Archive

Archive for the ‘Maintainace in DV Act’ Category

CALCUTTA HC- The future salary not being a tangible corporeal property the same cannot be attached for recovery of the arrear maintenance.

 

 

In the case of Md. Jahangir Khan Vs. Mst. Manoara Bibi, reported in 1992 Cri L.J. 83, a Division Bench of our High Court held that the future salary not being a tangible corporeal property the same cannot be attached for recovery of the arrear maintenance.

 

 

Form No. J (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy

C.R.R. NO. 399 of 2007

Amal Mukherjee

versus

Pranati Mukherjee & Anr.

For Petitioners : Mr. Jayanta Nath Saha For O.P. No. 1 : Mr. Subhasish Chakraborty Ms. Shreyashi Biswas

Mr. Soumya Chakraborty

Ms. Sasita Halder

Heard On : August 26th, 2008.

Judgment On : 12-11-2008.

In connection with a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the code of Criminal Procedure, the present petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife, the opposite party herein as her monthly maintenance. Since the petitioner allegedly made no payment the wife/opposite party moved an application under Section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court concerned for enforcement of the said order and for realization and recovery of the amount due i.e. a sum of Rs. 22,000/- relating to the period from February 2005 to December 2005, which give rise to Misc. Case No. 50 of 2006 and the Learned Additional Presiding Judge, Family Court, Calcutta made an order directing that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month be deducted from the pension account of the petitioner and be credited to the savings account of the wife/opposite party on and from January, 2007 during the coming 22 months towards the recovery of arrear maintenance in addition to Rs. 2,000/- per month which has already been directed to be deducted from the pension account of the petitioner towards the payment of future maintenance. The petitioner challenged the said order on the ground in default of payment of maintenance allowance and for recovery of the same the future pension cannot beattached.

2. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the impugned order as well as other materials on record. Considered their respective submissions.

3. In the case of Md. Jahangir Khan Vs. Mst. Manoara Bibi, reported in 1992 Cri L.J. 83, a Division Bench of our High Court held that the future salary not being a tangible corporeal property the same cannot be attached for recovery of the arrear maintenance.

4. It may be noted that the Learned Judge also in her order observed that no future income can be attached as she was of the view since same was not salary but was pension to which the petitioner is entitled during her lifetime the same can be attached. In this regard the observations made by the Division Bench of our High Court in the aforesaid case of Md. Jahangir Khan Vs. Mst. Manoara Bibi (supra) would be very relevant and is quoted below; Para 13. “A single Judge of Orissa High Court relying on a Karnataka decision in Rudraiah V. Muddagangamma, 1985 Cri LJ 707 sought to make a synthesis in Surekha V. Ramahari, 1990 Cri LJ 639. His Lordship while agreeing that only tangible corporeal property could be attached held that salary when becomes due was liable to attachment. According to the learned Judge, writ of attachment should remain dormant and would revive at the end of the month. With deep respect to the learned Judge, wecannot accept his view for the foregoing reasons. On similar reasons, we are unable to agree with the finding of the referring Judge.”

5. Thus, the future pension of the petitioner not being tangible and still not been earned by him same cannot be attached.

6. The impugned order is thus set aside and accordingly the criminal revision is allowed.

The Learned Judge is directed to proceed with the matter against the petitioner who is in alleged default of making payment of maintenance allowance and to enforce the order of maintenance in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the parties are directed to appear before the court concerned within fortnight from this date and the Learned Magistrate is directed to take necessary steps immediately thereafter. In view of the disposal of the main criminal revision C.R.R. No. 399 of 2007, the application for modification and/or variation of the order dated February 2007 passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.N. Sinha being CRAN No. 1800 of 2007 stands disposed of.

Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible.

 

( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. )

Delhi HC:- Daughter-in- law has no right to continue to reside in the suit property or to disturb the possession of the MIL if the Property is on MIL’s Name.

September 24, 2013 1 comment

The Delhi High Court has restrained a woman, estranged from her husband, from taking possession of her mother-in-law’s house in a posh locality here.

Accepting the plea of 54-year-old widow Kavita Chaudhri, Justice Jayanth Nath passed a decree in her favour as she claimed that the house in question was gifted her by her father.

The court restrained the daughter-in-law from taking possession of the house, saying, “Defendant no 1 (daughter-in- law) has no right to continue to reside in the suit property or to disturb the possession of the plaintiff’s (Chaudhri) property in South Extension.

“There is no merit in the contentions of defendant no 1. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of Chaudhri and against defendant No 1, restraining the defendant No 1, her agents, representatives etc. from entering into premises D-32, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi,” the court said.

The woman had also argued before the court that her daughter-in-law started claiming right over the property due to matrimonial dispute with her son few months after their marriage in April, 2004.

The daughter-in-law had levelled various allegations against her only son and also filed a case before the high court under the Domestic Violence Act against him and family members, according to the widow’s plea.

The court rejected the daughter-in-law’s contentions and said, “I have examined the contentions of defendant no 1 regarding her alleged rights to stay in the suit property under section 2(s) and 17 of the Domestic Violence Act. In my view, the said contentions are wholly without any merits…the defendant can claim no rights in the said suit property.”

pls read the entire judgment below:-

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI *

Reserved on: 10.09.2013
Pronounced on: 19.09.2013

+ CS(OS) 505/2010

KAVITA CHAUDHRI ….. Plaintiff
Through Mr. Ankur Mahindro and Mr.Ajay
Mohan Gulati, Advocate

versus
EVENEET SINGH AND ANR ….. Defendants

Through Ms. Shobhana Takiar and Ms.Indrani  Ghosh, Advocate for D-1.

Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Angad Sandhu, Mr.Jatin Sehgal and Mr.Harish Malik
Advocates for D-2.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The present Suit is filed for mandatory and permanent injunction.  The plaintiff is stated to be an aged widow of 54 years suffering from various heart ailments. She is owner of property bearing No.D-32, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi-110049. It is stated that she is  residing in the said suit premises since her childhood. Her father  executed a Will dated 12.07.1981 through which the suit property was given to the plaintiff. This Court on 12.1.1984 granted probate of the  aforesaid Will and hence the plaintiff became exclusive owner of the suit property. It is further stated in the plaint that defendant no.2 is the only son of the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 got married to defendant no.1 on 27.4.2009. Various allegations are made against defendant no.1. It is stated that on account of differences there was constant friction between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. Plaintiff requested the defendants to move out of the house. It is stated that in January, 2010 defendants moved out of the house and started living somewhere else. But immediately thereafter defendant no.1 forcibly entered into the house and started living there. Based on these facts, a decree of mandatory injunction is sought against defendant no.1 to vacate the suit property and a decree of permanent injunction is sought against defendant no.1 or assignees etc. from entering into the suit property.

2. Defendant no.2 has filed his written statement. Defendant no.2 in his  written statement has supported the allegations of the plaintiff against  defendant no.1. He has further stated that defendant no.2 in January  2010 moved to a rented accommodation in Defence Colony and on 9.4.2010 moved to another rented accommodation C-528, Second  Floor, Defence Colony.

3. Defendant no.1 in the written statement has stated that the present suit is nothing but a cleverly designed legal proceeding to circumvent and get over the statutory rigour of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ The Domestic Violence Act’) It is stated that the suit property is a shared household under Section 2 read with section 17 of the said Act. It is also stated that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the property in question. It is further stated that the father of the plaintiff was not the single surviving male member of the HUF. He was a member of the HUF with his wife, daughter and
defendant no.2. Based on these averments, it is stated that the present Suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On 12.3.2013 the matter came up before this Court for framing of  issues. This Court rejected the contention of defendant no.2 that the subject property belongs to HUF. It was held that the property has been inherited by the plaintiff the mother in a Will of her father. Plaintiff was the only child of her father. It is further held that defendant no.2 cannot become a member of the HUF of his maternal
grandfather inasmuch as conception of HUF under the ancient Hindu Law is patrilineal and not matrilineal. Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as under:-

“ 15. The question which arises is whether an issue needs to be framed on the title of the plaintiff to the property;

16. Issues are to be framed only on material propositions of law and fact which require adjudication and not on pleas though contained in the pleadings which are contrary to the settled principles of law and/or which have no legal basis to stand on. It cannot be lost sight of that framing of unnecessary issue invites unnecessary evidence and arguments and which protracts the disposal of the suits.

17. The plea of the defendant no.2 of the subject property belonging to the HUF is misconceived. The plaintiff is the mother (and not the father) of the defendant no.2. The property has been inherited by the plaintiff under a Will of her father. Though the said Will is probated (which is a judgment in rem) but even if the Will were not to be there, the defendant no.1 also in her written statement has not pleaded that the father of the plaintiff left any other child; rather the defendant no.1 admits that the plaintiff, her father and her mother were the only members of the HUF and claims that the defendant no.2 also became a member of the HUF.

18. The defendant no.2 cannot become a member of the HUF of his maternal grandfather. The concept of HUF under the ancient Hindu Law is patrilineal and not matrilineal.”
Hence, on the said date, the Court framed the issues as follows:-
“(i). Whether the defendant no.1 is entitled to reside in the subject property for the reason of being married to the son of the plaintiff and for the reason of having resided in the said property after her marriage? OPD-1
(ii). Relief.”

