Category Archives: Interim relief in DV

43 DV cases for this season ! 43 cases where husband and in laws won and / or maintenance was denied to wife !!

I have been posting 100s of Judgments / orders on 498a, DV, Sec 125 CrPC and many related areas (please see this blog and you will see most of these). Recently I have started categorizing them for easy reference and benefit of readers. Some ago I had posted a summary of bail orders and yet another on 498a cases quashed by courts.

Here is an attempt to collate DV cases, where the husbands / in laws won.

Since money is the main target of most fake matrimonial litigation, DV along with Sec 24, 25 HMA and similar sections of SMA etc are now becoming the chosen tools for women to extract max moolah. Husbands and families need to watch out and protect themselves
I hope this compendium helps
Cases are listed with a # against each just for a count in this blog. these were also shared on other social media. This # series does not have any specific order . I’m only hoping I’ll have a chance to add more victories to these

May I request readers to liberally share these and add fresh cases as comments 

 

DV Series # 43 : DV 15yrs aftr separation!! MM grants maint etc. Husband runs 2 HC; HC quashes whole tamasha ! married on 8.5.1990 ; son born on 24.2.1991 ; separate since 1992;  divorce case between couple dismissed by lower courts; wife files DV in 2007 !!;  magistrate provides maintenance, money in lieu of residence etc etc ; husband runs to HC;  HC thankfully quashes the case !!! http://wp.me/p7s7-1hm

DV Series#42 : NO MAINTENANCE to wife under Domestic Violence Act as she has sufficient income and concealed it !! Practicing Gynecologist stops declaring full income on income tax returns; harasses ex hubby in various courts / cases ; demands monthly maintenance even though she earns more than ex-husband !! Completely denined maintenance http://wp.me/p7s7-u0

DV Series#41 : Wife earning equal to husband denied maintenance in DV. Sessions & Delhi HC ALSO deny maintenance! Residence also denied as wife getting HRA from employment! http://wp.me/p7s7-2dO

 

DVSeries#40: Poor Taxi Driver’s wife tries to get his mother’s house using DV ! Looses case on appeal. Wife is ordered to live with driver in an alternate acco. Without going there she tries other stunts and looses again !! https://t.co/7sPcN3008x

 

DvSeries#39 : DV just 2 harass husband + inlaws & waste time of court. Wife never came to court !! DV dismissed. JM Chandigarh https://t.co/CD6H8E2ZCd

 

DVSeries#38: Initial Proceedings in DV act are CIVIL in nature. Magistrate not issue summons u/s 61 Cr.P.C. treating respondents as accused ! Magistrate to tread carefully http://wp.me/p7s7-1dM

 

DVSeries#37: DV cases can be quashed u/s 482 CrPC. Gujarat HC division bench judgement – Nov 2015 http://wp.me/p7s7-1T6

 

DVSeries#36: Well educated employed wife resigning on own NOT entitled 2 maintenance! Only Kid gets maintenancec. Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bv

 

DVSeries#35: Visiting in laws 5days is NOT dom relation so NO DV ! Only violence by person living n shared household is DV! Delhi Sessions court discharges all in laws http://wp.me/p7s7-21n

 

DVSeries#34: Wife files DV on 6 inlaws 9 yrs AFTER husband’s death! DV, Cruelty NOT proven, Looses case ! Delhi MM court http://wp.me/p7s7-20C

 

DVSeries#33:LOVE match 2 court! DV b4 marriage! 498a 307 323 AFTR marage. Sis in law runs 4 quash http://wp.me/p7s7-1PW

 

DvSeries#32: No maintenance to erring women ! DV case won by husband on strong arguments & facts. http://wp.me/p7s7-1MF

 

DVSeries#31: Beaten &evicted elderly M in law WINS DV. Sessions orders lower court 2 grant relief http://wp.me/p7s7-1PS

 

DVSeries#30: India becoming land of fake DV? Madras HC dismisses fake DV 2 settle property dispute http://wp.me/p7s7-1OV

