Category Archives: DV case NO maintenance

#Well #qualified #wife, with #capacity to #work and #actually #earning in past #not entitled to #any #maintenance. #DelhiHC

Delhi High Court
Damanpreet Kaur vs Indermeet Juneja & Anr. on 14 May, 2012
Author: Pratibha Rani

#DVCase filed by wife

In the #DV case, a beautiful order is passed by Hon #DELHI_HC, where the Hon. court sees thru the games of the wife who has resigned on her own. She is completely denied maintenance by the lower courts and also by #DELHI #HIGH $COURT !! She tries to claim that she was forced to resign, but the court sees thru her games. The Hon court also cites other relevant decisions which would be of use to honest husbands fighting the menace of #maintenance


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 19.04.2012
PRONOUNCED ON: 14.05.2012

CRL.REV.P. 344/2011

DAMANREET KAUR ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sugam Puri, Advocate

versus

INDERMEET JUNEJA & ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Shyam Moorjani with Mr.Taru Goomber, Mr.Pankaj Mendiratta and Mr. Gaurav Goswami, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

  1. 1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition impugning the order dated 01.06.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. The petitioner is wife of respondent Indermeet Juneja. She filed a complaint case bearing No.352/3 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 alongwith an application for monetary relief under Section 23 of the Act. Her prayer for interim monetary relief was declined vide order dated 18.11.2010 by the learned M.M.
  2. 2. Feeling aggrieved, she preferred an appeal against the said order passed by the learned M.M. declining monetary relief to her. In appeal, the learned ASJ vide the impugned order dated 01.06.2011 though declined the prayer of interim monetary relief to the petitioner, partly allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition towards contribution of the respondent to maintain the child born out of the wedlock of the parties.
  3. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned ASJ committed an error in declining the relief to her on the ground that she was well qualified, capable to maintain herself and had the capacity to work and that she had also been actually earning in the past and was thus not entitled to get any maintenance from the respondent. The petitioner has submitted that earlier she was working with Met Life Insurance Company since the birth of her child. The company due to its relocation process had asked the petitioner to shift to Bangalore. She could not accept this offer as it would not be appropriate for the child to be uprooted from the place where she has been residing and due to the fact that there were visitation orders passed by the learned Sessions Court and had the petitioner along with the child shifted to Bangalore, the said orders could not have been complied with. As such the petitioner turned down the offer of the company. The company refused to change its policy and the petitioner was forced to resign from her job.
  4. 4. The relieving letter placed on record by the petitioner is dated 17.08.2010. As per this relieving letter the date of joining of the petitioner with Met Life was 07.01.2008 and her designation at the time of leaving the company was Assistant Manager (Service Delivery). She has been relieved pursuant to her resignation letter dated 17.06.2010. This letter is not accompanied by the resignation letter of the petitioner giving the reasons for her resignation or the policy of the company to shift her to Bangalore. It is relevant to mention here that while the date of joining of petitioner with Met Life Insurance is 07.01.2008, the petitioner has given birth to a female child on 18.09.2008 i.e. in the same year and despite having infant child to take care, she has served the company till she was relieved on 17.08.2010.
  5. 5. The contention of petitioner is that in order to comply with the order of the Court to allow the respondent to have visitation right she could not shift to Bangalore. There is nothing on record to indicate that at any point of time despite continuous litigation going on between the parties she had approached the Court for modification of the order regarding visitation right. If the petitioner of her own prefers to resign, she cannot take shelter under the Court order regarding visitation right. With the passage of time the child has grown up and is of school going age. Thus, it is more convenient for a working mother to be in the job then to sit at home.
  6. 6. The learned ASJ has rightly declined the interim monetary relief to the petitioner by holding that she was well educated lady earning Rs.50,000/- per month and had chosen not to work of her own will though had the capacity to work and find a suitable job for herself.
  7. 7. The learned ASJ in the impugned order has also corrected the error appearing in the order of learned M.M declining the monetary relief to the child for the reason that she was not the petitioner before the Court. In para-10 of the impugned order, the learned ASJ, after considering the facts and relevant case law has concluded as under:-
    • “10. On perusal of record and after hearing the submissions made at bar, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order as regards maintenance to the appellant/wife is concerned. The question, whether appellant/wife was forced to resign or she had resigned herself is a question to be considered by the court during trial and also the question whether the reasons given by her for resigning were satisfactory or not. These are the question to be gone into during evidence by the Learned Trial Court. But, the observation of the Learned Trial Court in para-10 i.e. “As far as the maintenance of the child is concerned, since she is not the petitioner in the present complaint, I would not be able to pass any orders as regards the maintenance for the daughter of the parties”, is erroneous and cannot be sustained. Admittedly on the date, when application u/s. 12 of the „act‟ was filed by the appellant/wife, child was in the custody of the husband. Secondly, if the scheme of the act is seen as a whole, it is obvious that it is not necessary that the child should be impleaded as a party. Relief can be granted to the child or for the benefit of the child without child being impleaded as a party. The relief can be granted not only to the aggrieved person, but also to the „child‟. On reading of Section 20 and 21 of the „Act‟ it is clear that not only aggrieved person, but any child or children may be granted relief. The court has to keep in mind the interest and the welfare of the child, even if child is not a party. Therefore, orders as regard custody or the maintenance or the welfare of the „children‟ can be passed even if child is not a party in the application filed under the „Act‟ before Learned Metropolitan Magistrate. There is manifest error in the impugned order as regards the observations in para-10 of the impugned order, which is set aside. In view of this, it is directed that Learned Trial Court shall decide the quantum of maintenance for the minor daughter of the parties after making a realistic assessment of the needs of child, keeping in view the status of parties, on the basis of material placed on record by the parties. Respondent/husband submitted that he was ready and willing to bear 50% of expenditure of the child. He can show his bonafide by providing some assistance to the child so that the child is brought up in an appropriate atmosphere and so that she is provided with minimum comfort, which the child requires.
    • 11. In the circumstances, till further orders are passed by the Learned Trial Court, I deem it expedient in the interest of justice to direct the respondent/husband to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards his contribution from the date of filing of the petition to maintain the child. The amount ordered to be paid by respondent/husband shall not tantamount to be an expression on merits of the case. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order. File be consigned to Record Room.”
  8. 8. In Smt.Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal 2000(3) MPLJ 100, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while dealing with identical situation observed that well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress. For better appreciation, relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced hereunder:-
    • “In view of this, the question arises, as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted. Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendent lite alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself inspite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendent lite alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversary by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc. M.C M.Ed. Till 1994 she was serving in Gulamnabi Azad Education College. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient experience. How such a lady can remain without service? It really put a big question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient cogent and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a „dole‟ to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice versa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, sit idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a ‟dole‟ to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, at least, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversary who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature of pendent lite alimony, and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself. That cannot be treated to be aim, goal of Section 24. It is indirectly against healthiness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and sufficient effort are unable to support and maintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardizing their hard earned income by toiling working hours. In the present case, wife Mamta Jaiswal, has been awarded Rs.800/- per month as pendent lite alimony and has been awarded the relief of being reimbursed from husband whenever she makes up a trip to Indore from Pusad, Distt. Yeotmal for attending Matrimonial Court for date of hearing. She is well qualified woman once upon time obviously serving as lecturer in Education College. How she can be equated with a gullible woman of village? Needless to point out that a woman who is educated herself with Master‟s degree in Science, Masters Degree in Education, would not feel herself alone in travelling from Pusad to Indore, when at least a bus service is available as mode of transport. The submission made on behalf of Mamta, the wife, is not palatable and digestible. This smells of oblique intention of putting extra financial burden on the husband. Such attempts are to be discouraged.”
  9. 9. Section 20 (1) (d) of PWDV Act, 2005 specifies that upon appropriate proof, the court may order the respondent to pay maintenance to the aggrieved person and to her children and further permits the Court to pass an order of maintenance under the PWDVA in addition to maintenance already granted under section 125 Cr.P.C.
  10. In State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008) 9 SCC 475 it was held that powers of the revisional courts are very limited and the revisional court should not interfere unless there is a jurisdictional error or an error of law is noticed.
  11. 11. The learned ASJ in the impugned order has rightly observed that the question whether the petitioner-wife was forced to resign or had resigned herself is a question to be considered during trial and also the question whether the reasons given by her for resigning from her job were satisfactory or not.
  12. 12. It is worth mentioning here that the child for which maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition has been ordered by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge is just and fair and sufficient to meet the requirements of a child which is aged about 3 ½ years.
  13. 13. There is no jurisdictional error or error in law in the impugned order. The petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE

