigated on the husband’s claim that the ground taken by the woman seeking maintenance for pets cannot be considered. It also allowed the woman’s plea, directing the estranged husband to pay her Rs 50,000 per month as interim maintenance till the final disposal of her plea.
What is the case?
On June 20, Metropolitan Magistrate Komalsing Rajput granted the woman's interim application for maintenance in her main plea under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This month, the order was made available.
The woman's lawyer, Advocate Shweta R Moray, told the court that the couple married in 1986 and has two married daughters living abroad.
Also Read
“After a considerable period of settled married life, some differences occurred and in the year 2021, the respondent estranged husband sent the woman to Mumbai [from southern metro city], assuring her of providing maintenance and other basic necessities. But he has not followed his promise,” Moray argued.
The woman further claimed that her husband had indulged in domestic violence against her when they were together. Moray submitted that her client has no source of income and suffered from health issues.
Three dogs are also dependent on her, besides other requirements, Moray said.
The woman also stated that because her husband owns a business in another metropolis and has other sources of income, he should pay her interim maintenance of Rs 70,000 per month. The husband, on the other hand, denied the allegations of domestic violence, stating that the woman had left his house on her own without his fault.
He denied the woman's claim that he had sufficient sources of income, adding that he had suffered losses in business, rendering him unable to support her.
The estranged husband also stated that he had paid her certain amounts in the interim.
Court's judgement
The magistrate court observed that “the applicant succeeded in making a prima facie case of commission of domestic violence against the respondent and she is entitled for relief of interim maintenance.”
The court stated that, while the woman's age and ailments had to be considered when deciding her plea, the pets she kept were also accruing financial liability on her.
The magistrate held that there is nothing on record “which will dis-entitle the respondent from the payment of maintenance, as admitted facts clearly constitute economic violence.”
The court also observed that there was “no concrete material’ to show that the respondent had suffered losses in business and that he was unable to provide maintenance. Even if he had suffered such losses, the same would “not be enough to disown liability,” the court noted.
“The parties belonged to a good financial background, the maintenance must be granted and that too with a lifestyle and requirements suitable to her,” it added.
The magistrate further disagreed with the husband's submission against the maintenance sought by the estranged wife for pet care, stating that it "cannot be a ground to mitigate the maintenance amount."
The court partly allowed the plea and asked the estranged husband to pay Rs 50,000 interim maintenance to the woman from the date of filing of her application till the decision is taken on her main plea.