 

DVSeries#29: Your Honour I doNOT know her, she’s NOT my wife How could I beat her or my brother mollest? what DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Pl

 

DVSeries#28: NON disclosure of pre cognizance DV NOT dis entitle you from GOVT JOB ! Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1OL

 

DVSeries#27: Sister married 40yrs ago files DV on brothers 4 property !! MP HC decrees NO DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mt

 

DVSeries#26: Wife earning equal 2 hubby NOT get maint NOR residence under DV! Delhi Sessions Court http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mq

 

DVSeries#25: WIFE already making moolah in sec 125 CrPC cannot make MORE moolah using DV !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1p0

 

DVSeries#24: DV Act does not create any additional right to claim maintenance !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1q6

 

DVSeries#23: Raj HC : Wife who leaves 3yr old kid & goes away, files 498a DV Looses kid’s custody! http://wp.me/p7s7-1CG

 

DVSeries#22: IF paying maint in DV seek reducn of S 125 maintenance! MP HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1F9

 

DVSeries#21: Rare order (not the norm!) : NO arrest for NON payment of DV maintenance. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fm

 

DVSeries#20: No DV cases on relatives (say inlaws) who are NOT in domestic relationship! Andhra HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Ww

 

DVSeries#19: DV case on elders, relatives etc quashed. Only husband to fight ! Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1IF

 

DvSeries#18: Max 1 month arrst 4 maint arrears. No DV maint enhance by session court. Karnat HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fn

 

DVSeries#17: Gulf based NRI earng 65K pm 2 pay ONLY 6K to wife: Kerala DV case with LOW LOW maint http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fj

 

DVSeries#16: Husband can sell his house when he wants!! DV can’t stop that. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fl

 

DVSeries#15:IF Wife can’t prove DV, children ALSO NOT entitled maintenance under DV. Bombay HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1wz

 

DVSeries#14:Need Cent Govt permission 2 investigate offence outside India Good case 4 DV, Dowry NRI http://wp.me/p7s7-1zE

 

DVSeries#13: 24 HMA Intr. maint reduced bcaz wife already getting DV maintenance !! MP, HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bh

 

DVSeries#12: BOM HC : NO DV if couple not living 2gther not sharing h hold! NO DV 5yrs aftr dvorce! http://wp.me/p7s7-1yS

 

DVSeries#11:Wife Can’t return frm abroad &file DV 1yr aftr sepraton! Not in domst rel.ship: Bom HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1yG

 

DVSeries#10: Personal appearance NOT essential in DV case : Kerala HC : appear thru counsel http://wp.me/p7s7-1wI

 

DVSeries#09: Wife tries DV aftr mutual dvorc &delay! LOOSES @SC. SC supports 1yr timelimit for DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1×8

 

DVSeries#08: DV on inlaws 5yrs aftr huby death! Wife wants piece of house Dhingra ji send her back! http://wp.me/p7s7-1xu

 

DVSeries#07:SuprmCourt: If DV filed, police 2 make enqury frm family, neighbours,freinds, b4 case! http://wp.me/p7s7-1wJ

 

DVSeries#06: Wife’s 172 days delay in filing revision for DV case NOT accepted by Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1×7

 

DVSeries#05: Womn caught lying in cross exam about DV & dowry looses case gets NO Money! Delhi MM http://wp.me/p7s7-1MV

 

DVSeries#04: Dghtr in law forcefully enter FIL’s house & tries DV residnce. Looses completely. http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nq

 

DVSeries#03: Live-in woman claims rape, DV, cheating, bigamy etc 9yrs later! P&H HC throws her out http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nt

 

DVSeries#02: Every failed marriage NOT DV! Fake DV case after 498a quashed by Del HC. http://wp.me/p7s7-1NG

 

DVSeries#01: Serial case filing wife’s DV quashed by Karnatk HC “nothing but abuse of process of Court” http://wp.me/p7s7-1Qj

 

Advertisements

Child’s maintenance under DV to be equally borne by husband & wife !! Delhi sessions court