MAY 14, 2012

Advertisements

#Family court #NOT #empowered to grant #maintenance unless sought

#Family court #NOT #empowered to grant #maintenance unless sought.

 

From the careful reading of the above said provisions, it is apparent that the court would not be empowered to grant the relief unless sought. In the present case, it appears that at the time of delivering judgment, the court suo motu considered the application under section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act thereby clearly denying an opportunity to non applicant to meet with the same. It was obligatory on the part of the Family Court to hear the non-applicant before awarding maintenance under Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act. Since the Family Court failed for the same and since the applicant/present non-applicant failed to establish that she entered into domestic relationship or she was legally married to non-applicant, she was not entitled to relief of maintenance either under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR

BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.664 OF 2011

Gautam s/o Jairam Gavai,

V

Sau. Ragini alleged w/o Gautam,Gavai,

CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.

DATED : JANUARY 20, 2017.

1] By these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicant has assailed the judgment and order of the Family Court, Akola in Petition No.E-82/2010 passed on 21.10.2011, order dated31.12.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Akola in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.949/2010 and order dated 18.3.2015 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Appeal No.11/2015.

2] Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since common questions of facts and law arise in these two applications, they are disposed of by common judgment.

3] The facts giving rise to the applications may be stated, in brief, as under : Respondent no.1 claiming herself to be the wife of applicant, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Akola. She pleaded that she was married to applicant Gautam Gawai on 11.5.1997. They have two sons Vaibhav and Nipun born out of the said wedlock. According to respondent Ragini, till Diwali 2009, they led happy married life. After Diwali-2009, quarrel between respondent and applicant started and applicant used to treat her as maid servant. He started harassing her and ultimately left the house, not to return forever. She made efforts to find out his whereabouts. She was not successful and so she informed about the same to the Superintendent of Police. According to respondent, both the children were studying in English Medium School. She was unable to maintain herself. She, therefore, claimed maintenance for herself and the children.

4] Applicant appeared in the proceedings and contested the same. He denied marriage between him and respondent Ragini. According to applicant, he was married to Suvarna on 9.5.1990. The couple were blessed with three children. Marriage between applicant and Suvarna still subsists. Further submission is that respondent is a legally wedded wife of one Shamrao Bhopaji Ambhore and her marriage was solemnized on 01.03.1995 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. He contended that on false grounds, application for maintenance came to be filed and prayed to reject the same.

5] On appreciation of evidence, Family Court came to the conclusion that Ragini was not the legally wedded wife of Gautam Gawai. However, keeping in view the object of the provisions relating to maintenance, the learned Judge thought it appropriate to consider the prayer for maintenance under Section 26 of the Family Courts Act and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month to the applicant. It is this order which is the subject matter of Criminal Application No.664/2011.

6] In another proceeding, respondent presented an application under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short “Domestic Violence Act”) claiming relief of protection order, monetary relief and compensation. This application was presented almost on the same grounds on which an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by her. Considering the evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, partly allowed the application and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month to the applicant under Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act. The order was carried in appeal before the District Court, Akola. Applicant preferred an application seeking stay to the judgment and order passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.949/2010. Vide order dated 18.3.2015, the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola allowed the application and stayed the impugned judgment, subject to condition of depositing 50% of the outstanding amount within one month from the date of order, with further condition that non-compliance of the same, would result into automatic end to the stay order. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and the order on Exh.5 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge are the subject matter of Criminal Application No.229/2015.

7] Learned counsel Shri Dhande submits that marriage between applicant and respondent is in dispute. Family Court has categorically held that there was no legal marriage between applicant and respondent. He submits that respondent could not establish dissolution of marriage in accordance with the law and in such circumstances, respondent was not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8] Regarding protection under the Domestic Violence Act, learned counsel submitted that domestic relationship between applicant and respondent is not established and in the absence of proof of domestic relationship, respondent was not entitled to any protection under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. In support of the submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Velusamy .vs. D. Patchaiammal (2010 (10) SCC 469 and of this Court in the case of Shri Ambadas Gangadhar Shetye .vs. Malabai Ambadas Shetye and another (2013 BCI 535). Reliance is also placed on the judgment dated 27.1.2015 passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.773/2014.

9] Per contra, learned counsel for respondent strongly supports the order impugned in both the applications. It is submitted that strict proof of legal marriage is not required in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and so far as the protection under the Domestic Violence Act is concerned, this is an admitted fact that for a long long years, applicant and respondent resided together and they have two children out of the said relationship. The learned counsel submits that in such a situation no interference is required in extra-ordinary jurisdiction and prays to reject the applications.

