Most Important Judgment on Maintenance Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Mon, May 27, 2019, at ,08:21 PM Title of the Case – Brother of husband (deceased) is also liable to pay maintenance Name of the case – Ajay Kumar v. Lata @Sharuti & Ors. Crl.A. No. 617 of 2019 (@SLP (Crl.) No. 652 of 2019) Date of Judgment – 98th April, 2019 Judges: Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta Subject and sections involved – (Section 12) Interim Order for the Award of Maintenance for herself and her child under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Issue: Whether brother of the deceased liable to pay maintenance to the wife of the deceased (Husband)? Fact of the Case: 12 Dec, 2010, Sharuti Married to Vijal Kumar. They have two children. They happily carried the business of Kiryana Store in ground floor of their house, which yields income of about 30 k. 31 Jan, 2013, she gave birth to her child, on accidental death of her husband. Thereafter, she was not permitted to reside in her matrimonial home. 3 July, 2015 Trial Judge awarded maintenance of 4, 000 /- month. Judicial Magistrate, First Class confirmed the order. High Court confirmed the order. The petition is filed under Article 136 of Constitution of India on the plea that there was no basis under the provisions of the Act to fasten liability on the brother of the deceased. Ratio of the case - The division bench of Supreme Court observed that the proviso indicates that both, an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner, as the case may be.. Section 2(f) defines the expression 'domestic relationship' to mean a relationship where two persons live or have lived together at any point of time in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are members living together as a joint family…. All these definitions indicate the width and amplitude of the intent of Parliament in creating both an obligation and a remedy in the terms of the enactment. It further says that 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."