* wife has filed DV case on hubby
* Kid’s needs assessed at Rs 16000 per month based on the status of parties
* husband and wife to pay the maintenance in equal amounts
* however wife manages other restraint orders on husband’s property. She somehow proves her contribution to the apartments in question. In spite of restraint the court permits renting of properties

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

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE CUM SPECIAL JUDGE­03, (PC ACT) (CBI)
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

ID No. 02403R0074822015
Criminal Appeal No. 16/2015

Ajit Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Narender Singh
A­2479, Ground Floor,
Netaji Nagar, Opposite Palikia Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110023.  …..Appellant

Versus

Cherry Singh
W/o Sh. Ajit Pal Singh
D/o Col. Manmohan Singh Jassal,
R/o 4173, Second Floor, D­4, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi – 110070.  …..Respondent

Date of institution     : 28.04.2015
Date of arguments     : 04.12.2015
Date of order         : 08.12.2015

JUDGEMENT

1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and is directed against the impugned order dated 30.3.2015 passed by Ms Snigdha Sarvaria, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in CC No. 44/4/2014 vide which Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to award maintenance in the sum of Rs.15,000/­ per month till pendency of the complaint to the minor son of the parties payable by appellant, who is the husband of respondent. Apart from it, the trial court also restrained the appellant from alienating or disposing of or parting with the possession or creating any encumbrance on two properties.

2. Respondent is the wife of the appellant. She had filed a complaint CC No.44/4/2014 against her husband i.e. the appellant under Section 12 of this Act. Along with this complaint she also moved an application under Section 23 of the Act praying for interim maintenance to the minor son of the parties till pendency of the complaint.

3. In this complaint, the complainant/respondent had also made a prayer that appellant may be restrained from alienating four properties.

4. After hearing the parties, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate awarded an interim maintenance in the sum of Rs.15,000/­ per month for the minor son of the parties till pendency of the proceedings. In respect of the four properties, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate carefully considered all facts and circumstances and passed a restraint order in respect of following properties :

A. Flat No. 106, Tower A, Springdales, Zirakpur, near Chandigarh.
B. Flat No. D­504, Estella, Sector­102, Gurgaon.

5. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

6. First I take up the issue of the restraint order. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has carefully gone through the records of the properties furnished by the parties and I agree that the contribution of both the parties in the aforesaid properties is quite evident from the material produced before the trial court. Hence, I find no infirmity in the restraint order. The grievance of appellant is that by this restraint order, he cannot even let out the properties. It is submitted that if he is allowed to rent out the properties, he will be in a better position to pay the maintenance. Moreover, if left vacant, the properties will deteriorate. I agree with his submission to this extent. But the question will arise as to which of the parties will have the right to rent out the properties. The appropriate course would be that both the parties should agree to rent out the said properties through a common property dealer and the rent should be deposited in a joint bank account of the parties with a rider that such rent would be distributed equally between husband and wife. There may be many other proposals to make these properties profitable to all concerned. However, this job cannot be done at appellate stage. Of course, the parties are free to resolve this issue by taking recourse to mediation or through guidance of their lawyers or by taking appropriate order of the trial court. However, question of renting out the properties cannot be considered at the appellate stage. At the same time, I have already stated that I do not find any infirmity in the restraint order, which is not of a final nature and the trial court is fully empowered to vacate it or to modify at the stage of final disposal or earlier if it so desires.

7. Now I take up the question of grant of maintenance to the son of the parties. It is an admitted fact that both the parties are gainfully employed and are earning respectable salaries. Therefore, I agree with the opinion of the trial court that both the parties should proportionately share expenses of maintenance incurred on the minor child. Ld. Counsel for appellant has prayed for setting aside the maintenance order and in alternative reducing the same. I have already stated that when both husband and wife are earning, both of them are required to shoulder the expenses on their child. Therefore, setting aside the maintenance order is out of question.