10] With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, this court has gone through the reasons recorded by the learned Judge of the Family Court, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge. Needless to state that to attract the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, applicant must not only to show existence of live-in-relationship with the nonapplicant which is akin to a marriage visible from the fact that applicant and non-applicant are living together as husband and wife but also should show that they are otherwise legally qualified to marry. A woman, who is married, cannot enter into a domestic relationship as contemplated under Section 2 (f) of the Domestic Violence Act, and even if, she is successful in establishing a long standing relationship with the man, she would not be entitled to protection under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. The cases referred by the learned counsel for applicant reiterate the well settled propositions of law in this regard.

11] In the case on hand, so far as the domestic relationship between applicant and respondent is concerned, applicant could not establish the same as required under Section 2 (f) of the Domestic Violence Act. Though she states that her previous marriage with Shamrao Ambhore was dissolved by a deed of dissolution, she could not prove the said deed of dissolution in accordance with the law. Once respondent admits her marriage with Shamrao Ambhore in the year 1995, it was for her to prove that after dissolution of the said marriage, she married to non-applicant or enter into domestic relationship with non-applicant. In the absence of proof regarding dissolution of first marriage of respondent Ragini, the courts below committed serious error in holding that she entered into domestic relationship with the non-applicant whose first marriage with Suvarna was also in existence on 11.5.1997.

12] As stated above, Family Court has held that Ragini was not the legally wedded wife of Gautam Gawai and proceeded to consider the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 26 of the Family Courts Act and awarded maintenance to her. The provisions of Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 read thus -26. Relief in other suits and legal proceedings :- (1) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act. (2) Any relief referred to in sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal court. (3) In case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief. From the careful reading of the above said provisions, it is apparent that the court would not be empowered to grant the relief unless sought. In the present case, it appears that at the time of delivering judgment, the court suo motu considered the application under section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act thereby clearly deniying an opportunity to nonapplicant to meet with the same. It was obligatory on the part of the Family Court to hear the non-applicant before awarding maintenance under Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act. Since the Family Court failed for the same and since the applicant/present non-applicant failed to establish that she entered into domestic relationship or she was legally married to non-applicant, she was not entitled to relief of maintenance either under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.

13] So far as maintenance to minors is concerned, it can be seen from the municipal record that name of father of Vaibhav was initially shown as Sanjay and later on tried to be rectified as Gautam. Regarding Nipun, there is no convincing evidence to show that he was born to respondent from applicant. Exh.28 is considered as a letter by applicant to S.D.P.O. and reliance is placed on the admissions therein. On cursory look at Exh.28, it can be seen that on 1.1.2010, S.D.P.O. recorded statement of applicant in the course of enquiry. Applicant has not admitted the statement. In the absence of unequivocal admission on the part of applicant Gautam and for want of legal proof, reliance could not have been placed on contents of Exh.28 to fasten paternity of children on him.

14] In the above circumstances, this court finds that the case of the respondent is completely out of purview of the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. As impugned orders suffer from material legal infirmities, interference in extra-ordinary jurisdiction is warranted.

Hence, the following order.

(1) Criminal Application (APL) No.664/2011 is allowed The impugned order dated 21.10.2011 in Petition No.E.82/2010 passed by the Family Court, Akola is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

(2) Criminal Application (APL) No.229/2015 is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a)-(i), (ii) and (iii). No order as to costs.

(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)

 

In the absence of proof regarding domestic violence, wife is not eligible to claim maintenance. Madras HC

We see many honest, innocent husbands being harassed with #fake498a #fakeDV and #FakeMaintenance claims. Here is one such husband who has been actually harassed by the wife

the Hon Madras HC summarises the fate of the husband in the following lines
“…21. It is a case where the respondent herein as a father, has made his daughter a professionally qualified personality having educated her upto B.Tech. Even before the claim for maintenance, the respondent has provided shelter, medical facilities, educational facilities, rental income etc. Apart from that, as per the compromise, suggested by the Police Official, he was willing to pay a sum of Rs.400/- per month at that point of time, but the wife was not willing to receive it. In a house built by the husband on obtaining loan, it is the wife and daughter, who were residing and getting rent also by letting out one portion, while the husband is staying away from his own house. These details are not at all stated by the petitioner in chief examination and these facts have been brought out only in cross examination.

a) Suppression of material fact in a case between the husband and the wife involving intimate interpersonal relationship itself would amount to cruelty.

b) Neglecting the husband, treating him as invisible, not inviting him for the marriage of his daughter, where throughout the daughter has been supported by the father, certainly would amount to humiliation causing mental cruelty to the husband. The provisions of Domestic Violence Act can be used as a shield / sword to get protection from the domestic violence and it cannot be used as a sword for the purpose of causing violence to the other partner in the life….”

While on the matter of maintenance, the Hon Madras HC clearly states that eligibility of maintenance is to be tested on facts “… But the question to be seen is whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance under the context, conduct and the circumstances alleged.…..”

The Hon HC concludes that “… Perusal of Section 20 of P.W.D.V.Act would go to show that monetary relief including maintenance can be given to the woman, who is proved to be the victim of domestic violence. In the absence of the proof regarding domestic violence, the wife is not eligible to claim maintenance….”

Criticizing the wife for frequently filing complaints the HC states “…. There is no clarification as to what made the wife to prefer 15 complaints. The details ought to have been clarified and it has not been done. However, everyday life must be at home and not in the Police Station.….”

and refuses maintenance to the erring wife

===================================

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 15.10.2015

CORAM

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.138 of 2014

Jeyanthi … Petitioner / Appellant / Petitioner

-vs-

Jeyapaul … Respondent / Respondent / Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for records in Crl.A.No.76 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District and set aside the judgment dated 26.11.2013, confirming the order dated 26.08.2011 passed in M.C.No.5 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
For Respondent : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
Orders Reserved on : 06.10.2015
Orders Pronounced on : 15.10.2015


O R D E R

Alleging violence in domestic relationship, the aggrieved party, namely, the wife filed a complaint against the husband under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as “the P.W.D.V.Act”) before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi.

