Bombay High Court: In a petition before the single-Judge Bench of Sharmila U Deshmukh, J.*, filed by the wife, who was in a vegetative state due to a medical condition, challenged the order of the Appellate Court that had substantially reduced the maintenance amount ordered by the Trial Court, and sought the direction to the husband to pay the arrears of maintenance as per the order of the Trial Court. The Court held the Appellate Court’s order was bereft of any reasoning as to the reduction of the maintenance amount and stated that since it had rejected the application filed by the husband to quash the proceedings, thus, it could not have reduced the amount of maintenance. Quashing the impugned order and noting that the appeal is pending, and the next date of hearing is in June 2024, the Appellate Court was directed to decide on the matter expeditiously considering the wife’s medical condition.
Background
The couple were married in 2016 and moved to the United Kingdom (“UK”), where the husband was employed. In 2017, the wife’s family travelled to the UK upon receiving the news of her admission to a hospital for surgery, for which the family had to incur certain expenses as to the stay and medical expenses towards the petitioner-wife.
The wife was reduced to a vegetative state, and her family and husband decided to move her back to India for further treatment, for which the husband assured to send a sum towards her maintenance. However, it was contended that the respondent-husband did not take proper care of the wife and her family members were single handedly looking after her, as no provision for meeting her medical expenses was made.
The wife’s father had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”) on behalf of her, seeking reliefs available under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act.
The husband denied the contentions and deposed that the claim of incurring medical expenses for the wife by her family while they were in the UK was false, as all the medical expenses were covered by the Health Surcharge paid by the husband to the Government of the UK.
The Trial Court had considered that the petitioner-wife was bedridden and therefore has no source of income, and considered the monthly income of the husband, and granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 1,20,000 per month to be paid to the wife from the date of application till the final decision and directed an additional payment of Rs. 1,00,000 per month towards arrears until the total arrears amounting to Rs. 43,20,000 were recovered.
When the matter reached the Appellate Court, it considered that the wife was in need of an immediate financial assistance, however, it reduced the monthly maintenance amount to Rs. 25,000.
Court’s analysis and judgment
The Court recognised that the medical condition of the wife was undisputed by both the parties. The Court noted that the Trial Court did not grant the claimed sum of Rs. 2,08,000 per month as the medical expenses towards the wife’s treatment, but Rs. 1,20,000, considering the income of the husband.
The Appellate Court at its instance refused to stay the proceedings, and therefore, the instant Court observed that the Trial Court’s order of maintenance was still operational.
The Court observed the error on part of the Appellate Court when it reduced the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,20,000 to Rs. 25,000 per month without any reasoning or support to reduce the amount. The Court found that the Appellate Court order was completely bereft of any findings to reason the reduction of the maintenance amount, and that after having rejected the stay of proceedings, the Appellate Court could not have reduced the amount.
About the husband’s contention that medical facility would have been available in the UK, the Court stated that it was subjective, and that Courts are not experts to decide whether the wife could have required treatment in the UK or India. The Court further stated that mere availability of free healthcare in the UK was not reason enough to deny the maintenance required to incur medical expenses in India.
Therefore, the Court quashed the Appellate Court’s order and afforded the wife liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings for the execution of the Trial Court’s order.
The Court referred the matter back to the Appellate Court, at which point, the counsels for the parties requested for an expeditious decision, since the matter had been pending since 2022. The Court, therefore fixed the hearing on 18-06-2024 and directed the Appellate Court to reach a decision within three weeks therefrom.
[Krisha Manglani v. Sagar Ishwar Manglani, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1686, decided on 25-04-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Sarah Kapadia, Ankta Pachouri and Anoushka Ajoy Thangkhiew, Advocates
For the respondents: Akshay R Kapadia, Advocate, and AR Metkari, Additional Public Prosecutor