Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra And Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
Krishna Bhatacharjee – Appellant
Versus
Sarathi Choudhury and Anr. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1545 OF 2015 (@ SLP(Crl) No. 10223 OF 2014)
Decided On : 20-11-2015
(b) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 2(a), 2(f), 2(g) and 3(iv) r/w section 10, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Judicial separation and divorce – Distinction – In judicial separation relationship of husband and wife continues – wife does not cease to be ‘aggrieved person’ u/s 2(a) in case of domestic violence including economic abuse in terms of section 3. (Para 22)
(2012) 3 SCC 183; (2014) 3 SCC 712; (1993) 1 SCC 325; (2001) 4 SCC 125 – Relied upon
AIR 1980 Mad 294 – Cited with approval
(2011) 12 SCC 588 – Distinguished
(2010) 10 SCC 469; (2005) 3 SCC 636; AIR 1979 Guj 209 – Referred
(c) Matrimonial law – Stridhana – Constitutes properties gifted to the wife before the marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell – It is exclusive property of the wife on proof of entrustment of the property or dominion over the stridhana property to her husband or any other member of the family – On such proof no further agreement is required to be established. (Para 27)
(1985) 2 SCC 370; (1997) 2 SCC 397 – Relied upon
(d) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Claim for retrieval of stridhan – Maintainable as long as relationship of husband and wife continues and she remains the aggrieved person – Deprivation of wife from her stridhan is continuing offence – The wife can always make her claim u/s 12. (Para 31)
(1984) 4 SCC 222; (1972) 2 SCC 890 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 was solemnised on 27.11.2005 and they lived as husband and wife.
The appellant was driven out from the matrimonial home allegedly on non-fulfillment of dowry demands. On intervention of elderly people of the locality, there was some kind of conciliation and both the husband and the wife stayed in a rented house for two months.
The husband eventually obtained an order of judicial separation from the Family Court.
After the judicial separation, on 22.5.2010 the appellant filed an application under seeking seizure of Stridhan articles from the possession of the husband.
The Magistrate opined that no “domestic relationship” existed between the parties and, therefore, wife was not entitled to file the application under Section 12 of the 2005 Act. The Magistrate held that no relief could be granted.
The appeal filed by the aggrieved wife was dismissed on ground of limitation.
The revision filed by the wife as also dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Wife can always claim her stridhan.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
JUDGMENT :
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant having lost the battle for getting her Stridhan back from her husband, the first respondent herein, before the learned Magistrate on the ground that the claim preferred under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the 2005 Act’) was not entertainable as she had ceased to be an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the 2005 Act and further that the claim as put forth was barred by limitation; preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who concurred with the view expressed by the learned Magistrate, and being determined to get her lawful claim, she, despite the repeated non-success, approached the High Court of Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2014 with the hope that she will be victorious in the war to get her own property, but the High Court, as is perceivable, without much analysis, declined to interfere by passing an order with Spartan austerity possibly thinking lack of reasoning is equivalent to a magnificent virtue and that had led the agonised and perturbed wife to prefer the present appeal, by special leave.
3. Prior to the narration of facts which are essential for adjudication of this appeal, we may state that the 2005 Act has been legislated, as its Preamble would reflect, to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The 2005 Act is a detailed Act. The dictionary clause of the 2005 Act, which we shall advert to slightly at a later stage, is in a broader spectrum. The definition of “domestic violence” covers a range of violence which takes within its sweep “economic abuse” and the words “economic abuse”, as the provision would show, has many a facet.
4. Regard being had to the nature of the legislation, a more sensitive approach is expected from the courts where under the 2005 Act no relief can be granted, it should never be conceived of but, before throwing a petition at the threshold on the ground of maintainability, there has to be an apposite discussion and thorough deliberation on the issues raised. It should be borne in mind that helpless and hapless “aggrieved person” under the 2005 Act approaches the court under the compelling circumstances. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise the facts from all angles whether a plea advanced by the respondent to nullify the grievance of the aggrieved person is really legally sound and correct. The principle “justice to the cause is equivalent to the salt of ocean” should be kept in mind. The court of law is bound to uphold the truth which sparkles when justice is done. Before throwing a petition at the threshold, it is obligatory to see that the person aggrieved under such a legislation is not faced with a situation of non-adjudication, for the 2005 Act as we have stated is a beneficial as well as assertively affirmative enactment for the realisation of the constitutional rights of women and to ensure that they do not become victims of any kind of domestic violence.
5. Presently to the narration of the facts. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 was solemnised on 27.11.2005 and they lived as husband and wife. As the allegations proceed, there was demand of dowry by the husband including his relatives and, demands not being satisfied, the appellant was driven out from the matrimonial home. However, due to intervention of the elderly people of the locality, there was some kind of conciliation as a consequence of which both the husband and the wife stayed in a rented house for two months. With the efflux of time, the husband filed a petition seeking judicial separation before the Family Court and eventually the said prayer was granted by the learned Judge, Family Court. After the judicial separation, on 22.5.2010 the appellant f
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