  1. The Court, after conducting enquiry, gave a finding that the allegation of domestic violence is not proved and that the claim of maintenance should be made in an appropriate Court. Challenging the same, the wife filed appeal before the Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.76 of 2012. The order passed by the learned Magistrate in M.C.No.5 of 2012 dated 26.08.2013, was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, by the judgment dated 26.11.2013. This judgment is under challenge in this revision petition.
  2. While confirming the order of the learned Magistrate, the Appellate Court considered the financial supports rendered by the husband to the wife and his child, which are as follows;

a) the wife herself admitted that her husband met the education expenses of the daughter upto her studies in XII standard.

b) the husband provided 25 sovereign of jewels to her and daughter

c) medical facility was provided to her and daughter through the company in which the husband was employed;

d) at the instance of Police at Pudukottai Police Station, the husband was made to pay Rs.400/- to the petitioner, but she refused to receive the same.

e) the wife is receiving a sum of Rs.900/- per month by letting the upstair portion of the house on rent;

  1. The husband stated in his evidence that he met the educational expenses of his daughter and remitted the fees at Kalasalingam University and in support of the same, documents were filed. Giving a finding that as per Section 20 of the P.W.D.V.Act, an aggrieved person can claim the relief of maintenance, as a result of domestic violence, but domestic violence in this case is not proved, the dismissal was held proper.
  • In order to appreciate the merits of the judgment passed, it is necessary to look into the details of the petition filed by the wife.

  • The wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the P.W.D.V.Act, 2005, seeking the following reliefs:

  • i) to pass protection order prohibiting the respondent from committing any act of domestic violence either physically or mentally against her and daughter;

    ii) to pass a residence order, making provision for residence at the house, where the petitioner was residing.

    iii) to pass maintenance order for the petitioner and her daughter at Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent.

    Facts in brief:

    1. The marriage between the parties took place on 08.12.1983. After marriage, they were living at Thoothukudi and a female child born during the year 1992 is alive and other two children born during the year 1985 and 1988 died. When she was pregnant, uterus operations were done and at the time, she was treated cruelly by the respondent.

    7.1. The respondent had illegal intimacy with his brother’s wife and on account of that, she was treated cruelly.

    7.2. The respondent is working as Labour in Tuticorin Port Trust and earning Rs.22,000/- as salary, but he did not give money for the maintenance of the petitioner and her daughter. The respondent is also earning a sum of Rs.27,000/- from his agricultural land.

    1. On 03.05.2008, the petitioner was beaten and injuries were caused to her and hence, she gave a complaint to Sipcot Police Station and a case was registered in Crime No.103 of 2008 under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The husband filed a petition for divorce before the Sub Court, Thoothukudi on 07.05.2008 and later on, he withdrew the petition.
  • This petition, alleging domestic violence, was opposed by the husband as pregnant with false allegations; the alleged domestic violence is denied as false; the statement regarding income is an exaggerative one; the husband provided 25 sovereign jewels to the petitioner and her daughter and also provided a house, which was built by him worth Rs.8 lakhs and also provided household articles, apart from meeting all the educational expense of her daughter.

  • The petitioner gave complaint of dowry harassment falsely on three times against the respondent. During enquiry, the husband was asked to pay Rs.400/- per month to the wife, which was refused by her. About 5 years back, it was only the wife, who pulled and pushed the respondent and caused verbal and physical injury. She used to quarrel for nothing and use abusive languages. Unable to bear the cruelty, he sent a notice through Advocate on 10.01.2008. During the enquiry made by the Sipcot Police, the petitioner admitted her activities and assured to stop that, but she never stopped. Therefore, the respondent filed a petition for divorce in HMOP 40 of 2010 before Sub Court, Thoothukudi.

  • The wife examined herself as P.W.1 and the two documents marked were Ration Card and receipt for payment of college fees. On behalf of the respondent, he has been examined as R.W.1 and the documents marked are the receipt for having given a complaint along with the copy of the complaint apart from the salary certificate of the respondent.

  • The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the complaint given by the wife has been registered by the Police, would remain as a proof for domestic violence and therefore, the order passed by the Courts below is liable to be set aside. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

  • On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that whether the complaint given by the wife was on account of the fact that the wife was an aggrieved party seeking redressal or whether the complaint was an outcome of making the husband as an aggrieved party to wreck vengeance against him is a matter for enquiry /trial and therefore, mere registration of the case alone would not amount to proof of domestic violence. This contention merits acceptance. The enquiry / trial alone would unearth the real facts.

  • 14. In view of the rival contentions raised, the following issues arise for consideration.

    i) whether there was any domestic violence to the wife

    ii) whether economic violence also would amount to domestic violence? If so, whether has the wife proved domestic violence.

    1. The word “Domestic Violence” has been defined in the P.W.D.V.Act, 2005. The P.W.D.V.Act creates three basic rights for victims of domestic violence.

    a) right to be protected from violence

    b) right to live in a shared household

    c) right to monetary relief

    1. The Act provides for very comprehensive definition of domestic violence and includes not only actual abuse, but threatened abuse that may be either physical, sexual, verbal, economical or emotional.
  • It is also a gender specific enactment, which means only woman can avail the provisions of this Act. “The Act clearly defines an aggrieved person as “any woman” who is, has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the husband…”

  • Respondent has been defined to mean any adult male person, who is or who has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought relief.

  • 18.1. The term economic abuse has been defined in Clause 2(ix) as including,

    a) the unreasonable deprivation of economic or financial resources to which a complainant is entitled under law or which the complainant requires out of necessity, including household necessities for the complainant and mortgage bond repayment or payment of rent in respect of shared residence or

    b) the unreasonable disposal of household effects or other property in which the complainant has an interest.

    3(iv) “economic abuse” includes:-

    (a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance;

    (b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and

    (c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household. Explanation II.—For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes “domestic violence” under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.”

    1. The definition of domestic violence itself clearly spells out that it is not necessary that the aggrieved person has to be ill-treated and assaulted by the respondent to constitute domestic violence. Any continuous deprivation of economic resources and prohibition as defined under Section 3 (iv) of the Domestic Violence Act comes within the purview of Domestic Violence (K.Ramaraju vs. Lakshmi Prathima, 2008 2 ALD Cri.1).

    20. The learned Magistrate, without understanding that the deprivation of economic resources to which the petitioner is entitled to, may amount to domestic violence, has given a finding that the petitioner can separately file a petition for maintenance. The rationale behind this decision is certainly incorrect. But the question to be seen is whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance under the context, conduct and the circumstances alleged.

    1. It is a case where the respondent herein as a father, has made his daughter a professionally qualified personality having educated her upto B.Tech. Even before the claim for maintenance, the respondent has provided shelter, medical facilities, educational facilities, rental income etc. Apart from that, as per the compromise, suggested by the Police Official, he was willing to pay a sum of Rs.400/- per month at that point of time, but the wife was not willing to receive it. In a house built by the husband on obtaining loan, it is the wife and daughter, who were residing and getting rent also by letting out one portion, while the husband is staying away from his own house. These details are not at all stated by the petitioner in chief examination and these facts have been brought out only in cross examination.

    a) Suppression of material fact in a case between the husband and the wife involving intimate interpersonal relationship itself would amount to cruelty.

    b) Neglecting the husband, treating him as invisible, not inviting him for the marriage of his daughter, where throughout the daughter has been supported by the father, certainly would amount to humiliation causing mental cruelty to the husband. The provisions of Domestic Violence Act can be used as a shield / sword to get protection from the domestic violence and it cannot be used as a sword for the purpose of causing violence to the other partner in the life.