5. The Court further held that this issue is purely an issue of law and does not require recording of any evidence. Hence, the matter was listed for arguments on the said issue.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the said two issues.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has strenuously argued that in accordance with the settled legal position the daughter in-law would have no right to claim any right of residence in the suit
property which is owned by her mother in-law. It is further stated that in view of the order of this Court dated 12.3.2013 title of the plaintiff to the suit property is not in dispute. Relying on judgment of this court in the case of Shumita Didi Sandhu versus Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors. 174(2010) DLT 79; Sunil Madan versus Rachna Madan in Crl.M.C.3071/2008, dated 2.6.2012, and; Barun Kumar Nahar versus Parul Nahar 2013 (199) DLT 1, it is stated that the suit in question is not a shared household within the meaning of The Domestic Violence Act and accordingly defendant no.1 would have no rights under Section 17 of the said Act.
8. Reliance is also placed on various judgments passed by this Court in  the earlier proceeding. It is pointed out that defendant No.1 had also filed a suit being CS(OS)1307/2010 under Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956 against plaintiff and defendant no.2 seeking maintenance and right of residence in the suit premises. On 20.12.2010 this Court disposed of IA 8479/2010 in CS(OS) 1307/2010 and IA No.3577/2010 which was filed in the present suit. This Court directed that defendant no.1 would be entitled to an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month towards rent for alternate accommodation and an amount of Rs.45,000/- per month for maintenance.
9. Reliance is also placed on order dated 29.4.2011 passed by this Court in an application under Section 151 CPC where the Court held that in terms of order dated 20.12.2010 in the event alternate  accommodation is offered and is made available to defendant no.1 her right to continue in the suit premises would cease. It is further stated that the Division Bench also dismissed the appeal against the said order on 8.11.2011. An SLP was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.12.2011. It is also pointed out that in an Execution Petition filed by the plaintiff, this Court on 25.4.2012 dismissed the objections of defendant no.1 to the said Execution Petition and issued Warrants of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.1. Subsequently, in an Appeal filed before the Division Bench on 2.5.2012 the parties compromised the matter and defendant no.1 undertook to vacate the suit property by midnight of 15.6.2012. It is stated that pursuant to the said compromise the plaintiff has taken over possession of the suit property and to that extent nothing survives except that the defendant no. 2 be restrained from creating any nuisance and obstructing in the possession of the
plaintiff in the suit property.
10.Learned counsel for defendant No.1 has relied upon Vidyanidhi Dalmia versus Nilanjana Dalmia, 2008(102) DRJ 611 and Savita Bhanot versus Lt.Col.V.D.Bhanot, 168 (2010) DLT 68 in support of her case.
11.Learned counsel for defendant No.1 has strenuously urged that the present Suit is nothing but a conspiracy on the part of plaintiff and defendant No.2 to oust defendant No.1 from the suit property. It is submitted that the entire game plan is that once the present suit is decreed, defendant no.2 will come back into the suit property. Hence, counsel for defendant No.1 submits that this Court should not permit circumvention of the legal process in this manner. Learned counsel relies on the statement made by the plaintiff that her son is likely to come back to the suit premises after defendant no.1 is evicted and that the present suit should be dismissed being a gross abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the suit property remains a shared household within the meaning of The Domestic Violence Act and the defendant No.1 has a right to reside in the same.

12. Learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No.2 has supported the submissions of the plaintiff and submits that the present suit is liable to be decreed.

13. In my view, keeping in mind the consent order passed by the Division Bench in EFA(OS) 15/2012 on 2.5.2012 nothing really survives as far as the defence of defendant No.1 is concerned. There are no basis or grounds for the defendant No.1 to resist a decree in the present Suit. The consent order dated 2.5.2012 in EFA(OS) 15/2012
reads as follows:-
“1. We are saved of the botheration of deciding the appeal on
merits since it has been decided between the parties as under:-
(i) The appellant shall vacate by the midnight of 15th June,
2012, by removing an A.C, T.V, double-bed, wooden
cupboard, side table and a dressing table from the room
occupied by her at the ground floor of D-32, South
Extension, Part-II, New Delhi, the property owned by her
mother-in- law.
(ii) Maintenance in sum of Rs.45,000/- per month fixed vide
order dated December 20, 2010 in CS(OS) No. 1307/2010
shall be paid by wire transfer to the account of the appellant,
as is being done, till the order dated December 20, 2010
survives.
(iii) 11 post dated cheques for the rent which appellant
would have to pay have been received by the appellant, the
last cheque is towards rent for the month of February 2013
and thereafter advance monthly cheques would be paid to the
appellant in sum of Rs.30,000/- till order dated December
20, 2010 passed in CS(OS) No.1307/2010 survives.
(iv) For the appellant for furnish the drawing-cum-dining
room at whatever tenanted premises she obtains, the
respondents shall pay Rs.50,000/- by cheque drawn in the
name of the appellant simultaneous upon the appellant
vacating as afore agreed on or before the midnight of
June 15, 2012.
(v) Impugned order shall not be executed till June 15, 2012,
and needless to state if appellant vacates the premises, the
question of the order being executed would not arise.
(vi) Appellant shall file an undertaking in the suit by means
of an affidavit agreeing to abide by the consent given that she
would vacate the subject premises on or before the midnight
of June 15, 2012.
2. The appeal stand disposed of binding the parties to the
settlement agreement and suspending the operation of the
impugned order dated April 25, 2012 till the midnight of June
15, 2012 and additionally observing that if appellant complies
with the undertaking given by her to vacate the subject
premises on or before the midnight of June 15, 2012,
the order need not be executed as nothing would remain to be
executed.
3. No order as to costs.”

14.In view of the said order, defendant No.1 was obliged to vacate the suit property by 15.6.2012. Admittedly, defendant No.1 has vacated the suit property.

15.A perusal of the consent order dated 2.5.2012 makes it quite clear that defendant No.1 had undertaken to vacate the suit property. The Court directed that the parties are bound by the settlement agreement. Any submission by defendant No.1 that she retains any right to reside in the suit property is entirely a futile argument and wholly contrary to the directions passed by this Court pursuant to the consent order dated 2.5.2012. Defendant No.1 is bound by the consent order and cannot now attempt to backtrack on the basis of pleas sought to be raised.

16.The argument of learned counsel for defendant No.1 that in view of  Section 17 read with section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act she continues to have a right to reside in the suit property is an argument
in futility. The same is the position regarding the contention of defendant no.1 that the present Suit is an abuse of the process of Court. The contentions of defendant no.1 are indeed surprising. The said contentions fly in the face of the consent order passed by the Division Bench on 2.5.2012. Defendant no.1 is bound by the said directions of the consent order.

17. Even otherwise, I have examined the contentions of defendant no.1 regarding her alleged rights to stay in the suit property under section 2(s) and 17 of the Domestic Violence Act. In my view the said
contentions are wholly without any merits whatsoever. A reading of Sections 2(s) and 17 of the Domestic Violence Act would show that the defendant No.1 can claim no rights in the suit property. Section2(s) and 17 of the Domestic Violence Act reads as follows:-
2(s)”shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or alongwith the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.”
……
17.Right to reside in a shared household-(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic
relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared
household, whether or not she has any right, title or
beneficial interest in the same.
(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or
excluded from the shared household or any part of it by
the respondent save in accordance with the procedure
established by law.”

18.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R.Batra and Anr. versus Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 while interpreting Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, the Court in para 29 held as follows:-
“29. As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our
opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to
residence in a shared household, and a shared
household would only mean the house belonging to or
taken on rent by the husband, or the house which
belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a
member. The property in question in the present case
neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent
by him nor is it a joint family property of which the
husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive
property of Appellant 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence,
it cannot be called a “shared household.”

19.Reference may also be had to the judgment of this Court in the case of  Sunil Madan vs Rachna madan (supra). Relevant portion of para 15 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
“In the case of Ajay Kumar Jain vs. Baljit Kaur Jain, 160
(2009) DLT 401 (DB), this court observed that a wife
cannot have right to live in a particular property and the
same cannot become a clog on the property denying the
right of the husband to deal with the property when he is
willing to provide an alternative matrimonial home to her.
It was also held that she cannot insist on residing in the suit
property alone when the husband had offered a suitable
alternative arrangement for her.”

20.Reference may also be had to the judgment of this high court in the case of Barun Kumar Nahar vs. Parul Nahar (supra), where in para 29, the relevant portion reads as follows:
“With the transient course it has been observed that with
the advent of various women friendly laws, empowering
the women with equal rights as that of a man/ husband,
the remedy of women to ask for maintenance or to claim
her right in the residence in a commensurate property is
only restricted to her husband and not against her
parents in law. A woman is only entitled to claim a right
to residence in a shared household, and a shared
household would only mean the house belonging to or
taken on rent by the husband, or the house which
belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a
member. This means that she can assert her rights, if
any, only against the property of her husband and cannot
claim a right to live in the house of her husband’s
parents without their wishes and caprice. Law permits a
married woman to claim maintenance against her inlaws only in a situation covered under section 19 of The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. i.e. after
the death of the husband and that too when she is unable
to maintain herself out of her own earnings etc. It would
not be abominable to say that even the parents/ parents
in law at the fag-end of their lives, deserve to live a
blissful, happy and a peaceful life, away from any
tautness or worries.
30. In the light of the aforesaid legal position the
defendant No.1, being a daughter-in-law of the plaintiff,
has no right as against the plaintiff i.e. her father-in-law,
to occupy any portion of the subject property, which is his
self-acquired property.”

21.To the same effect are judgments of this Court in the case of Sardar Malkiat Singh v. Kanwaljeet Kaur (2010) 168 DLT 521, Neetu Mittal vs Kanta Mittal 2008 (106) DRJ 6223, Raj Kumari vs Preeti Satija and Anr (2012) 193 DLT 224.

22.In Shumita Didi Sandhu versus Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors.(supra) the Division Bench of this Court interpreted section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act as follows:-
“40. …… Insofar as Section 17 of the said Act is concerned, a
wife would only be entitled to claim a right of residence in a
“shared household” and such a household would only mean
the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or
the house which belongs to the joint family of which the
husband is a member. The property which neither belongs to
the husband nor is taken on rent by him, nor is it a joint
family property in which the husband is a member, cannot
be regarded as a “shared household”. Clearly, the property
which exclusively belongs to the father-in-law or the
mother-in-law or to them both in which the husband has no
right, title or interest, cannot be called a “shared household”.
The concept of matrimonial home, as would be applicable in
England under the Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, has no
relevance in India.”