8. The next question is as to whether the interim maintenance should be reduced.

9. Since the court have to pass the interim maintenance order at a very initial stage, the courts have to form an opinion on the basis of the material and affidavit filed by the parties. The correctness of such material and affidavits has to be dealt with at final stage. The respondent herein had filed an affidavit dated 17.10.2014 in respect of her details, assets and expenditure. Under the head of expenditure in column (V), she has mentioned the education tuition expenses of her child as under :

(v) Education of child

1. School Fees (Quarterly) ­ including tuition fee. Rs.10,500/­ on an average

2. Tutor Fees – Rs.3000/­ pm.

3. School Van Fees for afternoon – Rs.2000/­ pm.

4. Dance Class Van – Rs.500/­ pm

5. Dance Classes – Rs. 12,000/­ pa.

10. The aforesaid affidavit of respondent shows that respondent is spending around Rs.8000/­ per month only on education and education related activities upon her child. In view of the status of the parties, this much of expenditure is normal these days. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for appellant that appellant gets reimbursement of the school fee from her employer, however, no evidence could be shown of such reimbursement except school certificate, which shows that same was issued for the purpose of reimbursement of the fee. This school certificate is not enough to form a primafacie view unless actual document of reimbursement of school fee by her employer is produced by the appellant. Hence, it cannot be said at this stage that appellant is getting reimbursement of the school fee of her child.

11. Considering the primafacie expenditure on education of the child and status of parties, it is reasonable to accept that an approximate sum of Rs.8000/­ per month must have been spent by the respondent on food and clothing etc. for the child. Hence, the total expenditure upon the child appears to be Rs.16,000/­ per month, which should be shared equally by the parties.

12. The impugned order would show that no reason has been given as to how the monthly expenditure of the minor son has been calculated by the trial court. In the preceding paragraph, I have calculated the monthly expenditure on the child at Rs. 16,000/­ per month, which should be shared equally by father as well as mother. Thus, the appellant being the father of minor child is directed to pay a maintenance in the sum of Rs.8000/­ per month to respondent (who is the wife of appellant and mother of the minor son Master Angad) from the date of filing of the complaint till final disposal. In case, respondent is getting maintenance for her child from any other court, the same would be adjusted by the trial court in the present maintenance. The impugned order is modified to the extent as above only in respect of the maintenance. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

13. Parties/their counsels are directed to appear before the trial court on 19.12.2015.

14. Copy of judgement along with trial court record be returned to the trial court. Appeal file be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open court on 8.12.2015.

(Vinod Kumar)
Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge­03,
(PC Act) (CBI), Patiala House Courts New Delhi

 

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

Long live legal delays. Husband ordered interm maint 10K p.m. in DV, appeals & drags for 2+ yrs !

An interim maintenance meter keeps running whether or NOT the case has merits. In most cases, men are tired paying interim and ad interim maintenance even though they are dead sure of winning the main case. so it becomes imperative to find strategies to fight Interim maintenance.

In this case …..

* Wife and kids granted 10000 p.m. sometime circa 2012 / 2013 in a DV case @ Kanyakumari, TN
* Husband prefers appeal at sessions court
* For some reason husband looses appeal at sessions court (probably sessions court forced him to pay portion of the money before appeal !!)
* He goes to High court u/s 482 CrPC seeking call for and dismission of sessions court case
* Though he looses the case at the HC this shows how one can drag and delay payment for ages by appealing and reviewing !!
* Such husbands should be contacted to know IF this was a tactic or just karma and court Dharma !! 🙂

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

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 14.10.2015

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5746 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

Ravi … Petitioner

-Vs-

1.Sreethangam
2.Rinshika rep. By her mother Sreethangam
3.Selvakani
4.Ganesan
5.Stelladevi
6.Thangaraj
7.Ponsudha
8.Vasantha
9.Raja .. Respondents

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

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and set aside the order of dismissal passed in C.A.No.42 of 2013 by the Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil dated 22.01.2015.

