Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S. Rachaiah, J.
Lakshmamma – Appellant
Versus
Rajegowda – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 262 of 2015
Decided On : 25-07-2023
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - MAINTENANCE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Sec. 2(f), Sec. 2(s) - The court discussed the definitions of 'domestic relationship' and 'shared household' under the DV Act, emphasizing that the petitioner must establish both to claim relief. The court interpreted these provisions to conclude that the petitioner failed to prove her claims of domestic violence and thus could not claim maintenance under the DV Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside the appellate court's judgment that overturned a trial court's order granting her maintenance and compensation due to alleged domestic violence by her husband, with whom she had lived for 20 years before separating.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not sufficiently establish a domestic relationship or shared household as defined under the DV Act, nor did she prove the alleged cruelty, leading to the dismissal of her petition.
Issues: Whether the petitioner established a domestic relationship and shared household under the DV Act, and whether she proved the allegations of domestic violence to be entitled to maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definitions of 'domestic relationship' and 'shared household' under the DV Act are essential for claiming relief, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that she had lived in a shared household with the respondent or that she had suffered domestic violence.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed, and the appellate court's judgment was confirmed.
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking to set aside the judgment and order dtd. 29/4/2014 in Crl.A.No.56/2012 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan and further seeks for confirmation of order of maintenance passed by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hassan dtd. 30/3/2012 in Crl.Mis.No.28/2009.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER:
2. It is the case of the petitioner is that, her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 17/6/1982. The petitioner lived with the respondent for a period of 20 years. The couple had three children. It is the contention of the petitioner that, she was being harassed by the respondent, both physically and mentally, on every day. Even though she tried to live with the respondent by adjusting to the physical and mental cruelty, she could not tolerate the cruelty of the respondent. The petitioner further stated that, day-by-day, the respondent used to increase the cruelty, consequently, she had to leave the matrimonial home and started residing separately. Since the petitioner was unable to lead her life independently without any means, she had to file Miscellaneous Petition and sought for the relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short " DV Act ").
3. To prove the case of the petitioner, she examined herself as PW.1 and also examined PWs.2 and 3 to substantiate her case and also got marked Exhibits P1 to P10. On the other hand, the respondent examined himself as RW.1 and got marked Exhibits R1 to R8. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the petition partly and directed the respondent to pay maintenance to the petitioner a sum of Rs.5, 000.00 per month and also directed the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 within two months from the date of the order.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Heard Shri Santhosh Kumar M B, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Girish B Baladare, learned counsel for the respondent.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the findings given by the Appellate Court in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein is opposed to the facts and evidence on record, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that, the maintenance must be awarded to the wife, even at any point of time, if she shared the household with the husband / respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner married the respondent in the year 1982 and stayed with the respondent till 2005. During the said period, she had suffered at the hands of the respondent, as she could not tolerate the cruelty, she had to come out of the house.
7. It is further submitted that, the Appellate Court without appreciating the evidence and law properly, set aside the order of the Trial Court which is unsustainable and the same is required to be set aside. To substantiate the argument, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JUVERIA ABDUL MAJID PATNI v. ATIF IQBAL MANSOORI, (2014) 10 SCC 736.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently justified the order of the Appellate Court and submits that, since the petitioner had failed to establish that, prior to filing of the petition, she lived with the respondent and she was being subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home, the Appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence of PW.1, concluded that, the petitioner herein had failed to establish the domestic violence, which she had undergone in the matrimonial home and rightly set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, interference with the well reasoned order
To claim maintenance under the DV Act, the petitioner must establish both a domestic relationship and a shared household, along with proof of domestic violence.
Maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act can only be granted if the victim proves domestic violence as defined under the Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the retrospective effect of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the entitlement of maintenance to the aggrieved person, e....
The court emphasized that a compromise settlement does not erase the domestic relationship, particularly when the divorce is disputed, and reinstated the interim maintenance awarded to the petitioner....
A divorced individual lacks the status of an aggrieved person under the Domestic Violence Act, and thus is not entitled to claim residence rights post-divorce.
Valid marital status must be established to claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act; mere assertions without supportive evidence are insufficient.
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
