Interim relief to woman and daughter: Court says prima facie proof of domestic violence against Maharashtra minister, orders monthly maintenance of Rs 2 lakh

Apart from the interim maintenance, the court has directed that the minister shall not cause any kind of domestic violence to the woman till the final decision of the proceedings.

The court noted that in 2017, the minister had executed a will, which is a notarised document, where he is accepting that the woman is his first wife and also names his second wife. Another document submitted by the woman to the court was an acknowledgement letter allegedly by the minister, stating that he married her on January 9, 1998. The affidavit submitted to the election commission during the legislative assembly elections in 2024 was also part of the documents submitted to the court. In the affidavit, the minister declared the two children from the applicant as his dependents.

“Thus, from the above said documents it appears that the respondent married applicant no. 1. Now whether the said marriage is legal or not it can be decided on the evidence adduced by both the parties. But from the above said documents the respondent admitted that, the applicant is wife and respondent no. 2 and no. 3 are their children,” the court said, adding that this establishes the domestic relations between the minister and the woman.

A statement by the minister’s lawyer states that the order was passed at an interim stage for maintenance and has no adverse finding against him.

In proceedings filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the woman had claimed that she married the minister in 1998 and they have two children together, a son now aged 20 and daughter aged 19. The application said that they had a love marriage in 1998 and initially stayed in Indore, later in Mumbai and everything was smooth till 2018, after which the political leader’s behaviour began changing. The application claims that he lived outside Mumbai most of the time given his political work and that the woman came to know subsequently that he had married again. The application claims that the minister told her that he had to marry under family pressure and to maintain the family’s reputation, and assured her that she will always be given the status of being his first wife, due to which she did not complain about the second marriage.

The application claims that even though she wanted to live with him in his native place, he never permitted it citing his political career. The application makes allegations that the woman and her mother were assaulted at the behest of the minister and that her sister too was harassed. In November 2020, when she was going towards his native village, she was threatened and stones were pelted at her car by unknown persons, who she said were the minister’s followers. She said that she was also sexually abused by a helpmate of the minister.

The woman had sought relief through interim maintenance of Rs 5 lakh per month and interim compensation of Rs 25 crore from the minister, stating that she has no source of income and has responsibilities of her two children. She said that the minister’s life was luxurious and has lots of land and other properties and investments.

The minister had denied all the allegations claiming that he was never married to the woman and that there is no domestic relationship between them, hence the proceedings are untenable. He also claimed that the woman herself was the director of three companies and has the business of import export, is an insurance agent and also does other businesses. Therefore, it cannot be said that she has no means of livelihood and is entitled to maintenance. The minister has also cited that in 2020 she was restrained by the Bombay High Court from making any statement against him; however, she is violating the order.

The court said that the documents before it show that the woman has an income but considered the lifestyle of the minister. “Considering basic needs of applicant no. 1 and no. 3 (daughter), their income and the lifestyle of the respondent, I am of the opinion that they are entitled to maintenance in the nature of monetary relief, as provided under Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act,” the court said. It noted that while both the children, named as respondents in the case, are not minors anymore, the son is not entitled to maintenance, while as per law, his daughter is entitled to it until her marriage.