Back
2012 (1) Supreme 716
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and J. Chelameswar, JJ.
V.D. Bhanot — Petitioner
versus
Savita Bhanot — Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3916 of 2010
Decided on : 7-2-2012
Facts of the Case :
A. A Petition was Filed by respondent wife herein in the instant case under Section 12 of “PWD Act”, seeking various reliefs. Order was passed by Magistrate granting interim relief to Respondent and directing Petitioner husband to pay her a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. By a subsequent order Magistrate passed a protection/residence order protecting right of Respondent wife to reside in her matrimonial home in Mathura.
B. On petitioner’s retirement, he filed an application for Respondent’s eviction from Government accommodation in Mathura Cantonment. Magistrate directed Petitioner to let the Respondent live on the 1st Floor of her permanent matrimonial home. Appeal thereagainst by respondent wife was Dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge .However Appeal thereagainst was Allowed by High Court.
C. Present Special Leave Petition has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
A. The Court held that after more than 31 years of marriage, Respondent wife having no children, was faced with the prospect of living alone at advanced age of 63 years, without any proper shelter or protection and without any means of sustenance except for a sum of Rs.6,000/- which Petitioner was directed by Magistrate to give to Respondent each month. High Court rightly held that even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the PWD Act, 2005.Instantly situation came squarely within ambit of Section 3 of the PWD Act, 2005, which defines “domestic violence” in wide terms. No interference was called for with impugned order of High Court.
B. However, considering the fact that Respondent had herself expressed apprehension of her safety if she were to live alone in a rented accommodation, Direction given that Respondent be provided with a right of residence where the Petitioner was residing, by way of relief under Section 19 of the PWD Act. In addition to providing residential accommodation to Respondent, Petitioner also directed to pay a total sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to Respondent towards her maintenance and day-to-day expenses. Special Leave Petition was disposed of
Key Points: - A petition under the PWD Act, 2005 is maintainable even if acts of domestic violence occurred before the Act came into force, and a wife who shared a household in the past but no longer resides with her husband is still entitled to protection (!) . - The protection of women's rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution was the objective of the PWD Act, 2005, which provides an effective civil remedy for women victims of family violence (!) . - The definition of "domestic violence" under Section 3 of the PWD Act, 2005 is wide, and the situation of the respondent wife fell within its ambit, so no interference was called for with the High Court's order (!) . - The High Court correctly held that a woman who was not living with her husband at the time the Act came into force can claim protection under the PWD Act, 2005 (!) . - Considering the respondent wife's apprehension of living alone, the Supreme Court modified the impugned order to grant her a right of residence in the Petitioner's home under Section 19 of the PWD Act, along with protection orders under Section 18, and adjusted the monetary relief (!) . - The amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was directed to be reduced to Rs.4,000/- as part of the maintenance, in addition to the Rs.6,000/- already ordered by the Magistrate, and the provision of suitable residential accommodation with necessary amenities (!) . - The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs (!) (!) .
ORDER
Altamas Kabir, J.
1. The Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 2010, passed by the Delhi High Court in Cr.M.C.No.3959 of 2009 filed by the Respondent wife, Mrs. Savita Bhanot, questioning the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 18th September, 2009, dismissing the appeal filed by her against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 11th May, 2009.
2. There is no dispute that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23rd August, 1980 and till 4th July, 2005, they lived together. Thereafter, for whatever reason, there were misunderstandings between the parties, as a result whereof, on 29th November, 2006, the Respondent filed a petition before the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the “PWD Act”, seeking various reliefs. By his order dated 8th December, 2006, the learned Magistrate granted interim relief to the Respondent and directed the Petitioner to pay her a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. By a subsequent order dated 17th February, 2007, the Magistrate passed a protection/residence order under Sections 18 and 19 of the above Act, protecting the right of the Respondent wife to reside in her matrimonial home in Mathura. The said order was challenged before the Delhi High Court, but such challenge was rejected.
3. In the meantime, the Petitioner, who was a member of the Armed Forces, retired from service on 6th December, 2007, and on 26th February, 2008, he filed an application for the Respondent’s eviction from the Government accommodation in Mathura Cantonment. The learned Magistrate directed the Petitioner herein to find an alternative accommodation for the Respondent who had in the meantime received an eviction notice requiring her to vacate the official accommodation occupied by her. By an order dated 11th May, 2009, the learned Magistrate directed the Petitioner to let the Respondent live on the 1st Floor of House No.D-279, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi, which she claimed to be her permanent matrimonial home. The learned Magistrate directed that if this was not possible, a reasonable accommodation in the vicinity of Nirman Vihar was to be made available to the Respondent wife. She further directed that if the second option was also not possible, the Petitioner would be required to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Respondent as rental charges, so that she could find a house of her choice.
4. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the Respondent preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed on 18th September, 2009, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who was of the view that since the Respondent had left the matrimonial home on 4th July, 2005, and the Act came into force on 26th October, 2006, the claim of a woman living in domestic relationship or living together prior to 26th October, 2006, was not maintainable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that since the cause of action arose prior to coming into force of the PWD Act, the Court could not adjudicate upon the merits of the Respondent’s case.
5. Before the Delhi High Court, the only question which came up for determination was whether the petition under the provisions of the PWD Act, 2005, was maintainable by a woman, who was no longer residing with her husband or who was allegedly subjected to any act of domestic violence prior to the coming into force of the PWD Act on 26th October, 2006. After considering the constitutional safeguards under Article 21 of the Constitution, vis-‘-vis, the provisions of Sections 31 and 33 of the PWD Act, 2005, and after examining the statement of objects and reasons for the enactment of the PWD Act, 2005, the learned Judge held that it was with the view of protecting the rights of women under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution that the Parliament enacted the PWD Act, 2005, in order to provide f
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
