SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 984

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, S.A.BOBDE
Juveria Abdul Majid Patni – Appellant
Versus
Atif Iqbal Mansoori – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant: Samir A. Vaidya, Shilpa Singh, Pankaj Sharma
For the Respondent: P. Janardanan, Pradeep K.B., Anil Kaushik, Gopal Singh Chauhan, K.C. Dua

Judgement Key Points

Supreme Court Judgment Summary (Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2014)

Facts: The appellant (wife) married the respondent (husband) under Muslim rites on 13.05.2005.[1000575060002] She alleged physical cruelty (e.g., banging against wall causing back pain on 05.01.2006), denial of entry to matrimonial home (19.02.2006), neglect post-birth of child (10.08.2006), and filed FIR No. 224/2007 u/s 498A & 406 IPC on 06.09.2007 (prima facie upheld against husband).[1000575060002][1000575060003] Appellant claimed ex parte Khula on 09.05.2008 from Mufti, challenged by respondent in family court (M.J. Petition B-175/2008) seeking restitution of conjugal rights.[1000575060004][1000575060011] Filed petition u/s 12 DV Act on 29.09.2009 seeking reliefs u/ss 18-23; magistrate granted interim maintenance Rs.25,000/- (04.02.2012).[1000575060005] Sessions Judge set aside (03.11.2012) holding no domestic relationship post-Khula; High Court upheld (23.01.2013). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000575060002]

Issues: (i) Whether Khula effective on 09.05.2008; (ii) Whether divorced woman can claim DV Act reliefs u/ss 18-23. (!) (!)

Holdings:

  1. Khula not conclusively proved: Ex parte fatwa from Mufti (advisory); no proposal to husband with offer (e.g., Mahr waiver), no Qazi judgment; challenged in family court; no pleadings/evidence of effectiveness.[1000575060013][1000575060014][1000575060017]

  2. DV Act applicability post-divorce: Maintainable. "Aggrieved person" includes woman who has been in domestic relationship alleging past DV. (!) (!) "Domestic relationship" covers those who have lived together in shared household. (!) (!) "Shared household" includes past residence. (!) (!) DV u/s 3 includes physical/emotional/economic abuse during relationship. (!) - (!) Petition u/s 12 considers Protection Officer report; reliefs u/ss 18-23 (protection, residence, monetary s20, custody s21, compensation s22, interim/ex parte s23) available if DV occurred during relationship, even post-divorce.[1000575060019] (!) (!) - (!) [1000575060020][1000575060023][1000575060024][1000575060025] Monetary relief u/s 20 independent, covers losses/expenses/maintenance from DV (in addition to s125 CrPC). (!) - (!) FIR predates alleged Khula; prima facie DV established.[1000575060026][1000575060029][1000575060030]

Operative Order: Appeal allowed; High Court (23.01.2013) & Sessions Judge (03.11.2012) orders set aside; Magistrate's interim order (04.02.2012) upheld; respondent to pay arrears if unpaid; Magistrate to expedite s12 petition post-report/hearing.[1000575060032][1000575060033]


JUDGMENT :

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the judgment dated 23rdJanuary, 2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4250 of 2012. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the Appellant and upheld the order dated 3rd November, 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai whereby the Sessions Judge held that the application filed by the Appellant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Domestic Violence Act, 2005") is not maintainable.

3. The case of the Appellant is that she got married to 1st Respondent according to Muslim rites and rituals on 13th May 2005. 1st Respondent was in the habit of harassing her. She was subjected to physical abuse and cruelty. For example, 1st Respondent acted with cruelty, harassed her and had banged her against a wall on her back and stomach on 5th January, 2006, due to which she suffered severe low back pain. The 1stRespondent refused her entry into the matrimonial house on 19th February, 2006 and asked her to stay with her parents. She deliver







































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top