New Delhi -°C
Today in New Delhi, India

Oct 16, 2019-Wednesday
-°C

Humidity
-

Wind
-

Select city

Metro cities - Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata

Other cities - Noida, Gurgaon, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Bhopal , Chandigarh , Dehradun, Indore, Jaipur, Lucknow, Patna, Ranchi

Thursday, Oct 17, 2019

Brother-in-law told to pay maintenance in domestic violence case

The woman had filed a domestic violence case alleging her child and she were not allowed to reside in her matrimonial home following her husband’s death.

india Updated: May 28, 2019 07:39 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent
Hindustan Times, New Delhi
Supreme Court has upheld a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that directed a woman’s brother-in-law to pay maintenance to her
Supreme Court has upheld a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that directed a woman’s brother-in-law to pay maintenance to her(Getty Images/iStockphoto)
         

The Supreme Court has upheld a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that directed a woman’s brother-in-law to pay maintenance to her under the Domestic Violence Act.

The woman had filed a domestic violence case alleging her child and she were not allowed to reside in her matrimonial home following her husband’s death. She demanded maintenance from the brother-in-law on the grounds he and her husband were business partners and both resided in a family property.

The order pronounced by a bench of justices DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta analysed the scope of various definitions in the law and said the word “respondents” included any male adult with whom the complainant has had a domestic relationship. The law, it said, provides for the liability of maintenance on an adult male person in the complainant’s matrimonial home.

The trial court had granted interim maintenance in favour of the woman. The brother-in-law challenged the direction before the high court, which dismissed his appeal. The top court affirmed the view and dismissed the plea to set aside HC order.

Before the top court, the brother-in-law contended there was no basis for the liability of payment imposed on him. In this regard, the court examined the scope of the various definitions under the Act, such as “domestic relationship, “shared household” and “respondents”. The court held that domestic relationship, under the law, is any relationship where the two persons have at any point in time resided in a shared house

First Published: May 28, 2019 00:02 IST

top news