Tag Archives: DV Act

Don’t contact wife by phone, mail, SMS or ANY means but keep paying her money EVERY MONTH !! COURT ORDER !!

Don’t contact wife, court orders man


AHMEDABAD: A local court has ordered a person not to contact his wife in any manner — in person, over the phone, or through a third party.

A magisterial court on Mirzapur court campus has ordered a resident of Kaligam, we Narayansinh Borovist, not to contact his wife Binita, who currently lives in Ghatlodia at her maternal home. The court so ordered for Binita’s protection from physical and mental harassment from her husband after the woman filed a complaint under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

In June, the woman approached the court through the protection officer and sought directions for protection, shelter, and maintenance as well as compensation for domestic violence. She also demanded the streedhan back from her in-laws.

The court issued a notice, but the husband did not turn up to reply to his wife’s accusations. She complained that the husband used to torture her physically and mentally in inebriated condition. She claimed that she was repeatedly beaten and thrown out of her matrimonial home.

Demanding maintenance, she has supplied the husband’s salary slip of 2010, which revealed his salary was Rs 28,903 then.

As the husband did not appear for hearings, the court said that her claims remained uncontroverted. “If an order for her protection under section 18 of the DV Act is not passed, she may become victim of domestic violence in future also,” the court said.

The court ordered the husband to pay Rs 4,000 towards maintenance, Rs 2,000 for house rent and Rs 25,000 as compensation for the physical and mental torture.

The court ordered the payment of maintenance and house rent after considering that his salary must have been increased by at least Rs 6,000 after the implementation of the 7th

Pay Commission

— Read on m.timesofindia.com/city/ahmedabad/dont-contact-wife-court-orders-man/articleshow/65546705.cms

if your wife looses her “residence rights” under DV case, she can be VACATED from your / your parent’s house !! Kerala HC !!

DV Act- An Order Vacating Ex-parte Residence Order Can Be Enforced Against ‘Aggrieved Person’: Kerala HC

From Live Law website !!

By: Ashok Kini

The magistrate passing the ex parte residence orders under section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act is equally competent under section 23 (1) of the Act to enforce its order vacating the ex parte order and necessary directions can be issued to the jurisdictional SHO to enforce its order.

The Kerala High Court, in Ansari v Shiji, has held that when ex parte residence order is vacated, the Magistrate shall invariably direct the ‘aggrieved person’ to vacate the disputed house within a specified time to be fixed by the Magistrate and in case of failure to comply with that direction, the Magistrate can pass such orders under Section 23 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act to implement it.

Factual Matrix

A ‘wife’ obtains ex parte residence order against her husband and in-laws. The wife and her parents, on the strength of the order, occupy the house and the in-laws are forced to leave the house. The in-laws appear before the court and manage to convince the court that the house in question is not a shared household and it belongs to them exclusively.  Though the court vacates the residence order, it says it cannot enforce the order vacating the ex parte residence order, purportedly in the absence of any specific enabling provision. That means, the court says it cannot force the wife, who on the strength of its ex parte residence order, occupied the house to vacate it.

The Curious Question

This curious question of law reaches the high court as the in-laws assail the order of Magistrate before it. The question is: Whether an order vacating ex parte residence order granted in favour of the aggrieved person, can also be enforced against the aggrieved person?

No one can take advantage of a vacated ex parte order

Justice Sunil Thomas observed that it is incongruous and contrary to every legal principle to hold that the statute authorizes for enforcement of orders in favour of one party and not orders passed against that party.

“It also does not stand to reason to hold that the court is empowered only to implement its ex parte order, but is powerless to restore the parties to their original position, when that ex parte order is vacated, modified or set aside. Evidently, no party to the proceeding can continue to take advantage of an ex parte order which was later vacated on merits. That will be against the very basis of the Rule of Law,” the court said.