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

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai
For Respondents : Mr.J.John Jayakumar for R1, No Appearance for RR2 to 8

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

O R D E R

The petitioner has come forward with this application to set aside the order of dismissal passed in C.A.No.42 of 2013 by the Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil dated 22.01.2015.

2.Even though, the matter is posted for dismissal, today, the learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 have preferred an application before the trial Court under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, in which, an interim order has been passed, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the respondents 1 and 2 and totally Rs.10,000/- per month, against which, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.42 of 2013 before the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District and because of the no representation on behalf of the appellant, the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution, against, the petitioner has come up with the criminal original petition.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the first respondent also and perused the materials available on records.

5.Admittedly, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil has not been complied with. This Court, by an order order 11.08.2015, directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). But, instead of payment of the amount, the petitioner filed M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2015 and 2 of 2015 for extention of time and modification of the condition respectively. Even today, also, he has not paid any amount. The act of the petitioner shows the malafide intention to drag on the proceedings, without paying the maintenance amount to his wife and daughter. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

6.Perusal of the records would show that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil, directing him to pay the interim maintenance amount. But, without paying the same, he has preferred the appeal and since he has not appeared before the appellate Court and he was not ready to get along with the appeal, the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution only on 22.02.2015, after a period of two years. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. Further, I do not find any reason to extend the time and to modify the order and I am of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 are also dismissed. It is left open to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner to recover the maintenance amount.

TO

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil.

2.The Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Beaten & evicted elderly mother in law WINS DV case !! Sessns Court orders lower court 2 grant interim relief

A Landmark case that can be used by mothers in law who are evicted from their own property by errant daughters in law or their own sons !!

* In this case, a Daughter in law has beaten and thrown out an 80 years old elderly mother in law “…she was badly beaten up by the respondents on 04.09.2013 as is quite apparent from MLC dt. 04.09.13 of BSA hospital …”
* She has been thrown out of her own house a fate faced by many elders in India these days !! “…..she was owner in possession of flat no. A­2, Baba Banda Bahadur Apartment, Sector­14, Rohini, Delhi­110085 (hereinafter called the property in question). She was residing alongwith both the respondents in domestic relationship in the property in question till 02.07.2012 when both the respondents committed acts of domestic violence against her and turned her out from the property in question.
“..She further claimed that she was beaten up by respondents even on 04.09.2013 and she had been got medically examined vide MLC no. 9400/13 at BSA hospital, Rohini…”
* She has approached other legal fora and those orders are also flouted by daughter in law “…..order dated 10.09.15 passed by Maintenance Tribunal for Welfare of Parents And Senior Citizen, North­West District, Kanjhawala, Delhi­81 in favour of appellant and against the respondents, whereby concerned SHO has been directed for peaceful entry and living of appellant in the property in question with further direction to the respondents to maintain peace at the house and not to disturb the appellant in day to day activities. Ld counsel of appellant had informed this Court that said order has also not been complied with till date……”
* Still the lower court refuses to grant her interim orders under DV

* appreciating the facts, the Hon Sessions court orders “…The view taken by trial Court while declining to grant interim reliefs, is not sustainable under the law for the reasons already mentioned herein above in the preceedings paras. This is more so when the averments made by appellant regarding acts of domestic violence committed by respondents, got prima facie supported from DIR, status report filed by SHO and MLC placed on record. Resultantly, the present appeal is accepted and the impugned order dt. 21.11.2014 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court) (North) Rohini Courts , Delhi is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Court below with direction to pass speaking order on the petition U/s 12 of D.V. Act, 2005 filed by appellant/complainant, after hearing both the parties in accordance with law …..”

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

IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE­04 (NORTH):
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Criminal Appeal No. 38/14
Unique Case ID: 02404R0418572014

Smt. Kanta
W/o Late Sh. Ram Gopal
R/o Flat No. A­2, Baba Banda Bahadur Apartment
Sector­14, Rohini, Delhi. …Appellant

Versus

1. Sh. Pawan Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Ram Gopal
R/o Flat No. A­2, Baba Banda Bahadur Apartment,
Sector­14, Rohini, Delhi­110085.