    1. There are three allegations levelled by the wife against the husband. So far as the 1st allegation is concerned, the incident is said to have taken place around 1985 to 1988 during which she is stated to have been ill-treated after uterus operation. The manner in which the illtreatment caused is not explained. The allegation is vague.
  • The 2nd allegation is that the husband was maintaining illegitimate intimacy with his brother’s wife. The Trial Court has said that no documents have been filed to prove it. The Court has given a finding that nobody else excepting the petitioner has been examined to prove the same. At least some near relatives could have been examined to speak about the probability of the allegation levelled.

  • So far as the 3rd allegation is concerned, it is pertaining to non providing of maintenance to the wife and child.

  • It is appropriate to quote Section 20 of the P.W.D.V.Act, providing for monetary relief:

  • “20. Monetary reliefs.—

    (1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include but is not limited to—

    (a) the loss of earnings;

    (b) the medical expenses;

    (c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and

    (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.

    (2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.

    (3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

    (4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under sub-section (1) to the parties to the application and to the in-charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides.

    (5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order under sub-section (1).

    (6) Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.”

    26. Perusal of Section 20 of P.W.D.V.Act would go to show that monetary relief including maintenance can be given to the woman, who is proved to be the victim of domestic violence. In the absence of the proof regarding domestic violence, the wife is not eligible to claim maintenance.

    1. As already indicated, the husband has provided several facilities, which has neither been disclosed in the evidence nor acknowledged in the complaint / petition. In all fairness, if the wife had stated that what was already provided was insufficient and what is the remaining amount of maintenance expected, it would have been fair. Now, the contention is raised with regard to justifiability of the wife to remain away from the company of the husband.

    28. Mere registration of a complaint will not amount to proof of cruelty, as registration of the First Information Report is towards the first step to investigate and to fine out whether the allegation stated in the complaint is true or not.

    1. When a query was raised with regard to the possibility of settlement either in terms of reunion or in terms of separation by mutual consent, having regard to the fact that already 30 years had elapsed, the parties having spent more time in Police Station and Court than at home, it was represented on the side of the wife that what is expected is only the order from the Court.
  • It is the case of the husband that she was always interested in humiliating the husband and was interested in seeing that the child is not affectionate towards the father; there was an intimidation to commit suicide often; levelling allegations; the husband was lavish in spending money; interested in preferring complaints before the Police Station; the wife frequently leaving the house without information; using abusive language against the husband etc.

  • In disputes relating to family matters, by analyzing a single incident, a Court cannot come to a definite conclusion. Only considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, Court will be able to find out what would have happened. The totality of the circumstances in this case indicates that the probability is, the case of the husband must be true, when the wife admits that she has preferred 15 complaints before various police station.

  • 32. There is no clarification as to what made the wife to prefer 15 complaints. The details ought to have been clarified and it has not been done. However, everyday life must be at home and not in the Police Station.

    1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds nothing to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below. The petitioner has not proved the alleged domestic violence as against her. This Court is conscious of the fact that provisions of the P.W.D.V.Act is a legislation providing for justice to victim. It is appropriate to quote the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court, reported in 1984 AIR 1471 ( Sadhuram Bansal vs. Pulin Behari Sarkar & Ors.) :

    “In our opinion, there appears to be some misapprehension about what actually social justice is. There is no ritualistic formula or any magical charm in the concept of social justice. All that it means is that as between two parties if a deal is made with one party without serious detriment to the other, then the Court would lean in favour of the weaker section of the society, Social justice is the recognition of greater good to larger number without deprivation of accrued legal rights of anybody. If such a thing can be done then indeed social justice must prevail over any technical rule. It is in response to the felt necessities of time and situation in order to do greater good to a larger number even though it might detract from some technical rule in favour of a party. Living accommodation is a human problem for vast millions in our country. The owners, in this case, are getting legally Rs. 1 lakh more.

    We must remember that in administering justice-social or legal jurisprudence has shifted away from finespun technicalities and abstract rules to recognition of human being as human beings and as human needs and if these can be fulfilled without deprivation of existing legal rights of any party concerned, courts must lean towards that and if the Division Bench of the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has leaned towards that, it is improper for this Court in exercise of the discretion vested under Art. 136 of the Constitution to interfere with that decision. We would do well to remember that justicesocial, economic and political-is preamble to our Constitution. Administration of justice can no longer be merely protector of legal rights but must whenever possible be dispenser of social justice.

    Call it social justice or solving a socio-economic problem or give it any other name or nomenclature, the fact of the matter is that this was the best course in the circumstances that could have been adopted by the court. Unfortunately, the Single Judge completely ignored the following important facts which have been indicated by me earlier:-

    (1) that a bulk of the consideration money, viz., Rs. 3 Lakhs out of Rs. 4 Lakhs, was not paid by the appellant even until the time when the learned Single Judge had passed the order nor was it paid even when the matter was in the High Court, and

    (2) the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that an owner also has a right to impose certain conditions and in exercise of that he had imposed the condition that the purchaser would have to buy the land subject to the pending litigation whereas in the offer made by the purchaser he had placed the onus on the owners to give him a good marketable title free from litigation.”

    1. It would be appropriate to extract Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act as under:

    “20. Monetary reliefs.-(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to,-19

    (a) the loss of earnings;

    (b) the medical expenses;

    (c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and

    (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.

    (2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.

    (3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

    1. From the provisions of Section 20(1)(d) of the P.W.D.V. Act, it is clear that the grant of maintenance under this Act is in addition to the amount awarded under any other enactment providing for maintenance. Therefore, even though the revision petitioners is not granted any maintenance, it is open to her to work out her remedy before any other law if found eligible.

    S.VIMALA,J.

    In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

    15.10.2015

    Index: Yes / No

    Internet: Yes / No

    ar

    To:

    1. II Additional Sessions Judge,
      Thoothukudi,
      Thoothukudi District.
  • Judicial Magistrate No.1,
    Thoothukudi,
    Thoothukudi District.

  • PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.138 of 2014

    *****************************disclaimer**********************************
    This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


    CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
    *******************************************************************************

     

    No maintenance to wife with income! pay only to kid! husband with own business & wife’s bank stmt escapes! Delhi Sessions court

    No maintenance to wife with income!! However husband to pay Rs 7500 for kid! Story of How a husband with own business & wife’s bank statement escapes partly in a DV case where he (husband ) is NOT admitting violence….

    A husband who runs his own business claims he earns just a few thousands per month when his wife screams at the top of her voice that he is making millions per annum ( she claims that husband earns 3 lakh per month!!). Additionally the husband gets hold of her bank statement to prove that she is receiving credits of handsome amounts into the account (thereby making the court conclude that she is employed).

    Faced with these facts, Both the magistrate court and sessions court refuse maintenance to the wife ! Husband is ordered to pay Rs. 7500/- for his kid !!

    However this husband tries to argue that there is NO domestic violence in his case… Unfortunately that argument is NOT accepted by the courts who refuse that plea saying “specific allegations” have been made by the wife !! This is a sad part of the “interim” , “ad-interim” and other temporary reliefs provided to appellants and children, where JUST when the marriage is proven, and the earnings of the husband are either proven or assessed / computed, the husband is forced to give money to the wife and / or children !! The husbands in all these cases argue vehemently stating that they are NOT at fault !! Still they are forced to pay interim… and whatever is paid during interim is lost for ever !!

    As I have OFTEN stated, “interim” , “ad-interim” maintenance granted to wife or children EVEN when the husband has NOT erred is one of the worst attacks on honest law abiding married men !!


    IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA: ASJ­05 : WEST

    DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

    CA No.57/15

    21.11.2015

    IN THE MATTER OF:­

    Smt.Nidhi Garg
    W/o Sh.Ajay Garg,
    R/o Flat no. 702, Tower no. BT­10,
    Omex Heights, Sector­86,
    Faridabad, Haryana.                                           …………… Petitioner

    Versus
    (1) Ajay Garg
    S/o late Sh.Krishan Chand Garg,
    R/o S­15, First Floor,
    Shivaji Park, New Delhi.

    (2)Smt.Kailash Garg,
    W/o late Sh.Krishan Chand Garg,
    R/o S­15, First Floor,
    Shivaji Park, New Delhi.                                            ………… Respondents

    Date of Institution                           :       22.11.2014
    Date of reserving the order           :       19.11.2015
    Date of decision                            :       21.11.2015

    AND CA No.58/15

    IN THE MATTER OF:­

    Ajay Garg
    S/o late Sh.Krishan Chand Garg,
    R/o S­15, First Floor,
    Shivaji Park, New Delhi.                                   ………… Petitioner

    Versus
    (1)Smt.Nidhi Garg
    W/o Sh.Ajay Garg,
    R/o Flat no. 702, Tower no. BT­10,
    Omex Heights, Sector­86,
    Faridabad, Haryana.

    (2)Smt.Kailash Garg,
    W/o late Sh.Krishan Chand Garg,
    R/o S­15, First Floor,
    Shivaji Park, New Delhi.                                            ………… Respondents

    Date of Institution                           :       21.10.2014
    Date of reserving the order           :       19.11.2015
    Date of decision                            :       21.11.2015

    JUDGMENT

     