It was further observed: “Generally, a statute cannot be expected to protect a person who gets the benefit of an order and continue to protect, even after the order is reversed or modified, on a premise that law does not provide for restitution of parties. Such an interpretation will only make the entire legal system mockery. Evidently, when a person takes the benefit of an order passed by a competent court, which is later held to be not sustainable on merits, it cannot be held that law is powerless to restore the person against whom that ex parte order was enforced, to the position status quo ante. Definitely, if the court is authorised to enforce an ex parte order, it must be deemed to have all such implied powers, even in the absence of a specific statutory provision, to enforce its own order vacating the order. The court cannot be held to be helpless in such a situation, otherwise, that may be a lop sided imparting of justice.”

Section 23(1) is the Key

Carefully examining the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act to see whether there is any provision to implement an order against the aggrieved person, the court pinpoints to Section 23(1). “Section 23 (1) does not make any distinction between the aggrieved person or the respondent in the proceeding. It empowers the Magistrate to “pass any interim order as he deems just and proper”. This confers wide powers on the Magistrate to pass any order, if the situation so demands, and if it is “just and proper”, in favour of any party, irrespective of whether it is sought by the aggrieved person or the respondent, This seems to be the only provision in the statute which does not prescribe the party in whose favour or against whom, the relief is to be granted. On the other hand, section 23 (2) specifically provides that ex parte orders therein are to be granted against the respondent therein and hence necessarily in favour of the aggrieved person. The significance of section 23(1) is so clear from the statute. Though all the other provisions provided in the statute, except section 23(1) are specifically made applicable to the aggrieved person and against the respondent, section 23 (1) does not make any distinction between the aggrieved person or the respondent in the DV Act proceedings,” the court said.

The court also observed that the Magistrate is competent to invoke Section 23(1) and to direct the aggrieved person to vacate the premises and in case of breach, to direct the SHO to implement its order invoking Section 23 (1) and Section 28, to ensure that the parties are restored to the position which they held prior to the granting of the ex parte order.

Read the Order Here



How a #husband hit with 200,000 #per #month #maintenance with #NO #DV proven gets partial #relief from #BombayHC

Interim maintenance and maintenance under DV act, under Sec 125 CRPC, Under sec 24 HMA etc etc are monsters ready to eat any married man fighting matrimonial cases

Here is a classic case where a hapless husband, estranged from wife, still maintaining the son, daughter, paying for children schooling, and even daughter’s education in USA etc etc., is hit with two hundred thousands per month maintenance, even though NOT a iota of DV is proven !!

The family court orders 200,000 per month (yes TWO HUNDRED THOUSANDS PER MONTH) from 2013 till date meaning the arrears itself will run into crores !!

The woman files for execution and wishes to get the fella arrested and thrown in jail (yes ARREST the same father who is paying for the daughter’s education in USA !!)

Finally matter goes to HC where the HC notices that NOT AN IOTA of DV is proven and the family court has NOT considered subsequent events (changes to husband’s earning, company liquidation etc) before granting maintenance

Still HC says pay 25% of arrears from date of order (year 2017) and Rs 25000 per month to the wife for her maintenance and sends matter back to Family court for further adjudication

Case law below






Mr.Prakash Kumar Singhee …Petitioner
Ms.Amrapali Singhee …Respondent




Ms.Amrapali Singhee …Petitioner
Mr.Prakash Kumar Singhee …Respondent


Mrs.Seema Sarnaik for the Petitioner in WP No.3553 of 2018 and for the Respondent in CP No.459 of 2017.

Mr.Abhijit Sarwate for the Respondent in WP No.3553 of 2018 and for the Petitioner in CP No.459 of 2017.