2. Smt. Madhu
W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar
R/o Flat No. A­2, Baba Banda Bahadur Apartment,
Sector­14, Rohini, Delhi­110085. …Respondents

Date of Institution : 20.12.2014
Date on which Order was reserved: 05.11.2015
Date on which Order pronounced : 10.11.2015

Crl. Appeal No. 38/14 D.O.D.: 10.11.2015

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is directed against the order dated 21.11.2014 ( hereinafter called the impugned order) passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court), Rohini Court, Delhi, whereby the interim reliefs sought by appellant/complainant by way of application U/s 12 of the Protection of Women From the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as D.V Act), have been declined.

Brief facts relevant for deciding the present appeal are that appellant who is mother of respondent no. 1 and mother in law of respondent no. 2, claimed in the proceedings filed before Ld. trial Court that she was owner in possession of flat no. A­2, Baba Banda Bahadur Apartment, Sector­14, Rohini, Delhi­110085 (hereinafter called the property in question). She was residing alongwith both the respondents in domestic relationship in the property in question till 02.07.2012 when both the respondents committed acts of domestic violence against her and turned her out from the property in question. She further claimed that the respondents had been committing acts of domestic violence against her for the last 5­6 years prior to 02.07.2012. She further claimed that she was beaten up by respondents even on 04.09.2013 and she had been got medically examined vide MLC no. 9400/13 at BSA hospital, Rohini.

Based on aforesaid averments, she sought various interim reliefs in the form of protection order as stipulated U/s 18, Residence Order as provided U/s 19, Monetary Compensation as provided U/s 20 and Damages as provided U/s 22 of Domestic Violence Act before the trial Court.

The petition was contested tooth and nail by both the respondents who also filed their detailed reply before the trial Court. After hearing rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, Ld. trial Court passed the impugned order which is under challenge in the present appeal.

The impugned order has been assailed by appellant mainly on the grounds that Ld. trial Court failed to consider Domestic Incident Report (DIR) and Status Report filed by concerned SHO, while passing the impugned order; Ld. MM fell into grave error by ignoring the fact that she was badly beaten up by the respondents on 04.09.2013 as is quite apparent from MLC dt. 04.09.13 of BSA hospital filed on record and Ld. MM failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in her while declining to grant interim relief in her favour.

During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel of appellant submitted before the Court that appellant is confining interim reliefs sought in petition moved U/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act to the extent of grant of residence order in her favour appellant and protection order against respondents from committing any act of domestic violence against her during pendency of proceedings before trial Court.

Ld. counsel of appellant also referred to Domestic Incident Report filed by Protection Officer as also to the status report filed by SHO concerned before the trial Court, in support of his submission that there is sufficient material showing that respondents had committed acts of domestic violence against the appellant. He, therefore, urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

In support of of his submissions, Ld counsel of appellant also placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter titled as ” Sheetal Vs. Hitesh” reported at 2013 (1) Crimes 168 (Bom.) delivered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

Per contra, Ld counsel of respondents supported the impugned order by submitting that Ld. trial Court has passed just and reasoned order after taking into consideration all the relevant facts of the case and the material placed before it. Ld. counsel vehemently argued that the reliefs as claimed by appellant in petition filed U/s 12 of the D.V. Act were mainly in respect of monetary compensation/damages. He argued that respondents have already given undertaking in the trial Court that they are ready to give proper care, food, clothes and medicines to the appellant as per her requirement. He pointed out that respondents have also filed separate case of Domestic Violence against the appellant and the appellant has levelled counter allegations against the respondents as counter blast to the said proceedings. He further argued that appellant had also caused physical assault to respondent no. 2 with sharp edged weapon and she was also medically examined in that regard. He also referred to the relevant documents filed alongwith written statement available on trial Court, in support of said submissions. He further argued that appellant filed false affidavit U/s 23(2) of Act, before trial Court and it was only when respondents filed petition U/s 340 Cr.PC against appellant for making false statement by concealing her bank account maintained by her with State Bank of Patiala, she choose to file the bank statement before the Court. He, therefore, urged that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed under the law. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The term ‘aggrieved person’ as defined in Section 2(a) of the Protection of Women From the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 reads as under:­