23.The Division Bench also held that the right of residence which a wife undoubtedly has does not mean right to reside in a particular property.It may mean a right to reside in a commensurate property but it cannot translate into a right to reside in a particular property.

24. As far as the right of the defendant No.1 to reside in a commensurate property, this Court in its interim order dated 20.12.2010 has taken care of that aspect. The Court had directed that defendant No.2 would be entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month apart from maintenance amount as rent for alternate accommodation. This order has been upheld by the Division Bench and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the rights of the defendant No.1 for appropriate accommodation have been duly taken care of. In view of the same, in view of the legal position she cannot claim any right to continue to reside in the suit property.

25.The reliance of learned counsel for defendant No.1 on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Vidyanidhi Dalmia v. Nilanjana Dalmia (supra) and Savita Bhanot v. Lt. Col. V.D. Bhanot (supra), is
misplaced. None of the judgments support the contention of defendant No.1 about right under the Domestic Violence Act. The case of Vidyanidhi Dalmia vs. Nilanjana Dalmia (supra) dealt with an
injunction application for stay which was declined on the ground that the injunction by a civil court would help to do an act what constitutes a marital offence under the Hindu Marriage Act. The stay would rob one spouse of the rights to move the Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Statutory remedy of restitution of conjugal rights would be extinguished. The said issue has no
application to the fact of the present case.

26.Similarly, the case of Savita Bhanot v. Lt. Col. V.D. Bhanot (supra) dealt with a case filed under the Domestic Violence Act and the Court came to the conclusion that the petition under the Domestic Violence was maintainable even if the Act of Domestic Violence have been committed prior to the coming into force of the Act. The said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.

27.As defendant No.1 has no rights under the Domestic Violence Act, the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the suit is a gross abuse of the process of court is a submission without merit.

28.In view of the above, there is no merit in the contentions of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has no right to continue to reside in the suit property or to disturb the possession of the plaintiff to the said
property. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant No.1 restraining the defendant No.1, her agents, representatives etc from entering into premises D-32, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs.

29. All pending applications also stand disposed off.

JAYANT NATH, J
SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
n

http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/JAN/judgement/21-09-2013/JAN19092013S5052010.pdf

Pune court rejects woman’s plea after husband exposes lie

August 20, 2013 6 comments

Techie said she was jobless, sought maintenance, after the trail it was proved that the Women Techie was lying and that to she lied on oath..as she filed affidavits but still Court has not initiated action of lying or giving false evidence in the COURT u/s 340 CrPC FOR COMMITTING OFFENSE OF PERJURY.

 

ARTICLE—-

A 26-year-old married woman moved the court against her businessman husband for monthly maintenance claiming she is not working. However, her husband challenged her application and provided details of her monthly salary along with other documents to prove that she is employed as a software techie.

As a result, the court of judicial magistrate (first class) SS Patil rejected her interim relief for maintenance and passed strictures against her.

Manisha Dighe married Baner-based Anuj (33) (names change to protect their identities) on June 26, 2009. However there was a drift in their relationship and in 2012 Manisha moved an application before the court seeking monthly maintenance of Rs1 lakh and temporary accommodation under relevant sections of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against Anuj, his mother and his two sisters.

Manisha in her plaint alleged, “Anuj used to get random calls from a woman and when I asked him, he replied it was his girlfriend’s call. When I confronted him about it, he started beating me. Later he started demanding Rs3 lakh cash for purchasing a flat. Anuj’s mother and sisters poured oil on me and tried to set me on fire but I somehow managed to rescue myself.”

She added, “Anuj’s sister’s engagement broke on February 2011 for which Anuj wanted to take revenge against her fiance. He started forcing me to register a case of rape against that fiance to defame him. I left the house and I had also registered a complaint with Chatuhshrungi police station in this regard. Now I am pursuing my postgraduation and have no income. On the other hand, Anuj earns Rs5 lakh per month ”

Anuj’s lawyer Pratibha Ghorpade argued,”Manisha is falsely implicating Anuj and cooking up a story before the court. Manisha is working in a Baner-based company and to prove the case, the head of the human resources department of the Baner-based IT company must be summoned in court.”

Accordingly, an official of the HR department submitted her income tax, her salary slips which mentioned that she is earning Rs52,000 per month which includes house rent allowance, conveyances and other expenses.”

The court observed, “It appears that Manisha has not come before the court with clean hands. During the pendency of main application of Manisha, she is seeking interim relief in the nature of interim maintenance before the court. It was her duty to come before the court with clean hands but as mentioned above I have come to the conclusion that she has not come before this court with clean hands. She has completed BE and is earning handsome income and therefore temporary relief is rejected.”

 

http://www.dnaindia.com/pune/1876342/report-pune-court-rejects-woman-s-plea-after-husband-exposes-lie

Delhi High Court:- DV Act is grossly misused by Women to settle the Property issue.

January 11, 2013 Leave a comment

Delhi High Court

Vijay Verma vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 13 August, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: July 27, 2010

Date of Order: 13th August, 2010

+ Crl. M.C. No.3878/2009

13.08.2010

VIJAY VERMA ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. K.K. Manan, Mr. Tarun Goomber, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Mr. Pankaj Mandiratta  and Mr. Ashish George, Advocates.

versus

STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. ….. Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.

Mr. Sunil Sethi, Mr. Sumit Sethi & Mr. B.C.

Mishra, Advocates for R-2.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. assailing order of learned A.S.J. dated 7th September, 2009, upholding the order of learned M.M. dated 11th July, 2009.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner herein had filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act making her brother and his wife as  respondents. She sought an interim order from the Court of M.M. for immediate residence rights and police protection so that she could stay at premises No. A-181, Defence Colony, Delhi, whenever she visited India. The petitioner is a permanent resident of USA and is living in USA since year 2000. She came to India on a visit on 15th July, 2008 and alleged that when she went to her parental house on 16th July, 2008, she was not allowed to enter her parental house and hence the application.

3. Learned MM in her order observed that in this case the petition was more in a nature of claiming right in the property. The whole dispute seemed to be property dispute between the parties and there was no ground to pass an interim order of residence. The learned ASJ upheld this contention in appeal.

4. It is not disputed that father of the petitioner is not alive. Property No. A-181, Defence Colony, New Delhi, was owned by the father of the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Petitioner claimed right in the property alleging that she had a right in her father’s property whereas respondent No. 2 relied upon a Will executed by father bequeathing his rights and share in the property in favour of his grandson. The respondent also relied upon an affidavit earlier executed by the petitioner showing that she had received her share in the property. It is also not disputed that a suit for partition titled as  “Indra Warman Vs. Kishan Kumar Verma”, being CS(OS) No. 2137 of 2006, filed by the sister of petitioner was pending in the High Court wherein the petitioner was one of the defendants and the petitioner herself also filed a suit for partition in the High Court being CS(OS) No. 2028 of 2009, titled as ” Vijay Verma Vs. Kishan Kumar Verma & Ors.”

5. Filing of a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by the petitioner taking shelter of domestic relationship and domestic violence needs to be considered so that this Act is not misused to settle property disputes. Domestic relationship is defined under the Act in Section 2(f) as under:

“(f) ‘domestic relationship’ means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.”

6. A perusal of this provision makes it clear that domestic relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person if the aggrieved person had lived together with the respondent in a shared household. This living together can be either soon before filing of petition or ‘at any point of time’. The problem arises with the meaning of phrase “at any point of time”. Does that mean that living together at any stage in the past would give right to a person to become aggrieved person to claim domestic relationship? I consider that “at any point of time” under the Act only means where an aggrieved person has been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right but for some reason the aggrieved person has to leave the house temporarily and when she returns, she is not allowed to enjoy her right to live in the property. However, “at any point of time” cannot be defined as “at any point of time in the past” whether the right to live survives or not. For example if there is a joint family where father has several sons with daughters-in-law living in a house and ultimately sons, one by one or together, decide that they should live separate with their own families and they establish separate household and start living with their respective families separately at different places; can it be said that wife of each of the sons can claim a right to live in the house of father-in-law because at one point of time she along with her husband had lived in the shared household. If this meaning is given to the shared household then the whole purpose of Domestic Violence Act shall stand defeated. Where a family member leaves the shared household to establish his own household, and actually establishes his own household, he cannot claim to have a right to move an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on the basis of domestic relationship. Domestic relationship comes to an end once the son along with his family moved out of the joint family and established his own household or when a daughter gets married and establishes her own household with her husband. Such son, daughter, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, if they have any right in the property say because of coparcenary or because of inheritance, such right can be claimed by an independent civil suit and an application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cannot be filed by a person who has established his separate household and ceased to have a domestic relationship. Domestic relationship continues so long as the parties live under the same roof and enjoy living together in a shared household. Only a compelled or temporarily going out by aggrieved person shall fall in phrase ‘at any point of time’, say, wife has gone to her parents house or to a relative or some other female member has gone to live with her some relative, and, all her articles and belongings remain within the same household and she has not left the household permanently, the domestic relationship continues. However, where the living together has been given up and a separate household is established and belongings are removed, domestic relationship comes to an end and a relationship of being relatives of each other survives. This is very normal in families that a person whether, a male or a female attains self sufficiency after education or otherwise and takes a job lives in some other city or country, enjoys life there, settles home there. He cannot be said to have domestic relationship with the persons whom he left behind. His relationship that of a brother and sister, father and son, father and  daughter, father and daughter-in-law etc survives but the domestic relationship of living in a joint household would not survive & comes to an end.