  1. 1. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner- husband, challenging order passed by the Family Court, Pune below Exh.20 in Petition B. No.2/2013, thereby directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.2 lakhs to the wife under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 from the date of application till the decision of the petition.
  2. 2. Contempt Petition No.459 of 2017 is taken out by the wife alleging non-compliance of the said order passed by the Family Court and praying for appropriate directions to the husband to comply with the said order. https://bit.ly/2I7a9tP
  3. 3. The brief chronology of the facts leading to the filing of present petitions is culled out below. The petitioner and respondent were married on 11.07.1997 as per Hindu rites and Customs. At the relevant time the petitioner was living in Houston, Texas, USA and the parties resided there till 2004. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born on 15.11.1998 and 20.01.2004. At present the daughter is studying in USA and the son is staying with the wife. The case of the petitioner-husband is that the respondent-wife lost interest in married life and she took away the children from their joint custody. The respondent-wife instituted the Petition B No.2/2013 invoking Section 34, 37(2), 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act before the Family Court, Pune. In the said proceedings, the respondent-wife https://bit.ly/2I7a9tP prayed for a restrain order against the husband removing son Aryaman from the custody of the petitioner-husband and also from meeting his son Aryaman out of Pune. Exh.5 came to be filed in the said Court praying for temporary injunction and the Family Court-I, Pune on 24.01.2013 issued temporary injunction against husband directing not to remove child from the custody of the wife until further orders.
  4. 4. The respondent-wife preferred an application Exh-20 in the said petition under Section 20 of the Protection of Domestic Violence Act praying for monetary relief of Rs.5 lakhs per month and for reimbursement of school fees of son Aryaman to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. In the said application preferred under Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act, the wife alleged that she is entitled for maintenance of Rs.5 lakhs per month by taking into consideration the life style to which she is accustomed to and in the backdrop of the earning capacity of the husband. The said application came to be opposed by the petitioner by https://bit.ly/2I7a9tP filing a reply wherein it was contended that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be extended to a woman who earns tax free dividend of Rs.4 lakhs per annum and who has investment in her bank to fetch her interest of around 70 thousand per annum. In the said reply the petitioner-husband categorically stated that he was catering to the needs of the wife and children and always arranging for their lodging and boarding and all other miscellaneous expenses.
  5. 5. On consideration of the said application, the impugned order came to be passed by the Family Court. The Judge Family Court dealt with the objection that the application under Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act cannot be instituted in the proceedings filed under the Specific Relief Act and the Court also recorded the submission of the petitioner that the preliminary requirement of Domestic Violence has not been proved and in such circumstances such an application cannot be entertained.
  6. 6. The impugned order proceeds on a footing that the petitioner is a President of “Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Limited” and draws a salary of Rs.15 lakhs per month with perks worth Rs. 5 lakh. The Court observe that the husband is in charge of the said company but he has failed to produce any documents reflecting his income, but the wife had produced on record copy of her bank statement. The Family Court would take note of the bank statement as well as Income Tax returns of the wife for the year 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. The Court considered the income shown as against these years and recorded a finding that the income of the wife for the year 2015- 2016 is Rs.17,46,878/- whereas for the year 2016-2017 it is reflected as zero. The Court did not find favour with the explanation tendered by the wife that her mother is joint holder of the account where huge amount has been credited and that she deals in stock broking and therefore the entries are reflected in her https://bit.ly/2I7a9tP account. The Court recorded, a finding that the said explanation is not acceptable at all. However, taking into consideration the fact that it is responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife and children, the Court awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs per month, in the backdrop of the earning capacity of the husband as per the contention of the wife.
  7. 7. In support of the petitioner learned counsel Mrs.Seema Sarnaik would submit that the Family Court has failed to take into consideration the relevant aspects of the matter and that the order passed by the Trial Court is prima facie erroneous. She would submit that by virtue of Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act, while disposing of an application Sub-Section-1 of Section-12 the Magistrate may direct payment of monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and loss suffered by the “aggrieved person” as a result of Domestic Violence. Advocate Mrs.Sarnaik would submit that the prereqsite of the grant of such a relief is an application preferred under Section-12 of the said Act by the “aggrieved person”. She would invite https://bit.ly/2I7a9tP attention of the Court to the definite meaning assigned to the term “aggrieved person” under Section- 2(a) of the Act to mean a 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. She would also submit that the domestic violence has a specific meaning assigned to in Section-3 of the Act and would include any Act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent as specified in Clause (a) to (d) of Section-3. She would submit that the application is devoid of such pleadings attributing domestic violence and thus in absence of domestic violence being attributed and demonstrated, an application under Section-12 cannot be entertained and no relief can be granted under Section-20 of the said Act in the nature of the monetary relief. She would also submit that the proceedings were filed by the wife under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act seeking a restrain order and in that proceedings the application Exh.