(a) ” aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent”

It is quite evident from bare perusal of the aforesaid provision that there are two necessary ingredients to be satisfied before a person can be termed as an aggrieved person within the meaning thereof. The said two ingredients are that aggrieved person must be in domestic relationship with the respondent and secondly, the aggrieved person alleges to have been subjected to domestic violence while she was in domestic relationship with the respondent.

Now, adverting back to the facts of the present case. It is not in dispute that appellant and respondents were in domestic relationship. The said fact has also been acknowledged by the trial Court in the impugned order. However, Ld. trial Court has declined to grant interim reliefs in favour of appellant on the premise that second ingredient that appellant was subjected to domestic violence at the hands of respondents, cannot be established at this stage as both the parties were levelling allegations of commission of domestic violence against each other and had filed cross cases of domestic violence against each other. The said approach adopted by trial Court does not seem to be in conformity with the provisions of law and the object for which Domestic Violence Act was brought into force by the legislature.

No doubt, the appellant had sought various interim reliefs in petition U/s 12 of the Act and some of them like payment of compensation/damages stipulated U/s 22 of the said Act could not have been granted at this stage but nevertheless, the other interim reliefs in the form of protection order as provided U/s 18 of the Act, residence order as provided U/s 19 of the Act and interim maintenance as envisaged by Section 20 of the Act, ought to have been considered by the Court below. Having failed to do so, it becomes the duty of this Court being Appellate Court, to pass necessary order so that justice may not become casualty at the hands of wrong doer.

In Sheetal’s case (Supra) relied by Ld. counsel of appellant, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has observed that the object of Domestic Violence Act is to provide more effective protection to helpless and shelter­ less victims and to ensure the rights of women granted under the Constitution and whenever any victim of domestic violence approaches the Court, it is necessary for the Court to pass an expeditious order at the interim stage U/s 23 of the said Act.

In the case in hand, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant is the registered owner of property in question. It is also an admitted case of both the sides that the appellant had been in domestic relationship with the respondents while she was residing with them in the property in question, before she was turned out therefrom.

It is also not in dispute that appellant is presently out of possession of the property in question. She is shown to be an old lady aged about 80 years or so. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel of appellant had placed on record copy of order dated 10.09.15 passed by Maintenance Tribunal for Welfare of Parents And Senior Citizen, North­West District, Kanjhawala, Delhi­81 in favour of appellant and against the respondents, whereby concerned SHO has been directed for peaceful entry and living of appellant in the property in question with further direction to the respondents to maintain peace at the house and not to disturb the appellant in day to day activities. Ld counsel of appellant had informed this Court that said order has also not been complied with till date.

During pendency of present appeal, both the parties were also referred to Mediation Center for exploring the possibility of settlement but unfortunately, matter has been returned back as unsettled before the Court.

What emerges from the above discussion is that appellant who is an old lady, is out of possession of her own property and despite approaching the Competent Court of Law, no interim reliefs have been granted to her by the Court below. The view taken by trial Court while declining to grant interim reliefs, is not sustainable under the law for the reasons already mentioned herein above in the preceedings paras. This is more so when the averments made by appellant regarding acts of domestic violence committed by respondents, got prima facie supported from DIR, status report filed by SHO and MLC placed on record.

Resultantly, the present appeal is accepted and the impugned order dt. 21.11.2014 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court) (North) Rohini Courts , Delhi is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Court below with direction to pass speaking order on the petition U/s 12 of D.V. Act, 2005 filed by appellant/complainant, after hearing both the parties in accordance with law and without being swayed by any observation made by this Court in the present judgment. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment, as per rules. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Announced in open Court today On 10.11.2015
(Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge­04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi