Important Point In a matter arising under a legislation meant for protecting rights of women, High Court should have been slow in granting interim orders.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Sections 12 and 29—Domestic violence—Maintenance—Magistrate in exercise of his jurisdiction granted maintenance to appellant—Magistrate’s legal authority to pass such an order is traceable to Section 20(1) (d) of DV Act—No further appeal or revision is provided to High Court or any other Court against order of Sessions Court under Section 29—In a matter arising under a legislation meant for protecting rights of women, High Court should have been slow in granting interim orders, interfering with orders by which maintenance is granted to appellant—Appellant is still awaiting fruits of maintenance order even after two years of order—Conduct of respondent is a gross abuse of judicial process—Interests of justice would be better served if respondent’s appeal before Sessions Court is heard and disposed of on merits instead of going into residuary questions of authority of appellate Court to grant interim orders or legality of decision of Sessions Court to dismiss appeal only on ground of non-compliance by respondent with conditions of interim order—Maintenance order passed by Magistrate to be executed forthwith in accordance with law. (Paras 20, 27, 28, 32, 34 and 35)
       (B) Criminal Law—Maintenance Proceedings—If Sessions Court does not have power to grant interim orders during pendency of the appeal, Sessions Court ought not to have stayed execution of maintenance order passed by Magistrate. (Para 30)
       (2012) 5 SCC 488—Relied.
       Facts of Case—Appellant was thrown out of matrimonial home within four months of marriage. Thereafter, respondent started pressurizing appellant to agree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. Magistrate granted amount of Rs.2.5 lacs towards monthly maintenance of appellant which included rental charges for alternative accommodation. Respondent was made liable to pay such monthly maintenance from date of filing of petition. High Court directed respondent to pay amount of Rs.10 Lakhs in two instalments and that execution petition filed by appellant for recovery of arrears be kept in abeyance.
       Findings of Court—Maintenance order passed by Magistrate be executed forthwith in accordance with law. In the event of respondent’s success in appeal, either in full or part, Sessions Court can make appropriate orders regarding payments due to be made by respondent in execution proceedings.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

In cases involving legislation meant to protect women's rights, courts, especially High Courts, should exercise caution and be slow in granting interim orders that interfere with the substantive rights granted under such laws (!) (!) .
Orders passed by Magistrates under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, such as maintenance orders, are to be executed promptly and in accordance with law. The courts should prioritize the implementation of these orders to ensure the aggrieved person's rights are protected (!) (!) .
The appellate court's power to grant interim relief during the pendency of an appeal is not explicitly provided for in the legislation, and such power may need to be presumed or implied. However, in the absence of clear authority, courts should be cautious when staying or dismissing execution of maintenance orders based solely on interim appeals (!) (!) .
When an appeal is filed against a maintenance order, the appellate court should consider the merits of the case and avoid dismissing or staying the order on technical grounds, especially if such actions cause undue delay in the enforcement of the order (!) (!) .
Conducting a thorough verification of claims and instructions is essential before accepting statements that a party does not wish to press a claim, to prevent miscarriage of justice or abuse of process (!) .
The courts should avoid unnecessary delays in the disposal of appeals and execution proceedings related to maintenance orders to serve the interests of justice and uphold the rights of the aggrieved woman (!) .
In cases where the respondent's conduct amounts to abuse of judicial process, courts should take appropriate measures to prevent such misconduct and ensure that the legal process is not misused to delay justice (!) .
The order of the Magistrate regarding maintenance should be executed without delay, and the appellate court's role should be to hear the case on merits rather than to impede enforcement through interim stay or dismissals based on procedural issues (!) .

If you need further clarification or specific advice on this matter, please let me know.

JUDGMENT

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This is an unfortunate case where the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are rendered simply a pious hope of the Parliament and a teasing illusion for the appellant.

3. The appellant is a young woman who got married to the respondent on 20.04.2007 in Delhi according to Hindu rites and customs, pursuant to certain information placed by the respondent on the website known as “Sycorian Matrimonial Services Ltd.”.

4. According to the appellant, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home within four months of the marriage on 14.8.2007. Thereafter, the respondent started pressurizing the appellant to agree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. As the appellant did not agree for the same, the respondent filed a petition for divorce being H.M.A. No.637 of 2007 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 17.10.2007 before the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The said petition was dismissed by an order dated 03.10.2008. Within four months, the respondent filed another petition on 08.04.2009 once again invoking Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, Delhi being H.M.A. No.215 of 2009 and the same on being transferred is pending before the Family Court, Saket and renumbered as H.M.A. No.266 of 2009.

5. On 04.06.2009, the appellant filed a complaint case No.120/4/09 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the DV Act”).

6. The said complaint case came to be disposed of by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi by his order dated 05.07.2012. By the said order, the Magistrate granted an amount of Rs.2.5 lacs towards monthly maintenance of the appellant which included rental charges for alternative accommodation. The respondent was made liable to pay such monthly maintenance from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. from 04.06.2009. The monthly maintenance was made payable on or before 10th of each succeeding month. The learned Magistrate further directed that the arrears of the maintenance be cleared by 05.12.2012.

7. Aggrieved by the above order, the respondent carried the matter in appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2012 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, New Delhi. On 10.01.2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting stay of the execution of the order under appeal passed an order directing the respondent to pay the entire arrears of the maintenance due to the appellant till the presentation of the appeal within a period of two months.

8. Since the respondent did not pay the arrears, the appellant moved an application for execution of the order dated 10.01.2013.

9. By an order dated 07.05.2013, Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2013 preferred by the respondent was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge for non-compliance of the interim directions dated 10.01.2013.

10. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2013, the respondent filed Crl. Misc. Case No.1975 of 2013 and Crl. Misc. Application No.78-34 of 2013 for interim directions in the High Court of Delhi on 08.05.2013. The High Court initially declined to pass an interim order in the said appeal. Aggrieved by the same the respondent approached this Court in SLP (Crl.) No.6509-6510 of 2013 which was dismissed in limine on 13.08.2013 with a direction to the parties to apply for mediation.

11. Pursuant to the said direction, the respondent filed Crl. Misc. Application No.12547 of 2013 in Crl. Misc. Case No.1975 of 2013 for direction to refer the matter to Mediation. The matter was referred accordingly. Eventually the mediation failed. On receipt of such failure report, the appeal was again listed before the High Court on 10.09.2013. The High Court directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs in two instalments and that the execution petition filed by the appellant for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 683

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAJ. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri, JJ.Shalu Ojha – AppellantVersus Prashant Ojha – RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2070 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6220 OF 2014)Decided On : 18-09-2014

Important Point In a matter arising under a legislation meant for protecting rights of women, High Court should have been slow in granting interim orders.

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri, JJ.
Shalu Ojha – Appellant
Versus
Prashant Ojha – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2070 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6220 OF 2014)
Decided On : 18-09-2014