Ajay Kumar v Lata, Crl. Apl. No. 617 of 2019, SC

After the death of the husband, his widow was not allowed to reside at her matrimonial house. The deceased husband and his brother jointly carried on the business from which, each had an income of about Rs.30,000/-p.m. So she filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking maintenance. The magistrate directed the brother-in-law to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- p.m. to the widow and Rs.2,000/-p.m. to the child as interim maintenance. When challenged in the sessions court as well as in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the magistrate’s order was upheld. Thereafter an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court contending that since he was merely the brother-in-law, he had no liability to maintain the widow.

The Supreme Court held that the complaint prima facie indicates that the house where the husband and the wife resided belonged to a joint family. The two brothers carried on a joint business.Ultimately, whether the requirements of sections 2(f), 2(q), and 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.