    1. Vide this Judgment, I shall dispose of the appeal filed by Smt.Nidhi Garg against the respondent Ajay Garg against the order dt. 25.09.2014. Vide this order, the Ld.MM has declined to grant any maintenance to her. By way of the present Judgment, I am also deciding the appeal filed by Ajay Garg against the respondent Smt.Nidhi Garg against the order dt. 25.09.2014, vide which the appellant was directed to make the payment of Rs.7,500/­ per month for the maintenance of the child from the date of filing the application till the time he is legally entitled/further orders. The appellant is further directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within four months from the date of this order. It is also mentioned in the said order that the amount paid to the child either in this case or in any other proceedings shall be adjusted accordingly. As both the appeals arise against the common order dt. 25.09.2014, I am deciding both the appeal bearing nos. 57/15 titled as Nidhi Garg Vs. Ajay Garg & others and 58/15 titled as Ajay Garg Vs. Nidhi Garg & others, together.
    2. The essential facts of the case as per the petition filed by the petitioner Nidhi Garg are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.11.1995. The complainant immediately after the marriage, came in the matrimonial home. She was harassed and tortured by the respondents. It is mentioned that the complaint was ridiculed by the respondent no.3 about her appearance and height. Out of the said wed­lock, a male child was born on 30.10.1996. The complainant used to work in Damco Solutions. She used to financially help her husband i.e. respondent no.1 as and when it was solicited. It is also mentioned that the complainant was persuaded by respondent no.1 to provide him the capital to start his own business and believing him, she paid a sum of Rs.4 lacs to the respondent no.1. After taking money from her, he started his business under the name and style of “Futek Industry”. It was a partnership concern with Mr.Abrar Ali. It is mentioned that in the year 2010, she lost her job. In July, 2011, when she demanded money from her husband, he refused to give her money on the pretext that he was not earning well. He refused to give money to the complainant for household expenses or for the treatment of his minor child. Lateron, she came to know from the partner of respondent no.1 that respondent no.1 is having extremely flourishing business. She was threatened and intimidated by the respondent no.1 on phone. She got scared and left the house on the same night with her minor child and sister. She again joined the matrimonial house but on 06.11.2011, respondent no.1 permanently left the house. On 20.12.2012, complainant, her sister alongwith her minor child shifted to Faridabad. It is also mentioned by the complainant that the child namely Ketan is a special needed child and his chronological age is approx. 17 years but his social age is 9­10 years. He is studying in Open School and now she wants money to maintain herself and child. It is also mentioned that respondent no.1 is doing business of Engineering job work and earning Rs.3 lacs per month. There are several machines installed by the respondent no.1 at his factory. But despite that, respondent no.1 is not maintaining them. The complainant claimed an amount of Rs.1.25 lacs per month as maintenance for herself and her child.
    3. The respondent no.1 has also filed the reply and denied the averments mentioned in the application.
    4. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the appeal on the grounds that the impugned order is bad and contrary to the facts of the case. The Ld.M.M. has declined to grant any maintenance to the complainant but grossly erred in awarding the interim maintenance to minor son @ Rs.7,500/­ per month. Respondent no.1 has conceded his income, assets and details of the companies from the Ld.trial court. The respondent no.1 has not filed an affidavit in accordance with the directions of the ld.trial court and Ld.trial court has erred in assessing the income of the respondent no.1 as Rs.20,000/­ to Rs.22,000/­ per month. Respondent no.1 has admitted in his reply and affidavit that his last drawn salary was Rs.12,200/­ per month in the year 2001 and has also filed a salary certificate dt. 05.04.2002. Respondent no.1 is B.Tech Engineer and who was drawing a salary of Rs.12,200/­ per month in the year 2001. Respondent no.1 has concealed his income. Respondent no.1 is doing business of Engineering Job work and has employed more than 20 people in his factory. There are several milling machines, 6 lathe bendsaw machines and cutting and grinding machines in the factory of the respondent no. 1. It is also mentioned that the child Ketan is a special needed child. He is suffering from various ailments and also suffers from absence attacks and epilepsy and on various occasions, child fainted. In absence of any adult member, the child can harm himself or can meet with an accident. Due to Epilepsy of the child, the appellant had to quit her job in 2010. The Ld.trial court has filed to observe these facts. It is prayed that order dt. 25.09.2014 be set aside.
    5. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 has assailed the order of ld.trial court on the ground that the ld.trial court has grossly erred his income. The income of the appellant is between Rs.5,000/­ and Rs.6,000/­ per month. The ld.trial court has failed to consider that he is not doing any business. Only two machines are installed at his work place and he is doing job work only. It is also mentioned that Ld.M.M. has wrongly assessed his income as Rs.20,000/­ to Rs.22,000/­ per month and wrongly directed him to pay Rs.7,500/­ per month to his child as maintenance.
    6. I have heard the arguments made by the both the ld.defence counsels for both the parties. I have also perused the trial court record carefully.
    7. It is admitted fact that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.11.1995 and a male child namely Ketan was born on 30.10.1996. It is also admitted fact that the complainant alongwith her child left the matrimonial house in the year 2011 and she again joined the matrimonial house. It is also admitted fact that on 20.12.2012, she alongwith her minor child had shifted to Faridabad.
    8. Now the question arises whether the complainant is entitled to any maintenance from the respondent no.1. The complainant/appellant in her affidavit has admitted that she has purchased 3 BHK Flat alongwith her sister. It is also mentioned that she is paying an amount of Rs.11,000/­ per month as rent. She also stated that Rs. 50,000/­ per year is required for two trips. As per the affidavit, the complainant has done two years course from NIIT and AS/400 certification from IBM.
    9. The counsel for respondent no.1 has drawn my attention towards the bank statement of account no.65128070877 of the appellant of State Bank of Patiala. It is not denied that the appellant is not holding this account and as per this account, various transactions were made from 17.11.2011 till 31.01.2014.
    10. As per the averments of the complaint, the complainant had left the job and now she is not working. If the petitioner is not working, then from where the amount is being received in her account. This statement of account shows that Rs.80,050/­ was credited in her account on 17.11.2011. Rs.36,000/­ was credited in her account on 11.02.201 and Rs. 49,500/­ credited in her account through cheque on 11.052012 and Rs.1.35 lacs credited in her account on 11.07.2012 by cash. There are various other transactions and ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 has stated that total Rs. 12,44,000 has been deposited in the account of the complainant from period 17.11.2011 to 31.01.2014. Thus, the complainant is not able to satisfy this court as to from where this amount is being received by her.
    11. During arguments, it is contended by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the appellant used to receive the said amount as interest from her earlier FDRs. I fail to appreciate this contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that hafty amount is being received by the appellant from the FDRs. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant is not working at present. Thus, the ld.M.M.has rightly declined to grant any maintenance to the complainant.
    12. Now the question arises, whether the ld. M.M. has rightly assessed the income of respondent as Rs.20,000/­ to Rs.22,000/­ per month and rightly awarded the maintenance of Rs.7,500/­ per month to the child.
    13. The ld.M.M. has given detail findings of assessing the income of the respondent no.1 as Rs.20,000/­ to Rs.22,000/­ per month. The ld.trial court has held that when respondent was working in Faridabad, he used to earn Rs.12,200/­ per month. It is also admitted fact that respondent no.1 is working and two machines were installed by him in his factory. No document has been placed on record by the complainant to show the income of respondent no.1. During arguments, no document has been shown by the complainant that the respondent no.1 is earning more than Rs.1 lac.
    14. Ld.counsel for the respondent no.1 has placed reliance upon the Judgment titled as Amit Khanna & Anrs. Vs. Priyanka Khanna & Others 2010 (119) DRJ 182, wherein it is held that : “No concrete proof of high status and vast property of husband. Mere allegations made by the wife that husband was a man of status and had vast movable and immovable properties would not give jurisdiction to the court to pass an order of maintenance beyond the means of the husband. Properties in the name of in laws cannot be considered. Income of the husband was Rs.41,000/­ per month (without deducting tax),granting maintenance plus rent of Rs,45,000/­ per month, under no circumstance is justified. Maintenance of Rs.15,000/­ per month and rent of Rs.5,000/­ per month awarded”.
    15. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.1 has also placed reliance upon the Judgment AIR 2007 Delhi 89 titled as Vijay Malti Vs. Rajiv Vig,wherein it is held that : “As far as the education of the respondent’s son is concerned. It was submitted that in our society, even if the parent or the father is financially weak, the grand parents would support such needs; the son was therefore, helped in educating the child born out of the second marriage by the father, who was the employer, and no exception could be taken in this arrangement”.  I have perused this judgment with utmost regard. This judgment is against the order passed by the Ld. ADJ U/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The present petition is U/s 12 of the D.V.Act.
    16. Ld.counsel for the respondent no.1 has also place reliance upon the Judgment titled as Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermeet Juneja & Anrs. 2012 (5) LRC 279 (Del), wherein it is held that “Ld.ASJ has rightly declined the interim monetary relief to the petitioner by holding that she was well educated lady earning Rs.50,000/­ per month and had chosen not to work of her own will though had to capacity to work and find a suitable job for herself. Well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding money from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Child for which maintenance of Rs.10,000/­ per month from the date of filing of the petition has been ordered by Addl.Sessions Judge is just and fair and sufficient to meet the requirements of a child which is aged about 3 ½ years. No interference. Petition dismissed”. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the Judgment titled as Chander Prakash Bodh Raj Vs. Shila Rani Chander Prakash., in Crl.Revision no. 381 of 1967 wherein it is held that : “It was for the able­bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he was unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child – when the husband does not disclose to the Court, the exact amount of his income, the presumption against him would be easily permissible”.
    17. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the Judgment titled as Kusum Sharma Vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma. I have perused these Judgments with utmost regard. The same are not helpful to the appellant. In view of abovesaid discussion and judgements, I am of the view that the ld. M.M. has rightly assessed the income of respondent no.1 as Rs.20,000/­ to Rs.22,000/­ per month. I am also of the view that the Ld.M.M. has taken into consideration all the aspect while granting the maintenance of Rs.7,500/­ per month to the child.
    18. It is vehemently contended by ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 that there was no domestic Violence and in absence of domestic violence, complaint U/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act cannot be filed. I fail to appreciate this contention of the ld. Counsel for respondent no.1. The appellant has levelled specific allegations against the respondents regarding the acts of D.V. against her. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of D.V.Act are not applicable in the present case.
    19. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.1 has placed reliance upon the Judgment 2010 (118) DRJ 520 titled as Vijay Verma Vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anrs., wherein it is held that : “Wife making application not ‘living together’ in the house immediately before filing of application rather settled in USA after leaving her parents here – only the violence committed in a shared household covered by the provisions of the Act. Application held to be not maintainable”. I have perused this Judgment. As the petitioner has levelled specific allegations of domestic violence against the respondents, this Judgment is not helpful. 18. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has also placed reliance upon the Judgment titled as Harbans Lal Malik & others Vs. Payal Malik 171 (2010) Delhi Law Times 67, wherein it is held that : “Section 2(f) “Domestic Relationship”–Arises between two persons, who have lived together in a shared household and when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through relationship in nature of marriage, adoption or family members living together as joint family. Definition speaks of living together at any point of time however, it does not speak of having relation at any point of time“.  I have perused this Judgment with utmost regard. The same is not helpful to the respondent no.1.
    20. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered view that as the child is a special needed child and expenses are being incurred on his treatment. It is the duty of the petitioner and respondent no.1 to maintain the specially needed child. I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dt. 25.09.2014 passed by the Ld.MM. Accordingly, both the appeal bearing nos. 57/15 and 58/15 stand dismissed. Trial court record be sent back alongwith copy of this Judgment. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.

