Mumbai: While hearing a case involving an octogenarian couple, pending for eight years, a sessions court has observed that the case should have been resolved by now. The couple, despite their legal battle, continues to reside in the same house in Jogeshwari.
About The Case
The court made the remark while hearing a plea filed by the 94-year-old husband challenging a November 2022 order by the Metropolitan Magistrate court. The order had increased the interim maintenance payable to his 81-year-old wife from Rs 6,000 to Rs 15,000 per month. The wife had first approached the magistrate in 2016 under the Domestic Violence Act, seeking maintenance. Two years later, in 2018, the court directed the husband to pay Rs 6,000 monthly until the case was resolved.
In November 2022, the wife sought an enhancement of this amount, which the magistrate approved without a formal application. Challenging this decision, the husband argued that he had already been providing for his wife as she lives in the same house and that the maintenance was increased unfairly without giving him an opportunity to respond.
After hearing the plea, the sessions court noted that under the law, a formal application and an opportunity for the husband to respond are mandatory before altering an interim maintenance order. It set aside the November 2022 order, allowing the wife to file a formal application if she seeks an increase in maintenance.
“In the present case, it is clear that this exercise was not done by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, which appears to be contradictory to the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act,” the court said.
The court also criticised the eight-year delay in resolving the case, stating, “The main application should have been decided during such a long period.”
“There is a lapse of eight years and in such circumstances, if the respondent required any enhancement in the maintenance granted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, liberty is granted to the respondent to apply and by allowing the appellant (husband),” the sessions court said setting aside the order passed in November 2022.
