Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, J.
Smt Pinapala Ramalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Pinapala Ramakrishna Naidu – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case Nos.1233 and 1236 of 2016
Decided on : 16-03-2022
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 - SECTION 12 - MAINTENANCE - WIFE AND CHILD - ENTITLEMENT - DIVORCE - NO BAR - ECONOMIC ABUSE - NEGLECTING WIFE AND CHILDREN WITHOUT PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AMOUNTS TO ECONOMIC ABUSE AND IT CAN BE AGITATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, wife and minor child of the respondent, filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance and other reliefs. The trial court partly allowed the petition, granting maintenance to the child but denying it to the wife. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. The petitioners challenged the appellate court's decision in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appellate court erred in denying maintenance to the wife. The court noted that even though the couple was living separately, the husband was still legally obligated to provide maintenance to his wife and child. The court also found that the husband had neglected to maintain his wife and child, despite having sufficient means to do so.
Issues: Whether a wife is entitled to maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, even if the couple is living separately.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several judgments of the Supreme Court, which held that economic abuse, including neglecting to provide financial assistance to one's wife and children, can be considered domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court also noted that the fact that the couple was living separately did not absolve the husband of his obligation to provide maintenance.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the appellate court's order. The court directed the husband to pay maintenance to both the wife and the child.
ORDER :
Both these Criminal Revision Cases arise out of common Judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Visakhapatnam, in Crl.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2015, dated 26.06.2015.
2. Heard Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel for the 1st respondent as well as Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3. Facts in nutshell :
(ii) Marriage of the 1st petitioner was performed with the 1st respondent on 21-04-1999 at Simhachalam Devastam, Visakhapatnam, and it is a love marriage. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with two male children on 13-02-2000 and 04-05-2004 respectively. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and other gold articles were presented by the parents of the 1st petitioner. 2nd respondent is the mother-in-law, 3rd respondent is the sister-in-law and 4th respondent is the husband of the 3rd respondent. As the marriage took place against the wishes of the parents of the 1st respondent, they started harassing the 1st petitioner. After the birth of children, 1st respondent also started ill-treating the 1st petitioner at the instigation of respondents 2 to 4 and neglected to look after them. As the 2nd petitioner is suffering from health ailments, he requires medical treatment. Subsequently, in view of misunderstandings between them, both the couple started living separately. The 1st respondent left the 2nd petitioner with the 1st petitioner and took the other child, who is hale and healthy.
(iii) Suppressing all the facts, the 1st respondent filed O.P.No.583 of 2005 seeking divorce with all false allegations. The 1st petitioner also filed O.P.No.640 of 2005 for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court at Visakhapatnam tried both the matters together and passed a common Judgment, dated 16.03.2011, dismissing the O.P., filed by the 1st petitioner and allowing the O.P., filed by the 1st respondent granting divorce. Aggrieved by the said common order, the 1st petitioner preferred appeals in F.C.A.No.93 of 2011 and F.C.A.No.160 of 2011 before this Court and they are pending.
4. On behalf of 1st petitioner, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 have been marked. On behalf of respondent, R.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R12 have been marked.
5. After elaborate trial, the trial court partly allowed the petition granting maintenance to the 2nd petitioner @ Rs.4,000/- per month and denying the maintenance of the 1st petitioner, vide order, dated 17-04-2014. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2015 and the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. The Appellate Court relying on the Judgment reported in Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab & Another, 2012 Crl.J.R.(SC) 16 and also the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Koushik v. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami and 2 others, allowed the appeal filed by the 1st respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Both the Courts below mainly rejected the claim of the 1st petitioner on the ground that as on the date of filing of D.V.C., the couple is not residing together and as such, there is no domestic violence and divorce was granted by the Family Court on 16-03-2011 as the couple is residing separately from 2005 onwards on account of the disputes arose between them.
6. The view taken by both the Courts below is contrary to the following Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. They are :
2. Saraswathy V.Babu (2014) 3 SCC 712
3. Juveria Abdul Majid Patni
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