     

    Announced in the Open Court on 21.11.2015

    (Naresh Kumar Malhotra)

    Additional Sessions Judge­05

    West/THC/Delhi

    42yr old wife files DV on 52yr husbnd 8yrs later! Huge maint.& residnce sought ! Kar HC DV quash

    A 42 year old wife files DV on a 52 year old husband approx 8 years after separtion. Pertinent to note that she ALREADY has won a maintenance of Rs 1000, p.m. which she wishes to enhance to Rs. 10,000 p.m. !! now. She also wants residence rights in his OWN house etc etc !! Hon KARNATAKA HC quashes the case quoting Sec 468 CrPC

    **************************************

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

    DATED THIS THE 8 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

    BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

    CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11476/2013

    BETWEEN:

    1. GURUDEV S/O. HANAMANT GURAV
    AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
    R/O. MALALI VILLAGE, TQ:MUDHOL
    DIST: BAGALKOT

    2. BASAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA GURAV
    AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
    R/O. MALALI VILLAGE,
    TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT … PETITIONERS

    (BY SRI PAVAN B DODDATTI, ADV.)

    AND

    JAYASHREE W/O. GURUDEV GURAV
    AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
    R/O.MALALI VILLAGE,
    TQ:MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT … RESPONDENT

    (BY SRI S C HIREMATH, ADV.)

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MISC.NO.110/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, MUDHOL, BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

    O R D E R

    Though this petition is posted for admission, with the consent of both the Counsels, the matter is heard o n merits.

    2. It is seen from the records that the respondent-Jayashree W/o the first petitioner-Gurudev S/o Hana mant Gurvar lodged a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for several reliefs. That is to say restraining the petitioners from dispossessing from the house and also for awarding Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance etc. and also claiming Rs.15,000/- towards damages. It is also alleged in the petition that the applicant therein has a right to share the house at Bagalkot with opponent No.1. The op ponents ill-treated and tortured her, thereafter about 8 y ears back by beating his wife and daughter drove her out from the matrimonial house. It is also alleged that since t hen the petitioner is staying in the adjacent house of the opponent and opponent has neglected and even now harassing her under one or other pretext. Therefore, she is comp elled to file petition under Domestic Violence Act.

    3. In the petition it is not specified as to what is the nature of harassment that has been given by the pet itioners herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners st renuously contended that the petition is barred by limitatio n. The petition is filed alleging the incident taken plac e about 8 years back. Therefore, he contends that the petiti on under Domestic Violence Act is liable to be quashed.

    4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – wife submits that, she has filed a suit for partiti on and separate possession and the said suit was decreed i n respect of landed property and now she is residing in the house situated adjacent to the house of the petitio ners herein. It is also submitted that the first petiti oner filed a petition for divorce and the same is pending. There fore, the petition under Domestic Violence Act is maintainabl e before the trial Court. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

    5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the order passed by this Court in a similar matter in Crl.P.No.2419/2009 on 05.04.2013 and submits that t he said order passed by this court is applicable to th e facts and circumstances of this case. For the purpose of bet ter understanding whether the said order passed by this Court is applicable to the present case or not, it is jus t and necessary to look into the orders passed in that ca se.

    “In the said case also, the wife alleged that she lived with her
    husband in the matrimonial home up to November 2004 and she was
    pregnant by then. She was treated cruelly by the petitioner and his
    parents during that time. The wife left the matrimonial home as she
    could not tolerate the torture of her husband and she was compelled
    to eat certain substance in order to abort pregnancy. Making such
    allegations she filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection
    of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Trial Court has taken
    cognizance of an offence which has taken place in the year 2005 and
    issued summons to the petitioners. The learned judge of this Court
    has observed the cause of action in the said case was 4 years prior
    to the filing of the complaint. Under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the
    complaint could have been filed within one year. If the allegations
    made in the complaint are proved, the punishment is one year. On
    these grounds, this Court allowed the petition under Section 485 of
    Cr.P.C. and quashed the entire proceedings.”

    6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the Divorce petition, an amount of Rs.1,000/- has already been awarded. It is admitted fact that the respondent has claimed maintenance in the divorce petition filed by her husband. She can workout her remedy so far as maintenance in the said Divorce Petition.

    7. With these observations, I am of the opinion that, this petition under Domestic Violence Act is liable to be quashed which was filed after lapse of 8 years. In view of the same and in view of the observations made by this Court in similar matters noted above, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed.

    Hence, I Pass the following order:

    Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent herein in Crl.Misc.110/2003 before the P rl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol is hereby quashed. Further th e respondent is at liberty to agitate all these grou nds in the Divorce Petition.

    (SD/-)

    JUDGE

    Rms

    *****************************disclaimer**********************************
    This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
    *******************************************************************************
    CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
    *******************************************************************************