7. This meaning of domestic relationship has sense when we come to definition of domestic violence and the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act is to give remedy to the aggrieved persons against domestic violence. The domestic violence can take place only when one is living in shared household with the respondents. The acts of abuses, emotional or economic, physical or sexual, verbal or nonverbal if committed when one is living in the same shared household constitute domestic violence. However, such acts of violence can be committed even otherwise also when one is living separate. When such acts of violence take place when one is living separate, these may be punishable under different provisions of IPC or other penal laws, but, they cannot be covered under Domestic Violence Act. One has to make distinction between violence committed on a person living separate in a separate household and the violence committed on a person living in the shared household. Only violence committed by a person while living in the shared household can constitute domestic violence. A person may be threatening another person 100 miles away on telephone or by messages etc. This may amount to an offence under IPC, but, this cannot amount to domestic violence. Similarly, emotional blackmail, economic abuse and physical abuse  can take place even when persons are living miles away. Such abuses are not covered under Domestic Violence Act but they are liable to be punished under Penal laws. Domestic Violence is a violence which is committed when parties are in domestic relationship, sharing same household and sharing all the household goods with an opportunity to commit violence.

8. I therefore consider that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act was not at all maintainable. The petitioner had settled her separate house in America, her Passport was issued in America, she is doing job in America, she was adult and able to take care of herself, take her own decisions. She decided to live in America after leaving her parents here. If she has any right in her father’s property, she has already filed a suit for partition. An application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act was nothing but a gross misuse of the Act and I consider that she was rightly denied the interim relief of residence in the property left by her father. The petition is hereby dismissed.

August 13, 2010

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. acm

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1513735/

Delhi High Court:- DV is not maintainable once there is decree of Divorce. Also, parents of Husband cannot be made Respondents in DV if the Husband and Wife have not stayed with Parents under one roof.

January 11, 2013 Leave a comment

-There can be no domestic relationship of the wife of son with the parents when the parents are not living along with the son and there can be no domestic relationship of a wife with the parents of her husband when son along with the wife is living abroad, maintaining a family there and children are born abroad.

-The definition of “wife” as available under Section 125 Cr.P.C could not be imported into Domestic Violence Act. The Legislature was well aware of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and if Legislature intended, it would have defined “wife” as in Section 125 Cr.P.C in Domestic Violence Act as well. The purpose and object of Domestic Violence and provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is different. While Domestic Violence Act has been enacted by the Parliament to prevent acts of domestic violence on women living in a shared household.

Delhi High Court

Nagesh Malik vs Payal Malik on 29 July, 2010

Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: 6th July, 2010

Date of Order: 29th July, 2010

+ Crl. Rev. P. No. 253/2010

29.07.2010

Harbans Lal Malik … Petitioner Through: Mr. Dharam Raj, Advocate

Versus

Payal Malik … Respondents Through: Mr. R.Jain, Mr. Deepak Aggarwal &

Mr. D.Jain, Advocates

+ Crl. Rev. P. No. 252/2010

% 29.07.2010 Varun Malik … Petitioner Through: Mr. Dharam Raj, Advocate

Versus

Payal Malik … Respondents Through: Mr. R.Jain, Mr. Deepak Aggarwal &

Mr. D.Jain, Advocates

+ Crl. Rev. P. No. 338/2010

% 29.07.2010 Nagesh Malik … Petitioner Through: Mr. Dharam Raj, Advocate

Versus

Payal Malik … Respondents Through: Mr. R.Jain, Mr. Deepak Aggarwal &

Mr. D.Jain, Advocates

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.

JUDGMENT

These petitions arise out of order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 7th May, 2010 while disposing of two appeals against the order dated 27th July, 2009 passed by the learned MM. Nagesh Malik vs Payal Malik on 29 July, 2010

2. The undisputed facts are that Ms. Payal Malik used to live with her parents before marriage at Hissar. Her marriage took place with Mr. Nagesh Malik whose parents used to live at Panipat. Marriage of the parties was solemnized at Panipat on 30th August, 2001. Nagesh Malik was already working in USA and after marriage both of them went to USA on 20th September, 2001 where they settled their matrimonial home and lived together. On 24th October, 2002 a female child was born to the couple at USA, who was named as Vanishka. The parties continued living together in USA till 2008. It seems deep differences arose between the parties and they could not pull on together. There are allegations and counter allegations made by wife and husband which are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition. However, husband alleged that on 6th August, 2008 due to these differences, parties executed a post-nuptial agreement and decided to obtain divorce from each other, sticking to the agreement. Wife refutes having signed the agreement voluntarily and alleges that she was turned out from USA by her husband on 22nd August, 2008. Whereas the husbandâ..s contention is that she of her own left USA without joining the husband for obtaining divorce through a Court in USA. The husband filed a divorce petition before Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division Family Court USA on 27th August, 2008. The notice of divorce suit was duly served on her. The Court of New Jersey allowed the divorce petition and a decree of divorce was granted on 4th December, 2008.

3. On 13th January, 2009 wife filed a complaint before CAW Cell Hissar against husband and in-laws. Ms. Sushila, Inspector of CAW Cell Hissar, vide her report dated 20th January, 2009, observed that the allegations in the complaint were not true and it was useless to keep the complaint pending further. Thereafter, wife filed a complaint in the Court of MM at Delhi making her husband (Nagesh Malik), father-in-law (Harbans Lal Malik), mother-in-law (Neelam Malik) and brother-in-law (Varun Malik) as parties under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [in short - Domestic Violence Act] with a prayer that Court should pass a protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19,  monetary relief order under Section 20, compensation order under Section 22 and interim orders under Section 23 of the Act. She made allegations of mal-treatment at the hands of respondents from day one of the marriage till she left USA and came to India. She stated, after coming back from USA she went to her in-lawsâ.. house at Panipat but found the house locked as her parents-in-law had gone to USA. She also stated that her husband had sent a complaint to SP Panipat leveling certain scandalous allegations against her. She graduated from Delhi University in 1998 and had done interior designing course from South Delhi Polytechnic. She alleged that her in-laws had three houses and an industrial unit in Panipat. They had properties in Delhi as well and respondent no.1 (her husband) had share in properties of her in- laws. She submitted that her complaint at CAW Cell Hissar could not be pursued by her as her in-laws had tried to mislead Haryana police and also because of a tragedy in her family. She left her parents.. house and came to Delhi to pursue her career prospects. She was presently residing at Malviya Nagar, Delhi. Till the time she was not given back her matrimonial home (at Panipat), she would live in Delhi, so the Court of MM at Delhi had jurisdiction. She prayed that custody of child Vanshika should be given to her. She should be given shares in properties at Panipat and Delhi as well as a house in New Jersey, USA. She should be given Rs.20,000/- per month for her maintenance and education as she intended to pursue further study and Court should direct for return of her dowry articles. Along with main application under the Domestic Violence Act, applications for interim reliefs were made. She in the application under Section 23 of the Act prayed for a residence or in lieu thereof a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and Rs.50,000/- as onetime payment to meet education expenses, a car or Rs.8,000/- per month in lieu of the car and Rs.20,000/- per month for her day-to-day expenses and Rs.50,000/- as onetime payment to repay her debts.

4. The learned MM, by her order dated 27th July, 2009 directed that an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month be paid to wife as interim maintenance jointly or severally by respondents no. 1,2 & 4. She dropped respondent no.3 from the array of respondents on the ground that petition against a female respondent was not maintainable.

5. It was pleaded before the learned MM by the petitioner that there was a decree of divorce granted by a Competent Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division after following due procedure as laid down in USA. After grant of divorce there was no domestic relationship of Ms. Payal Malik with any of the respondents. (It is noted in the order of MM that the decree of divorce passed by the Court of US was placed on record.) Reliance was also placed by the petitioner on post nuptial agreement as entered into between husband and wife. The learned trial Court did not think it proper to deal with the issue whether an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act could be entertained at all in respect of a divorced wife and whether the decree of divorce granted by the foreign Court where the parties had lived together for more than seven years, had some value or not.

6. The trial Court after discussing the objects and aims of The Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and after reproducing a quote from novelist Joseph Conrad “being a woman is a terribly difficult task, since it consists principally in dealing with men” [as if men, though given birth by women, are ferocious animals and not human beings, but cannibals] passed an order for grant of maintenance.

7. In appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, an argument was pressed that the judgment given by New Jersey Court was conclusive evidence of status of the parties and in view of Section 14 of Code of Civil Procedure and Section 4 of The Indian Evidence Act, unless the judgment was set aside the trial Court Crl. Rev. P. No.252/2010, 253/2010 & 338/2010 Page 4 of 16 should not have entertained the petition under Section 12 of The Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act. It was pleaded that only an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (which is applicable to divorced wife) could have been entertained by a Court, if moved. It was argued by wife that decree of divorce was obtained by fraud and was hit by Section 13 CPC and therefore could not stand in the way of entertaining an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act.

8. The learned Sessions Judge while deciding appeal observed that the provisions of Domestic Violence Act are to be interpreted taking help of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the explanation given under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of “Wife” is to be read in Domestic Violence Act also. He further observed that the Court has to take pragmatic approach and unless the dissolution of marriage was proved by evidence, the Court has not to act on the decree. He therefore dismissed the appeal filed by husband and other respondents observing that there was no illegality in the order of learned trial Court in granting maintenance. He allowed an appeal filed by wife in respect of execution of the order of of MM and directed that Ministry of External Affairs be sent a request to execute the order dated 27th July, 2009 as per law.

9. The first issue arising in this case is whether an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act made by the respondent could have been entertained against all the respondents (petitioners herein) as arrayed in her application and whether the Court without discussing the domestic and legal relationship of different respondents with the petitioner, could have passed an order against the petitioners making them jointly and severally liable to pay maintenance of Rs.50,000/-.

10. Under Section 12, an „aggrieved person‟ can file an application to Magistrate against the respondents. The respondent has been defined under Section 2 (q). The definition reads as under:

“respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.