-20 came to be filed which is not maintainable. She would also assail the order impugned on the ground that the Family Court has not taken into consideration the earnings of the husband. The petitioner has tendered an affidavit before this Court on 19th March 2018, bringing on record certain documents which include an order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 28th in a Company Petition by which the Company of the petitioner is placed under the control of the Official Liquidator in the form of provisional liquidator and direction is issued to the company and its directors from alienating, encumbering and parting with the possession of the assets of the company without the leave of the Court. According to Mrs.Sarnaik the company “Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Limited” is thus under liquidation and in these circumstances it is difficult for the petitioner to pay the amount of maintenance as ordered by this Court. The affidavit further proceeds to state that the petitioner is catering to the Educational expenses of the daughter who is studying in USA by obtain a loan and he is also bearing the educational expenses of his son who is studying in standard VIII.
  8. 8. Per contra learned counsel Advocate Shri.Sarwate appearing for respondent-wife would invite attention of this Hon’ble Court to the application filed by his client under order 21 Rule 41 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for disclosure of the details of the assets of the judgment debtor in light of the order passed by the Family Court. He would submit that on 30.01.2018 the Family Court has passed the following order on Exh.5. “Perused application. No say filed by J.D. Perused authority relied by D.H.D.H. Wants to JD should disclose his assets which are required for the execution of decree as DH is not aware of his assets J.D. Did not file Say. As per O.21, R.41 of the CPC, JD can be directed to disclose his assets. It is necessary to execute the decree. Hence, JD is directed to give details of assets as mentioned in para (4)(a) to (z) of the application on the next date.”
  9. 9. He would further invite attention of this Court to subsequent order passed by 07.03.2018 by the Family Court, Pune to the following effect :- “Perused application. Heard Ld. Advocate for DH. Today JD is present before the court but he did not comply the order of the court below Exh.5. So also JD did not deposit any decretal amount in court. There is no stay to the proceedings. DH pressed for sending the JD to jail. However, in my opinion last opportunity is to be given to the JD. Hence JD is directed to deposit 25% of decretal amount in court on or before 20.03.2018 and if he fails, he will be sent to jail. JD to note and strictly comply the order.
  10. 10. Learned counsel Shri.Sarwate would submit that the impugned order passed by the Family Court needs to be upheld since it is based on the earning capacity of the husband and since the wife is entitled to maintain same standard of living as the husband, and no fault can be found with the impugned order. He would submit that the wife is not having any source of livelihood and as such the award of maintenance of Rs.2 lakhs is just and proper to meet the requirements of the wife. Advocate Mr.Sarwate would also submit that he is constrained to file Contempt Petition No.459 of 2017 since the husband has failed to act in terms of the impugned order, thereby driving the wife to a stage of destitution.
  11. 11. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have perused the material placed on record and also perused the impugned order. The impugned order is passed on an application filed by the wife invoking Section-20 of the Domestic Violence in Petition No.B-2/2013 filed by the wife seeking a relief under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. Though Mrs.Sarnaik had vehemently argued on the maintainability of the said application, on perusal of the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, https://bit.ly/2I7a9tP it is apparent that the Act has been enacted to provide more effective protection of rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution of India, being victims of violence of any kind occurring in the family and the provisions therein would have to be construed in the backdrop of the object with which the statute is enacted. Section-26 of the said Act provides for relief in other suits and legal proceedings. The said section contemplates that any relief available under Section 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before the Civil Court, Family Court and a Criminal Court affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceedings was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act. Sub-section-2 of Section-26 further provides that any such relief may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceedings before a Civil or Criminal Court. Thus, by virtue of the Section-26, any relief available under the Domestic Violence Act can also be sought in any legal proceedings before any Civil Court, Family Court or Criminal Court. The wife had instituted proceedings under the Specific Relief Act before the Family Court, Pune and the said proceedings are pending. She filed application Exh.20 in that petition namely petition B-2/2013 and sought to relief of grant of maintenance or the monetary relief contemplated under Section-20 of the said Act. In light of Section-26 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the objection raised by Mrs.Sarnaik cannot be entertained. However, at the same time it is to be noted that the reliefs mentioned under Section 12 are available to “Aggrieved person” and the reliefs which may be availed by invoking Section 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 are dependent on one important aspect namely the said relief is available to an “aggrieved person” who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. The object of D.V. Act 2005, being to protect the rights of women who are offended by the act of domestic violence committed by the respondent which may include any adult male person or with whom the aggrieved person is in domestic relationship. The term Domestic Violence has been given a specific connotation under Section 3 of the Act and any act, omission and commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it :– (a) harms or injuries or endangers the health, safety, life, limp or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or https://bit.ly/2I7a9tP (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any lawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injuries or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
  12. 12. Thus, in order to claim relief under Section-12 of the Act which permits an “aggrieved person” to present an application to the magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act, levelling the allegations of Domestic Violence. Thus, the reliefs contemplated under the Act are thus available to an aggrieved person who alleges that she is or has been in domestic relationship with the respondent and was subjected to any Act of Domestic Violence by the respondent. Allegation about the commission of a Domestic Violence Act is prerequisite for the magistrate or Court of competent jurisdiction to exercise the https://bit.ly/2I7a9tP powers under the Protection from Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and grant of any reliefs contemplated under the Act.
  13. 13. Perusal of the application filed by the wife claiming maintenance would reveal that apart from making the allegations that the husband is well off and earning a huge amount and the wife is left with no source of livelihood, not a single averment has been made as to any act of domestic violence which would have brought the applicant wife under the category of “aggrieved person” who would have been entitled for the benefits flowing under Section-12 including to the benefits under Section-20 of the D.V. Act 2005. The applicant in the application preferred on 16 th February 2013 do not give a single instance of domestic violence and the application has been simply preferred under the caption as an application under Section-20 of the D.V. Act 2005 praying for following reliefs. “(a) The maintenance or the monetary reliefs provided U/sec.20 of the Domestic Violence Act be granted. (b) Monetary relief of Rs.5 lac per month be granted from the date of this Application. (c) Reimbursement of School Fee for son Aryamaan be granted to the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.50,000/- incurred as on today. (d) The Respondent be called upon to produce his bank statements from all the banks for the last 3 years more specially from Jan 1, 2010.” (e) Any other just and equitable order may kindly be passed.”
  14. 14. Learned counsel Mrs.Sarnaik is perfectly justified in submitting that the provisions under the said enactment cannot be invoked unless the party alleges an act of domestic violence and approach the Court in the capacity as an “aggrieved person”. https://bit.ly/2I7a9tP Though the application filed by the applicant can be entertained in the pending proceedings under the Specific Relief Act, while entertaining an application which is filed Sub-section-1 of Section- 12, it is imperative that the person approaching the Court is an “aggrieved person”. Though the Family Court in the impugned order has noted the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner-husband that the preliminary requirement of the domestic violence has not been proved by the petitioner and therefore application is not maintainable, the Family Court did not pay any heed to the said submission and rather proceeded to decide the matter on its own merits. The Court has merely noted that as per provision of Section-20 of the D.V. Act aggrieved by had claimed monetary relief for herself and her children however, a whether the applicant is an “aggrieved person” has not at all been considered by the Family Court. Though the Act of Domestic Violence would be established after rendering evidence before the Court, at least the Court prima facie must be satisfied that the person approaching is as an “aggrieved person”. It is not every person who can invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under the 2005 Act, simply for claiming maintenance, as the purpose of the enactment is to protect rights of women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. The Court has refused to consider the said aspect of the matter.
  15. 15. The impugned order takes into consideration the potential of the husband to earn the amount as claimed by the wife and concludes that he is fetching a salary of Rs.15 lakhs and perks of Rs.5 lakhs per month. Though the Court expressed doubt with the wife’s earning and has recorded that the wife has filed her Income Tax return showing her income from 2014 to 2017 and the Court has recorded, that the explanation given the wife that per year 2016-2017 her income is zero, is unacceptable. The Family Court has also perused the bank statement of the wife and has recorded that the there are various deposits to her account and the Court has found the explanation offered by the wife that her mother is carrying out the business of stock broking from her account to be evasive. The Court has also noted that though the contention of the wife is that she is not doing any business but the documents reflected that she had huge investments and she has income from shares. However, considering the moral responsibility of the husband to maintain the wife and children, the Court has arrived at conclusion that the petitioner must pay maintenance to the wife.
  16. 16. The approach of the Family Court is grossly erroneous. The amount of maintenance has to be fixed by striking a balance between the earning capacity of the husband and need of the wife and the children. No doubt a husband is under obligation to maintain his spouse and children, however, as regards the quantum of maintenance, the Court will have to award the said amount, based on the material placed before it and though some guess work is permissible, the Court cannot completely act on the basis of its own assumption https://bit.ly/2I7a9tP and surmises. Learned Counsel Mrs.Sarnaik has placed before this Court an order of the Delhi High Court in a company petition reflecting that the “Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Limited” of which the petitioner is owner has gone into liquidation and he has resigned from the said company by tendering his resignation on 01.06.2013. The aspect is important factor which is to be considered in order to have an estimation of the earning capacity of the husband, since the specific contention of the wife is that he is also the owner of other subsidiary companies. That may be true, however, there should be some material placed before the Court to demonstrate that he is also stake holder in some other companies. The petitioner is catering to the education of the children and he expresses no difficultly to continue to do so. He finances the daughter, who is taking eduction in USA and he is also catering to the need of the other child. It is no doubt true that wife is entitled for dignified amount so as to maintain herself according to the standards which she is accustomed to. The parties appear to be belonging to affluent background and she is entitled for same standard of living as the husband. What is the present capacity and status of the husband at the time of passing of the order granting award of maintenance must be looked into. The application was filed in the year 2013 whereas the impugned order is passed in 2017 and several events occurred in between two dates, which must be necessarily weighed by the Court while deciding the said application. This is however not done by the Family Court, Pune and it has awarded an amount of Rs.2 lakhs per month to the petitioner-wife without even bothering to take into consideration whether the wife is an “aggrieved person”. In the application the wife has prayed for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs for herself and reimbursement of school fee of her son. https://bit.ly/2I7a9tP The husband has undertaken that he would continue to pay the fees of the son. However, as far as the maintenance of the wife is concerned the Family Court has grossly erred in granting the said amount without consideration of the relevant aspects of the matter as highlighted above. The said order thus cannot be sustained and the matter needs to be remanded back to the Family Court for due consideration in light of the observations made above. Both the parties are permitted to tender appropriate material before the Family Court so as to justify the claim of the maintenance by wife and the capability of the husband to pay such maintenance. However, it is noted though the order is passed on 23.01.2017 directing the husband to pay the maintenance amount from the date of application, the husband has not been paid any amount till date. In the execution proceedings filed before the Family Court, the Family Court has already issued a direction of deposit 25% of decretal amount in the Court and or before 20.03.2018 otherwise the husband is directed to be sent to jail. This order was passed on 17.02.2018. The husband has failed to deposit any amount in terms of the order passed by Family Court by the impugned order. Since this Court is of the opinion the matter needs to be remanded so as to the decide the entitlement of maintenance of the wife under Section-20 of the D.V.Act, the petitioner-husband is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.25% of the amount of the maintenance in terms of the directions of Judge family Court, by calculating the said amount from the date of the order i.e. 23.01.2017 https://bit.ly/2I7a9tP . The said amount is directed to be deposited before the Family Court within a period four weeks from date of this order. The Family Court would then reconsider the matter, on such deposit being made by the petitioner-husband and would also consider the application preferred by the wife for withdrawal of such amount.
  17. 17. The Family Court is directed to reconsider the application for maintenance within a period of three months from the date of the deposit of the amount by the petitioner-husband in the Family Court. The said amount would be then adjusted towards the quantum of maintenance which the family Court would award on its reconsideration. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court on its remand, the petitioner-husband would pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife towards her maintenance, till the Family Court decides the mater. The petitioner is also directed to bear the educational expenses of the son and would commit no default in payment of his school fees.

