Calcutta High Court: A revisional application was filed by the ex wife of cricketer Mohammed Shami challenging the judgment and order dated 18-01-2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Alipore, in Criminal Appeal arisen from an order passed by the Magistrate in her application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, wherein the Magistrate had refused her prayer for interim monetary relief, granting such relief only to her minor daughter. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J., held that a sum of ₹1,50,000/- per month to be paid by the opposite party to the wife and ₹250,000 to the daughter as monthly maintenance to ensure financial stability for both the petitioners, till disposal of the main application.
The petitioner had married Shami, a nationally known cricketer, on 07-04-2014 according to Islamic rites. They had a daughter on 17-07-2015. It was her second marriage, and she also had two daughters from her previous marriage who resided with her. Alleging sustained physical and mental abuse by her husband and his family, the petitioner lodged a police complaint which culminated in a case under Sections 498A, 328, 307, 376, 325, and 34 of the IPC. Concurrently, she filed an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act seeking a total interim monetary relief of ₹10 lakhs per month, ₹7 lakhs for herself and ₹3 lakhs for her daughter. The Magistrate, however, granted ₹80,000 only for the child and nothing to the petitioner. This was modified in appeal, and the appellate court awarded ₹50,000 per month to the petitioner and maintained the ₹80,000 for the child. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of this relief, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Counsel for petitioner contended that the lower appellate court had failed to exercise its discretion judiciously. Despite the opposite party’s income tax return for 2020—21 showing a total income exceeding ₹7.19 crores (roughly ₹60 lakhs per month), the court had granted a meagre of ₹50,000 to the petitioner and ₹80,000 to the child. It was argued that the petitioner’s affidavit revealed a meagre income of ₹16,000 per month against monthly expenses of over ₹6 lakhs, thereby justifying her claim for higher interim relief. It was also contended that the Court had uncritically accepted the husband’s written objection while failing to properly consider the lifestyle, status, and responsibilities of the petitioner.
It was further urged that the petitioner, being a woman without substantial income and responsible for three children, including one born of the wedlock, was being denied an equitable standard of living. She was allegedly unable to afford good schooling for her child, unlike other children of Indian cricketers. The Counsel invoked multiple Supreme Court precedents to emphasise that interim maintenance under Section 23 of the PWDV Act must consider the husband’s capacity, actual income, lifestyle, and the wife’s dependent status. He stressed that even if the wife earns something, it does not absolve the husband of his legal and moral obligation to support her.
The Court noted that the existence of a domestic relationship and paternity of the child was undisputed. It further held that the allegations of domestic violence were supported prima facie by the FIR and subsequent charge sheet filed against the opposite party and his family members. The Trial Court had erred in rejecting the petitioner’s claim by stating lack of documentary proof of domestic violence. The Appellate Court had rightly reversed that finding and recognised the petitioner’s entitlement to interim relief.
The Court reiterated that while seeking interim monetary relief, the focus should be on the standard of living the aggrieved person was accustomed to during the marriage, and whether the relief granted was adequate and fair in the light of the respondent’s financial standing. The High Court was critical of both the extremely high amounts sought by the petitioner and the low amounts granted by the Court below. It refused to accept either the exaggerated claims of the petitioner or the sweeping assertion by the husband that the petitioner was financially self-sufficient and thus not entitled to relief.
On the issue of adulterous conduct alleged by the husband, the Court stated that mere media reports or public speculation did not amount to legal proof. In the absence of convincing evidence that the petitioner had remarried or was living in adultery, the respondent could not escape his legal obligation.
Thus, finding the interim maintenance awarded by the Court below as unjust and inconsistent with the established legal principles, the Court revised the relief amounts. He directed the opposite party to pay ₹1,50,000 per month to the petitioner (wife) and ₹2,50,000 per month to their daughter, effective from the date of filing of the interim application under Section 23 of the PWDV Act. The Court also clarified that this would be without prejudice to any additional educational or other legitimate expenses the father might voluntarily bear. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the final disposal of the main application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act within sixty days from the date of its first hearing.
[Hasin Jahan v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 5452, decided on 01-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Ms. Ghazala Firdaus, Mr. Sk. Saidullah, Mr. Mithun Mondal and Mr. Md. Arsalan
For the Opposite Party: Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Mr. Sompriya Chowdhury, Mr. B. Kumar and Mr. I. Basu
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