11. It is apparent that in order to make a person as respondent in a petition under Section 12, there must exist a domestic relationship between the respondent and the aggrieved person. If there is no domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent, the Court of MM cannot pass an order against such a person under the Act. Domestic relationship is defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act and is as under:

“domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;

12. It is apparent that domestic relationship arises between the two persons, who have lived together in a shared household and when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. The definition speaks of living together at any point of time however it does not speak of having relation at any point of time. Thus, if the domestic relationship continued and if the parties have lived together at any point of time in a shared household, the person can be a respondent but if the relationship does not continue and the relationship had been in the past and is not in the present, a person cannot be made respondent on the ground of a past relationship. The domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent must be present and alive at the time when complaint under Domestic Violence Act is filed and if this relationship is not alive on the date when complaint is filed, the domestic relationship cannot be said to be there. The first respondent made by the wife in her complaint before the learned MM in this case was husband with whom the wife had lived under the same roof in a shared household till 22nd August, 2008 in USA. She had not lived for last 7 ½ years with respondent no.1 in India. Respondent No.4 is Varun Malik who is brother of the husband. Under no circumstances it can be said that brother of husband, who was a major and independent, living separately from this husband and wife, had any kind of domestic relationship or moral or legal responsibility/obligations towards his brother‟s wife. He had not lived in domestic relationship with Payal Malik at any point of time. Merely because a person is brother of the husband he cannot be arrayed as a respondent, nor does an MM gets authority over each and every relative of the husband, without going into the fact whether a domestic relationship or shared household was there between the aggrieved person and the respondent.

13. The other respondent made in this case is Harbans Lal, father of Nagesh Malik. Nagesh Malik was living in USA he came to India to solemnize his marriage with an appropriate person. After marriage was solemnized he left India and went to USA. He lived all along with his wife in USA, birth of the child had taken place in USA. In all such cases where boy lives abroad and is settled abroad but comes to India for marriage, it is known to the girl as well as to the parents of the girl that they are choosing a groom who is not living with his parents but settled abroad. His links with the parents are only as with any other relative. He is not dependent on parents may be parents, if poor, take financial help from him.

14. The girl and the parents of the girl knew it very well that they had selected a person for marriage with whom the girl was going to live abroad and the matrimonial home and the shared household was going to be outside India. This act of marrying a person settled abroad is a voluntary act of the girl. If she had not intended to enjoy the fat salary which boys working abroad get and the material facilities available abroad, she could have refused to marry him and settled for a boy having moderate salary within India. After having chosen a person living abroad,  putting the responsibility, after failure of marriage, on the shoulders on his parents and making them criminals in the eyes of law because matrimonial ties between the two could not last for long, does not sound either legally correct or morally correct. How can the parents of a boy who is working abroad, living abroad, an adult, free to take his own decisions, be arrayed as criminals or respondents if the marriage between him and his wife failed due to any reason whatsoever after few years of marriage. If the sin committed by such parents of boy is that they facilitated the marriage, then this sin is equally committed by parents of the girl. If such marriage fails then parents of both bride and groom would have to share equal responsibility. The responsibility of parents of the groom cannot be more. Shelter of Indian culture and joint family cannot be taken to book only relatives of boy. A woman‟s shared household in India in such cases is also her parents‟ house where she lived before marriage and not her in-laws‟ house where she did not live after marriage.

15. When the shared household of husband and wife had not been in India for the last 08 years at any point of time, it is strange that the learned MM did not even think it proper to discuss as to how the father or the brother of the boy could be made respondents in proceedings of domestic violence, after husband and wife had not been able to pull on together. In the present case, Mr. Harbans Lal Malik petitioner could not be said to have shared household with the respondent since the respondent had not lived in his house as a family member, in a joint family of which Harbans Lal Malik was the head.

16. It is important to consider as to what “family” is and what “joint family” is. As per Black‟s Law Dictionary (VI Edition) “family” means a collective body of persons who live in one house under one head or management. Dictionary states that the meaning of word “family” necessarily depends on field of law in which word is used, but this is the most common meaning. “Family” also means a group of blood relatives and all the relations who descend from a common ancestor or who spring Crl. Rev. P. No.252/2010, 253/2010 & 338/2010 Page 8 of 16 from a common root. However, for the purpose of domestic violence act where the object is to protect a woman from domestic violence, “family” has to be defined as a collective body of persons who live in one house under one head or management. In Chamber‟s Dictionary (1994-95) again the “family” is defined as all those who live in one house i.e. parents, children servants; parents and their children. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993 ed.) “family” is defined as a group of persons living in one household including parents and their children, boarders, servants and such a group is a organizational unit of society.

17. A Hindu Joint Family or Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or a Joint Family is an extended family arrangement prevalent among Hindus of the Indian subcontinent, consisting of many generations living under the same roof. All the male members are blood relatives and all the women are either mothers, wives, unmarried daughters or widowed relatives, all bound by the common sapinda relationship. The joint family status being the result of birth, possession of joint cord that knits the members of the family together is not property but the relationship. The family is headed by a patriarch, usually the oldest male, who makes decisions on economic and social matters on behalf of the entire family. The patriarch‟s wife generally exerts control over the kitchen, child rearing and minor religious practices. All money goes to the common pool and all property is held jointly. The essential features of a joint family are:

 Head of the family takes all decisions

 All members live under one roof

 Share the same kitchen

 Three generations living together (though often two or more brothers live together or father and son live together or all the descendants of male live together)

 Income and expenditure in a common pool – property held together.

 A common place of worship

 All decisions are made by the male head of the family – patrilineal, patriarchal.

18. Thus, in order to constitute a family and domestic relationship it is necessary that the persons who constitute domestic relationship must be living together in the same house under one head. If they are living separate then they are not a family but they are relatives related by blood or consanguinity to each other. Where parents live separate from their son like any other relative, the family of son cannot include his parents. The parents can be included in the family of son only when they are dependent upon the son and/or are living along with the son in the same house. But when they are not dependent upon the son and they are living separate, the parents shall constitute a separate family and son, his wife and children shall constitute a separate family. There can be no domestic relationship of the wife of son with the parents when the parents are not living along with the son and there can be no domestic relationship of a wife with the parents of her husband when son along with the wife is living abroad, maintaining a family there and children are born abroad. I, therefore consider that Harbans Lal Malik could not have been made as a respondent in a petition under Domestic Violence Act as he had no domestic relationship with aggrieved person even if this marriage between her and her husband was subsisting.

19. I, also consider that the definition of “wife” as available under Section 125 Cr.P.C could not be imported into Domestic Violence Act. The Legislature was well aware of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and if Legislature intended, it would have defined “wife” as in Section 125 Cr.P.C in Domestic Violence Act as well. The purpose and object of Domestic Violence and provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is different. While Domestic Violence Act has been enacted by the Parliament to prevent acts of domestic violence on women living in a shared household. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy where wife is left high and dry without maintenance. Law gives a right to claim maintenance under Civil Law as well as Section 125 Cr.P.C. even to a divorced wife, but an act of domestic violence cannot be committed on a divorced wife, who is not living with her husband or family and is free to live wherever she wants. She has a right to claim maintenance and enforce other rights as per law. She has a right to claim custody of children as per law but denial of these rights do not amount to domestic violence. Domestic Violence is not perceived in this manner. The definition of “Domestic Violence” as given in Section 3 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and is under:

3. Definition of domestic violence.- For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it -

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb 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 (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 unlawful 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 injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

Explanation I.-For the purposes of this section,-

(i) “physical abuse” means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;

(ii) “sexual abuse” includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;

(iii) “verbal and emotional abuse” includes- insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and

(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested.

(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.

20. This definition pre supposes that the woman is living with the person who committed violence and domestic relationship is not dead buried or severed. This does not speak of past violence which a woman suffered before grant of divorce.

21. The next question which arises is whether the learned Court of MM could have ignored the decree granted by the Court of New Jersey, USA. Section 14 of CPC reads as under:

14. Presumption as to foreign judgments. – The Court shall presume upon the production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment that such judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction.

22. It is evident from the reading of this provision that the Court has to presume, if a certified copy of foreign judgment is produced that such judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction unless the contrary appears on record or is proved. Obtaining of divorce by husband from New Jersey Court is not denied in this case. Prima facie New Jersey, USA Court had jurisdiction is evident from the fact that husband and wife lived together in New Jersey for 7 ½ years. The laws of New Jersey provided that the jurisdiction in a matrimonial matter can be assumed by the Court if the parties have ordinarily lived there for one year. In the present case admittedly the parties lived there for 7 ½ years thus prima facie there was no issue whether the Court of New Jersey had jurisdiction or not.

23. Section 13 of CPC provides as under:

13. When foreign judgment not conclusive.

A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except-

(a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case; (c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of 1[India] in cases in which such law is applicable; (d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;

(e) where it has been obtained by fraud;

(f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in 1[India].

24. It is evident that a foreign judgment has to be on the face of it considered to be final. The explanations as mentioned in Section 13 are to be proved by a person who alleges that the foreign judgment was not to be relied on and should not be considered. A foreign judgment can be set aside by a competent Court, only when the person aggrieved from foreign judgment asks for a declaration that the judgment should not be acted upon. So long as the foreign judgment is not set aside and the issue regarding foreign judgment is not adjudicated by a competent Court, the judgment cannot be ignored and a Court cannot brush aside a foreign judgment as a non- consequential. Section 13 & 14 of CPC provide how a foreign judgment is to be dealt with. A Court in India has to presume that the judgment delivered by a foreign Court where the parties had lived for 7 ½ years and given birth to a girl, is a judgment given by a competent court and if anyone wants that this judgment be disregarded, he has to prove the same before the Court. So long as he does not prove it, the judgment is considered as a valid judgment and has to be given effect to.

25. It was argued by the respondent Counsel that the respondent did not participate in proceedings before the Court of New Jersey, USA. Participating or not participating before the Court is not a ground for setting aside its judgment. The grounds for setting aside a foreign judgment are given in Section 13 CPC and this is not one of the grounds.