Writ Petition is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 23.01.2017 passed by Family Court, Pune is quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded to Family Court, Pune for reconsideration and the same is directed to be decided in three months.



Either lump sum OR monthly maintenance u/s 20 DV act. NOT both ! Cal HC Gem !

a mother files DV case on three of her children. The learned MM allows her petition and orders Rs 2000 p.m. from each of her sons AND a fixed deposit of rs 50,000/- per head. Sons appeal to sessions court who sets aside the lump sum payment and grants enhanced monthly maintenance of Rs 2500 per month per son. Mother goes on appeal to HC. HC appreciates the facts and points out that sec 20 of DV act allows only for lump sum OR monthly maintenance AND NOT both !! So HC affirms sessions court judgement and confirms that either Either lump sum OR monthly maintenance can only be granted under Sec 20 DV act !!



Appellate Side


C.R.R. No. 1012 of 2015

In the matter of :

Shahira Khatoon Mullick
Rabiul Haque Mullick & Ors.

For the petitioner    : Mr. Suman De; advocate.

For the private respondents  : Mr. S.K. Humayun Rezzak; advocate.

Heard on              : 06.01.2016, 20.01.2016, 29.01.2016,


Judgment on           : 29.03.2016


This revisional application under Sections 397/401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by petitioner Shahira Khatoon Mullick against her three sons as opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the State of West Bengal as proforma respondent no. 4.

Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 13.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arambagh, Hooghly in Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2014 arising out of order dated 31.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Court, Arambagh in M.C. 83 of 2013.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Petitioner filed M.C. 83 of 2013 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short P.W.D.V. Act) against her three sons who are opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein. In the order dated 31.03.2014 learned Judicial Magistrate passed residence order and order granting monetary reliefs in favour of the petitioner. In that order direction was given to the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 to provide Rs.2000/- each as monthly maintenance to the petitioner and to contribute Rs.50,000/- each in the fixed deposit to be opened in the name of the petitioner in some nationalised bank which is to be dedicated towards her unforeseen medical expenses and needs and treatments expenditure. Said order was challenged by opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2014. In that case learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arambagh allowed the revisional application in part and modified the order of learned Judicial Magistrate setting aside the order for contributing Rs.50,000/- each by the three opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of petitioner as fixed deposits and enhancing the sum of monthly maintenance allowance of the petitioner from Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/- each payable by said three opposite parties. In this revisional application petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.

I have gone through the certified copy of the impugned judgment, revisional application and its annexure filed by the petitioner. Undisputedly, the petitioner is mother of the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the petitioner is an octogenarian lady having other sons and daughters also.

In this revisional application, inter alia, it has been contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in law setting aside the direction of learned Judicial Magistrate regarding the contribution of Rs.50,000/- each of the three opposite parties towards medical expenses of the petitioner. It has been claimed by the petitioner that Section 20 (1) (b) of the P.W.D.V. Act deals with medical expenses and according to Section 20 (3), maintenance may be paid in lump or monthly basis. Further claim of the petitioner is that in terms of Section 20 (1) (b) of the said Act, the Magistrate, which disposing of an application under Section 12 (1) of the said Act, may direct the respondent to pay medical expenses in addition to other monetary relief. In the same tune, Mr. Suman De, learned counsel advanced his arguments that learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the power of learned Magistrate under Section 20 (3) of the said Act is in addition to the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the said Act and not disjunctive in nature. Petitioner also contended that in view of the provision of appeal under Section 29 of the Act learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have dismissed the revisional application against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate.