26. The question of jurisdiction was considered by the Court of New Jersey, USA that awarded decree of divorce and it is not shown by the Counsel for respondent how Court of New Jersey had no jurisdiction when the two parties lived there for 7 ½ years and gave birth to a US citizen within the jurisdiction of that Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon Y. Narasimha Rao v. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) 3 SCC 451 to press the point that a decree of divorce granted by a foreign Court should not be relied upon since the parties were married in India and they were governed by Hindu Marriage Act. A bare perusal of the judgment of New Jersey Court would show that the divorce was granted on the ground of cruelty which is one of the grounds available under Hindu Marriage Act.

27. In Y. Narasimha Rao‟s case (supra), decree of divorce was obtained by husband from the Circuit Court of St. Louis Country Missouri, USA by creating a jurisdiction of that Court as the condition for invoking jurisdiction of that Court was 90 days residence. Supreme Court observed that the residence does not mean a “temporary residence” for the purpose of obtaining divorce but it must be “habitual residence “which is intended to be a permanent residence for future as well, since it was not the case, the decree was found to be null and void. It is not the position in this case. The parties had made New Jersey as their home for 7 ½ years thus the Court of New Jersey could not be said to have assumed jurisdiction only on the basis of temporary residence of husband. I also consider that issue of assuming jurisdiction on the basis of temporary residence may have no force today when statutory provisions in India allow assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of a temporary residence [Section 27(1)(a) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005].

28. I am surprised that the Courts below did not give weight to the judgment of New Jersey where parties lived for 7 ½ years but assumed jurisdiction under Domestic Violence Act because of the pure temporary residence (as pleaded by her) of wife in Delhi who is otherwise resident of Hissar. The Court of ASJ wanted that the order of the Court of MM should be honoured by the US while the Court here would not honour a decree of Court of USA where the husband and wife lived for 7 ½ years.

29. I consider that the decree of divorce granted by the Court of New Jersey, USA where husband and wife lived together for 7 ½ years and gave birth to a child could not be ignored and it could not be said that domestic relationship of the wife continued with her husband in New Jersey or her in-laws living at Panipat.

30. The learned MM and learned ASJ committed jurisdictional error by assuming jurisdiction under Domestic Violence Act, in view of admitted fact that the wife had all along, before filing the petition under Domestic Violence Act, lived with her husband in USA. Her shared household had been in USA, her husband was still living in USA the child was born in USA. The courts below also committed grave error by making brother or father of the husband and father of the husband jointly responsible for payment of Rs.50,000/- to the wife. There was no justification for directing brother of the husband to pay this amount. Once a son grows and he starts earning, marries, makes his separate home, and sires children the burden of his wife cannot be put on the shoulders of his father or brother on an estrangement between husband and wife. This burden has to be borne by the husband alone and not by the parents or bothers or sister of the husband, unless and until the husband had been contributing to the joint family as a member of HUF and has a right of deriving benefits from the joint family. If the husband had not been contributing or deriving benefits from the joint family, had not been member of the joint family and the parents had been treated like any other relative, how can the parents be burdened with the responsibility of his wife.

31. In view of my above discussion, order dated 27th July, 2009 passed by learned MM and order dated 7th May, 2010 passed by learned ASJ, directing payment of Rs.50,000/- jointly and severally, ignoring the decree of divorce and without devolving upon the domestic relationship are illegal and not tenable. The orders are set aside. No order as to costs.

July 29, 2010

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. vn

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE denies Maintenance in DV Act in-spite of Respondent Husband Pleaded Guilty.

July 25, 2012 6 comments

Interesting thing is that the Respondent pleaded guilty to all charges alleged by the Petitioner -wife, owing to the medical condition of the Respondent. And the Respondent still have been absolved of all charges of domestic violence.

The Respondent have been asked to pay financial compensation to child keeping the status quo of the interim orders on CrPC 125 guidelines at 10k pm and to return stridhan articles or pay 5 lacs in lieu of the stridhan.

One very interesting thing is that all the vile and filthy allegations by the Petitioner-Wife did not amount to domestic violence in the first place in the opinion of the judge. Not sure of the logic of her reasoning, but I am not complaining.. :-)

I am sure this is the first of some interesting judgments which will follow regarding this case. This one might be helpful to others facing vile allegations in DV, which most people are.

IN THE COURT OF MS.PURVA SAREEN, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
MAHILA COURT (SOUTH WEST), DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI

CC No.856/1 (Date of filing 16.11.2010)
U/S 12 of PWDV Act                                                                                                                           PS Dwarka

Shilpa Kalia W/o Sh.Manav Kalia
D/o Sh.Ved Prakash Batra
R/o D-204, Anusandhan Apartments,
Plot No.22, Sector 6, Dwarka,
New Delhi …..Petitioner
V.
Manav Kalia S/o Sh.S.C. Kalia
R/o A-101, Ture Friends Apartments
Plot No. 29, Sector 6, Dwarka
New Delhi …..Respondents
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the present case are as follows :-
2. The marriage of the complainant and respondent took place on 29.11.2003 and out of said wedlock one male child was born on 16.03.2005. As alleged, the respondent demanded dowry from the complainant and started beating and torturing her for not completing his demands. At the time of marriage the complainant was working with Sahara Airlines as In Flight Supervisor and was getting Rs.28,000/- per month as salary. The respondent at the time of marriage was working with his father in his company in the name of M/s Energy Ventures at  1249, Sector A, Pocket B/C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

3. It is alleged by complainant that respondent was a habitual drinker and did not allow her many times to go on duty and used to come back in middle night in drunken state which affected the official life of complainant. As a result the complainant lost her job with Sahara Airlines and subsequently started working with Energy Ventures belonging to her father in law and was being paid Rs.5,000/- per month.  The complainant also became pregnant at that time but the respondent did not stop harassing the complainant and demanded money from her parents. Thereafter, the complainant and respondent shifted to their own house at Flat No.17, Flot No. B-23, Ashwaryam Apartments,
Sector 4, Dwarka, New Delhi. Meanwhile, the respondent decided to do
a job in MNC in Gurgaon and shifted to a rented accommodation at Gurgaon.

4. The complainant was paying the rent of that house and soon she got a job in Max New York Life Insurance Company, Gurgaon. It is further alleged even after so many years of marriage the respondent did not change and on one night the respondent turned the complainant and the child out of the house without any rhyme or reason which was most humiliating for the complainant. In the month of January 2009 the respondent suffered a stroke and his right side was effected.

5. In March 2009 the mother of the respondent took him to Dwarka to her own house and on 14.07.2010 the respondent started asking for divorce. On the promise of father in law that he would return the entire stridhan articles and give a lumpsum deposit for the child, she agreed to enter into mutual divorce but when he did not fulfill his promise the said petition was dismissed and withdrawn.

6. It has been alleged that the respondent owns numerous properties in Delhi which are worth several Crores whereas the complainant was working with Presidium Gurgaon and earns Rs.40,000/- per month. It is further alleged that the respondent has no other liabilities but to maintain the complainant and her child and seeks maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month in order to maintain herself as per standard of the respondent and prayed for Rs.25,000/- per month for maintenance of the child. She has also prayed for return of stridhan artciles. She further asked for residence order in the form of Rs.3.5 lacs as rent
already paid by her and further Rs.1 lac as litigation expenses. She further sought Rs.80 lacs as compensation and restrained order against the respondent to come within periphery of the house of the complainant and school of the child.

7. The allegations are denied by the respondents in the reply stating that he has done his engineering MBA from top institution. The marriage was a dowry less marriage and after the birth of the child the attitude of the complainant completely changed. She started fighting with the respondent on trivial issues and never respect the parents of the respondent and used to quarrel with them. Later on, the respondent came to know that the complainant has an affair somewhere. In May 2008, the respondent met with an accident and suffered leg injury due to which he was confined to bed and at that time the complainant asked the son to hit on the leg of the respondent and due to said injury the
respondent could not work and had to resign from the job.

8. In January 2009 the respondent had a brain stroke due to which his right side of the body became paralyzed which affected his speech and movement. The respondent therefore became totally dependent upon his parents and was not able to do his job. It is further stated by respondent that the complainant used to keep talking to her friend Anuj Ahuja and never cared for ailing respondent and used to hit and beat up the respondent.

9. As to the income, it has been stated by respondent that due to his physical incapability he is not in a position to harm or hit anybody and it was vehemently denied that he has own property of worth several Crores in Delhi and due to stroke not able to work and maintain the complainant and child.

10. After completion of pleading, interim order was passed by ld. Predecessor Court and granted Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the child.

11.It has been stated by respondent in the court on the last date of hearing that he wanted to plead guilty owing to his medical condition and has prayed that keeping in view his medical condition order should be passed and he shall comply with whatever order the court passed in favour of him or against him.
12.Keeping in view the plea of guilt of accused and no willingness to lead any defence evidence, the previous order passed by ld. Predecessor Court stands as it is. The respondent is directed to continue paying Rs. 10,000/- per month to the child by the 10th of every month to be deposited in the bank account particulars of which communicated by Protection Officer to Respondent at the stage of interim order.

13.The arrears of maintenance be cleared within three months of passing this order. The respondent is further directed to return all the stridhan articles of the complainant back to her or in alternate pay Rs.5 lacs to her. No order as to the compensation is made as there is no averments of any incidents of  domestic violence made by complainant in her compliant. No further order as to the residence is passed for by the complainant.

14.Complaint accordingly stands disposed off.