Mr. Rezzak, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 argued that learned Magistrate erred in passing order for payment of monthly maintenance and lump sum amount both although Section 20 (3) of the P.W.D.V. Act provides for payment of either monthly maintenance or a lump sum amount. He advanced arguments that learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly modified the order of learned Magistrate by proper interpretation of the statutory provisions which requires no interference by this Court.

Regarding maintainability of the revisional application in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, I like to mention that said learned Court is competent to hear an appeal under Section 29 of the P.W.D.V. Act. Statutory bar under Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted against the revisional application as per determining question in that Court. In the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge did not take up for consideration of any matter beyond the scope of determination in an appeal under Section 29 of the P.W.D.V. Act. Yet, it was proper for the opposite party nos.1and 3 to file their petition of appeal under Section 29, P.W.D.V. Act instead of their revisional application before the Court below. It does not appear from the materials on record that present petitioner raised the question of maintainability of revisional application before learned Additional Sessions Judge. Having considered the above aspects I am of the view that excepting the form of application instead of petition of appeal under Section 29 of the P.W.D.V. Act filed by the petitioners in the Court below there was no major defect in proceeding the revisional application before learned Additional Sessions Judge. In my considered opinion, when the substance of the revisional application was entertainable in law and was considered judicially by a competent Court, the defect in form of application which was presented before it does not vitiate the entire proceeding. As such, the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment should be considered on merits by this Court in the present case.

In respect of observation made in the impugned judgment about enhancement of monthly maintenance of the petitioner from Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/- payable by each of the three sons of the petitioner there is no challenge from either party before this Court. The only point in issue on merit is whether learned Additional Sessions Judge has fallen in error making observation that the provision under Section 20 (3) of the P.W.D.V. Act empowers the Magistrate to pass an order for an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payment of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require and that the learned Court below has passed an order directing the petitioners (opposite party nos. 1 and 3 herein) to pay both monthly maintenance and also to pay Rs.50,000/- each which is beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 20 (3) of the P.W.D.V. Act. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

|  Section 20 of the P.W.D.V. Act reads as:-
  |  “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 and 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 have the power to 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 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”.

In the instant case applicability of the P.W.D.V. Act is not in question. In Sub-Section 1 of Section 20 of that Act Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) illustrations have been mentioned for taking into consideration of the monetary relief in composite. In the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the adequacy, fairness, reasoning and consistency with the standard of living of the petitioner herein for determining the monthly maintenance of the petitioner and for exempting the opposite party nos. 1 and 3 from any liability for payment of lump sum amount in connection with the order of learned Judicial Magistrate. In this case the only determining factor centres around the question as to whether the word ‘or’ mentioned in Sub-Section (3) of Section 20 of the P.W.D.V. Act is conjunctive or disjunctive. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that the said word has been used in the statute to denote conjunctive but learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 3 argued that the said word is disjunctive. In the impugned judgment said word has been interpreted as disjunctive. Plain reading of the Sub-Section (3) of Section 20 of the P.W.D.V. Act empowers the Magistrate to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. In my opinion, according to the said provisions the Magistrate shall consider the requirement of the aggrieved person according to the nature and circumstances of the case and pass order for payment of monetary relief to the aggrieved person by respondent either in the form of appropriate lump sum amount or in the form of monthly payment of maintenance but not both. As such, said word “or” has been used by the legislature in the statute to denote it as disjunctive. Therefore, I find that learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly interpreted that word as disjunctive in the impugned judgment. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, maintaining propriety observed correctly that learned Magistrate has ordered both an appropriate lump sum and monthly payment of maintenance which is beyond the scope of the provision of Section 20 (3) of the P.W.D.V. Act.

In summing up my discussions made above I find and hold that the impugned judgment does not suffer from material infirmity on merit and it needs no interference in this revisional process. As a result, this revisional application is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this revisional application is dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arambagh for drawing his attention to the provisions of Section 29 of the P.W.D.V. Act and for future guidance.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties or their advocates on record promptly observing all requisite formalities.


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

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