15.File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open court (PURVA SAREEN)
on 13th July 2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTH WEST) MAHILA COURT, DWARKA
NEW DELHI

http://www.judis.nic.in/judis_cat/detail_dc.aspx

तरुणीचा अंतरिम पोटगीचा अर्ज फेटाळला—लोकमत -हेल्लो पुणे

कौटुंबिक हिंसाचार कायद्याचा गैरवापर करत एका प्राध्यापकाविरुद्ध तरुणीने दाखल केलेला अंतरिम पोटगीचा अर्ज प्रथमवर्ग न्यायदंडाधिकारी वाय. पी. मारुलकर यांनी फेटाळला.
अभियांत्रिकी महाविद्यालयातील प्राध्यापक चंद्रकांत कुंजीर यांच्याविरुद्ध एका तरुणीने हा तक्रार अर्ज दाखल केला होता. या अर्जानुसार या तरुणीने अभियांत्रिकी महाविद्यालयात शिकत असताना कुंजीर हे तिला प्राध्यापक होते. त्यानंतर त्यांच्यात प्रेमसंबंध निर्माण झाले व कुंजीर यांना पहिली पत्नी व दोन मुले असतानाही त्यांनी आपल्याशी लग्न केले होते. प्राध्यापकांनी पहिल्या लग्नाची गोष्ट लपविली होती. त्यामुळे आपली फसवणूक व छळ झाल्याने अंतरिम पोटगी द्यावी, असा अर्ज तरुणीने दाखल केला होता.
या प्रकरणी कुंजीर यांच्या वतीने अँड. सुप्रिया कोठारी यांनी युक्तिवाद केला. तरुणीचे अपहरण केल्याची तक्रार तिच्या घरच्यांनी दिली होती. यावर याच महिलेने त्यांना कायदेशीर नोटीस बजावली होती. या तरुणीने आपले एका युवकाशी प्रेमसंबंध होते व त्याला घरच्यांचा विरोध होता त्यासाठी कुंजीर आपल्याला मदत करीत होते. ते आपल्यासाठी आदरणीय शिक्षक असून, शुभचिंतक आहेत. यापेक्षा अधिक त्यांच्याशी आपला काहीही संबंध नाही अशा आशयाचे पत्र तिने महाविद्यालय प्रशासन आणि घरच्यांना पाठविले होते. ते पत्र कोठारी यांनी न्यायालयात सादर केले. तिने वेळोवेळी पाठविलेल्या ई-मेल आणि पत्रांनाही प्राध्यापकाने कोणताच प्रतिसाद दिला नसल्याचेही न्यायालयासमोर सिद्ध केले.
न्यायालयाने निकालपत्रात म्हटले आहे की, कौटुंबिक हिंसाचार कायद्यान्वये महिलेने ज्याविरुद्ध तक्रार दाखल केली आहे त्या व्यक्तीशी घरगुती संबंध असणे आणि त्याच्याकडून हिंसाचार होणे तसेच उच्च न्यायालयाच्या काही आदेशानुसार ‘घरगुती’ किंवा ‘कौटुंबिक’ नाते हे ‘लिव्ह इन रिलेशनशिप’सुद्धा असू शकते. या प्रकरणामध्ये या तरुणीचे व कुंजीर यांचे कौटुंबिक नाते होते किंवा ते ‘लिव्ह इन रिलेशनशिप’मध्ये होते हे सिद्ध होत नसल्याने न्यायालयाने तरुणीचा अर्ज फेटाळला.

http://epaper.lokmat.com/newsview.aspx?eddate=06/26/2012&pageno=2&edition=42&prntid=13545&bxid=25644578&pgno=2

Delhi HC- Maintenance rejected as the Woman is well qualified, employed earlier and quited the job on her own will.

June 1, 2012 3 comments

CRL.REV.P. 344/2011 Page 1 of 8
$~9
* 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. 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. 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 CRL.REV.P. 344/2011 Page 2 of 8
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. 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. The relieving letter placed on record by the petitioner is
dated 17.08.2010. As per this relieving letter the date of joining CRL.REV.P. 344/2011 Page 3 of 8
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. 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. 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 CRL.REV.P. 344/2011 Page 4 of 8
work of her own will though had the capacity to work and find a
suitable job for herself.
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 CRL.REV.P. 344/2011 Page 5 of 8
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. 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 CRL.REV.P. 344/2011 Page 6 of 8
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 CRL.REV.P. 344/2011 Page 7 of 8
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. 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 CRL.REV.P. 344/2011 Page 8 of 8
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. 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. 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. 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/„dc‟

Delhi HC- REFUSE MAINTENANCE TO WOMEN IN DV CASE

February 2, 2012 Leave a comment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT            NEW DELHI*

 

+ CRL.M.C. No.2602/2010 %

Judgment reserved on : 06th January, 2012 Judgment delivered on:30th January, 2012

POONAM KHANNA ….. Petitioner Through : Petitioner in person.

versus

V P SHARMA & ANR …. Respondents Through : Respondent No.1in person. Mr.Navin Sharma,APP for State/R-2.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J.

1. Instant petition is being filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 29.07.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the revision petition of respondent No.1 was allowed and the order dated 23.01.2010 passed by learned Magistrate granting interim maintenance to the tune of ` 5,000/- per month to the petitioner was set aside.

2. Being aggrieved, on 24.02.2010, respondent No.1 filed Revision Petition No.19/2010 under Section 397 Cr. P.C. seeking dismissal of interim order of maintenance. The same was disposed of vide impugned order dated 29.07.2010 while setting aside the interim maintenance and allowed the revision petition of respondent.

3. It is pertinent to mention that petitioner and respondent No.1 both are appearing in person.

4. Petitioner has raised the issue that as per the settled law, the interlocutory order being the interim maintenance order cannot be challenged by way of revision petition under Section 397 Cr. P.C. Secondly, she has raised the issue that learned Additional Sessions Judge, while setting aside the order passed by learned Magistrate has ignored the fact that on the presumption that respondent may be able to prove the means of petitioner in future by placing additional material on record, which is against settled law that the interim maintenance must be decided on the material available on record and not on the hypothecation that the material likely to be adduced at the time of evidence.

5. Further petitioner has submitted that in Revision Petition No.19/2010, learned Additional Sessions Judge, has not considered this fact that petitioner being the wife of respondent is unemployed and is not earning her livelihood. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, has ignored the submission made by petitioner that the respondent / husband is having rental income from the properties.

6. Vide order dated 23.01.2010, interim maintenance was awarded in favour of petitioner on the basis of the material placed on record by both the parties. However, vide the impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge, has set aside the award of interim maintenance on the presumptive and hypothecated ground that the respondent may placed the requisite material required to cancel the interim maintenance before learned Trial Court. She has referred to Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat AIR 1986 SC 984 and relied upon para No.6 thereof which reads as under:-
“In view of the foregoing it is the duty of the court to interpret the provisions in Chapter IX of the Code in such a way that the construction placed on them would not defeat the very object of the legislation. In the absence of any express prohibition, it is appropriate to construe the provisions in Chapter IX as conferring an implied power on the Magistrate to direct the person against whom an application is made under section 125 of the Code to pay some reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the applicant pending final disposal of the application. It is quite common that applications made under section 125 of the Code also take several months for being disposed of finally. In order to enjoy the fruits of the proceedings under section 125, the applicant should be alive till the date of the final order and that the applicant can do in a large number of cases only if an order for payment of interim maintenance is passed by the court. Every court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all such powers as are necessary to make its orders effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim ‘ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (Where anything is conceded, there is conceded also anything without which the thing itself cannot exist.) (Vide Earl Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law 1959 Edn. P.1797). Whenever anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not authorised in express terms be also done then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Such a construction though it may not always be admissible in the present case however would advance the object of the legislation under consideration. A contrary view is likely to result in grave hardship to the applicant, who may have no means to subsist until the final order is passed. There is no room for the apprehension that the recognition of such implied power would lead to the passing of interim orders in a large number of cases where the liability to pay maintenance may not exist. It is quite possible that such contingency may arise in a few cases but the prejudice Caused thereby to the person against whom it is made is minimal as it can be set right quickly after hearing both the parties. The magistrate, may, however, insist upon an affidavit being filed by or on behalf of the applicant concerned stating the grounds in support of the claim for interim maintenance to satisfy himself that there is a prima facie case for making such an order. Such an order may also be made in an appropriate case ex parte pending service of notice of the application subject to any modification or even an order of cancellation that may be passed after the respondent is heard. If a civil court can pass such interim orders on affidavits, there is no reason why a magistrate should not rely on them for the purpose of issuing directions regarding payment of interim maintenance. The affidavit may be treated as supplying prima facie proof of the case of the applicant. If the allegations in the application or the affidavit are not true, it is always open to the person against whom such an order is made to show that the order is unsustainable. Having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a magistrate under section 125 of the Code, we feel that the said provision should be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication on the magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom an application is made under it to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance subject to the other conditions referred to the pending final disposal of the application. In taking this view we have also taken note of the provisions of section 7 (2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. 66 of 1984) passed recently by Parliament proposing to transfer the jurisdiction exercisable by magistrates under section 125 of the Code to the Family Courts constituted under the said Act.”

7. The instant petition is being filed on the ground that the respondent has not placed any material on record showing the earning or employment of the petitioner. By quoting the qualification of the petitioner to earn is not contemplated under Section 125 (1) (a) Cr. P.C. and a wife, who sacrifices her lucrative career for the sake of her children besides herself being ill cannot be denied maintenance by her husband/respondent as held by various Courts in the decisions; Vijay Singh Yadav v Rajesh Yadav & Anr 2009 (III) DRJ 516 wherein para No.5 reads as under:-
“5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. There is no doubt that no revision is permissible under Section 397(2) Cr. P.C. against an interlocutory order. However, in appropriate cases, the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 is competent enough to intervene or set aside or modify even an interlocutory order in case it has resulted in abuse of process of law or is causing grave miscarriage of justice. For this purpose, the judgments which have been relied upon by counsel for the petition in case of Krishnan & Anr. v. Krishnaveni & Anr. & in case titled Delhi Labour v. Raj (supra) are not in dispute.” 8. She also relied upon Rakhi v. Pankaj Kumar 123 (2005) DLT 262 wherein in para No.5 this Court has held as under:- “5. Looking at the matter as it stands it appears that the judgment under challenge is erroneous and that the learned Additional Sessions ought not to have interfered at a stage when the Metropolitan Magistrate fixed only the interim amount in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C.”

9. Petitioner has further pointed out that learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order has cancelled the award of interim maintenance to the petitioner not on the basis of any material placed on record, but on the hypothecation that required material may be placed before the Court by respondent/husband later on in future. 10. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has filed his reply whereby he has taken preliminary objection about the maintainability of petition. He has submitted that the petitioner has concealed important / material facts from this Court because these facts render this petition to be non-maintainable. The said facts are as under:-
(i) The petitioner proposed a settlement deed in the Court of Smt.R.S.Nag on 27.05.2002 which envisaged that the parties will seek divorce, petitioner will not claim any maintenance and respondent will forego his lien over the DDA flat as also a shop in property No. N-15, Malviya Nagar, and property No.C-18, Shivalik, shall be sold off and sale proceeds shall be divided equally between the parties.
(ii) The petitioner backtracked from the said settlement and continued with the litigation vigorously. Another settlement was executed on 02.04.2003 which was ultimately registered. Only difference between vis-a-vis previous settlement was that respondent reduced his share in the property C-18, Shivalik from 50 per cent to 45 per cent.                                                                                          (iii) On 03.05.2003, the divorce obtained by mutual consent in terms of settlement dated 02.04.2003 and petitioner withdrew her case in the guardianship court and petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on behalf of his son. The joint petition for mutual consent divorce, statement on oath as well as final order expressly stipulating that the petitioner shall not claim any maintenance through rest of the life.                                                                                                                  (iv) The petitioner filed the application under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming maintenance and same was dismissed by learned Trial Court as well as Sessions Court as non-maintainable in the background of settlement dated 02.04.2003.                                                                    (v) On the basis of settlement dated 02.03.2003, this Court quashed four criminal cases in Criminal M.C.No.3337/2007 a petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by respondent. The petitioner preferred to challenge the said judgment in the Supreme Court, whereupon the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed, thus adding sanctity to the settlement.

11. Respondent has further stated in the reply on question of law that learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the interim maintenance on the basis of material placed on record including the registered settlement deed dated 02.04.2003 and para No.30 of the Trial Court order dated 24.07.2009 reads as under:- “Thus, it is clear that grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. certain conditions are required to be fulfilled and it would be a matter of trial whether the respondent has refused or neglected to maintain the petitioner, whether the petitioner is unable to maintain herself and whether the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner ……”

12. It is further submitted that the question of law is not against the orders of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 04.06.2010 as alleged and the petitioner has received most of the interim maintenance till the said order dated. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in para No.13.0 observed as under:- “It is pertinent to mention here that there is no mode of recovery, if later on it is found that respondent / wife has sufficient means to maintain herself.”

13. Respondent has also filed additional submissions and submitted that in para No.12.2 of the impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge has opined as under:- “I consider that in view of these peculiar fats and circumstances, parties are required to prove whether the settlement arrived into between them was only illusory and sufficient arrangement not made for the future maintenance of the respondent/ wife or that whether respondent/wife is unable to maintain herself or whether the petitioner/husband has sufficient means or not. I consider that parties are required to lead evidence in this regard.”

14. Respondent had handed over the shop in property No.N-15, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and DDA flat in Khirki Village at the time of settlement / divorce by mutual consent. The petitioner has sold off these properties and purchased a double story 250 yards house bearing No.758, Sector 7, Punchkula and is getting rent of around ` 40,000/- per month. Proof thereof is annexed as Annexure R-1.

15. The petitioner continuously living in the same house and is maintaining the same living standard in contrast to the respondent, who has been forced to live in an unauthorised colony and that too on rent.

16. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in para No.13.0 observed that “that there is no mode of recovery, if later on it is found that respondent / wife has sufficient means to maintain herself.”

17. During her cross-examination, in the petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on behalf of son, petitioner while asserting that she is living on the mercy of relatives, friends, but failed to name even a single person from whom she had taken debt or loan and this fact goes to prove that she has sufficient means to maintain herself.

18. Petitioner has filed her income tax returns till the year 2007-08. And declared her income to be ` 3.31Lacs in comparison to ` 2.40Lacs of the respondent. Annexure R-3 has been placed on record in this regard.

19. It is further stated that because she initiated litigation on her income and the income of a practicing gynaecologist is always in cash, therefore, stopped filing her tax returns. Failing in her endeavour to fulfil her greed under Prevention of Domestic Violence against Women Act, because the case was ruled to be non-maintainable in the background of settlement dated 02.04.2003, she took the shelter of Section 125 Cr. P.C. and filed the petition, therein.

20. It is stated, the petitioner has concealed the fact that just before filing the petition mentioned above, she got admitted her adopted daughter to a prestigious, high end public school and is spending more than ` 30,000/- per month upon her.

21. The respondent has stated in the reply to the instant petition that the wife should maintain standard of living, comparable to the husband as per the provision enshrined under Section 125 Cr. P.C. In the instant case, the petitioner is living in partially self owned house, whose monthly rental is ` 80,000/- whereas respondent is living in a rented house in an unauthorised colony whose rental is ` 8,000/- per month. Moreover, she is running a nursing home in the basement of property No.C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi whose monthly rent is ` 25,000/- per month.

22. I note that the petitioner proposed a settlement deed in the Court of Smt.R.S.Nag on 27.05.2002 which envisaged that the parties will seek divorce, petitioner will not claim any maintenance and respondent will forego his lien over the DDA flat as also a shop in property No.N-15, Malviya Nagar, and property No.C-18, Shivalik, shall be sold off and sale proceeds shall be divided equally between the parties.

23. Another settlement was executed on 02.04.2003 which was

ultimately registered. The only difference between vis-a-vis previous settlement was that respondent reduced his share in the property C-18, Shivalik from 50 per cent to 45 per cent. On 03.05.2003, the divorce obtained by mutual consent in terms of settlement dated 02.04.2003 and petitioner withdrew her case in the guardianship court and petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on behalf of his son. The joint petition for mutual consent divorce, statement on oath as well as final order expressly stipulating that the petitioner shall not claim any maintenance through rest of the life.

24. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming maintenance and same was dismissed by learned Trial Court as well as Sessions Court as non-maintainable in the background of settlement dated 02.04.2003.

25. It is pertinent to mention here that on the basis of the settlement dated 02.03.2003, this Court quashed four criminal cases in Criminal M.C.No.3337/2007 petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by respondent. The petitioner preferred to challenge the said judgment in the Supreme Court, whereupon the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.

26. It is also pertinent to mention that learned Trial Court recorded in its order dated 24.07.2009 that for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. certain conditions are required to be fulfilled and it would be a matter of trial whether respondent has refused or neglected to maintain the petitioner whether the petitioner is capable to maintain herself and whether the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner.

27. Moreso, in the aforesaid order, learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded his opinion that parties are required to prove that whether the settlement arrived at between them was only illusory and sufficient arrangements not made for the future maintenance of the wife or that whatever wife is unable to maintain herself or whether the husband has sufficient means or not. To this effect, parties are required to lead evidence. The petitioner during her cross-examination in petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on behalf of her son deposed that she was living on the mercy of the relatives, friends, however failed to name even a single person from whom she had taken debt or loan.

28. Moreso, annexure R-3 shows that her income tax returns till the year 2007-08 and her income was ` 3.31Lacs in comparison to ` 2.40Lacs of the respondent.

29. In view of above, I find no perversity in the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. I conquer with the same. 30. Keeping the above discussion into view, I find no merit in the case. Accordingly, Criminal M.C. No.2602/2010 is dismissed.

31. No order as to costs.

SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 30, 2012

Mk

No maintenance in DV if maintenance already passed in Crpc 125

December 21, 2011 Leave a comment

Delhi High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: August 25, 2010

Date of Order: 30th August, 2010

+ Crl.M.C.No. 130/2010 & Crl.M.A.No. 504/2010

% 30.8.2010 Rachna Kathuria … Petitioner Through: Mr. P.Narula, Advocate

Versus

Ramesh Kathuria … Respondent Through:Mr. S.S.Saluja, Advocate

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes. JUDGMENT

By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed an order dated 22nd October 2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in appeal whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short the Act) and along with it she filed an application under Section 29 of the Act seeking maintenance. The learned Court of MM observed that petitioner was living separate from her husband since 3rd January, 1996. She had filed a Civil Suit under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and she was getting a total maintenance of ` 4000/- per month from the respondent. In case the petitioner felt that maintenance awarded to her was not sufficient, the proper course for her was to approach the concerned Court for modification of the order as already observed by the High Court in a petition filed by her earlier and the application was dismissed. Against this petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and the petitioner has preferred this petition.

3. It must be understood that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not create any additional right to claim maintenance on the part of the aggrieved person. It only puts the enforcement of existing right of maintenance available to an aggrieved person on fast track. If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined by a competent court either in Civil Suit or by Court of MM in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the Act. The Court of MM under the Act has power to grant maintenance and monetary reliefs on an interim basis in a fast track manner only in those cases where woman has not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either under Civil Court or under Section 125 Cr.P.C. If the woman has already moved Court and her right of maintenance has been adjudicated by a competent Civil Court or by a competent Court of MM under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for any enhancement of maintenance already granted, she will have to move the same Court and she cannot approach MM under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by way of an application of interim or final nature to grant additional maintenance. This petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.

August 30, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. vn

Fight for Justice

A crusaders blog for inspiring thought.

Stand up for your rights

Gender biased laws

MyNation Foundation - News

News Articles from MyNation, india - News you can use

498afighthard's Blog

Raising Awareness About Gender Biased Laws and its misuse In India

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers