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

2010 Supreme(Bom) 253

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ROSHAN DALVI
Mrs.Pramodini Vijay Fernandes
Versus
Mr.Vijay Fernandes
Writ Petition No.5252 of 2009
Decided on : 17-02-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:R.N. Sanghavi, Advocate. For the Respondent:Abhijit Sarwate i/by Mrs.Kokila Kalra, Advocates.

Headnote:Divorce Act, 1869 - Section 10 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 18 to 22 and 31(2) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 151, Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A - Divorce - Petition for under Section 10 of Divorce Act by wife - Subsequently filed petition for protection of herself and her child under Sections 18 to 22 of Act, 2005 - Order passed under Act, 2005 - Breach of order - Then petitioner filed application under Section 31 of Act 2005 - Rejected by Family Court for want of jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 31 of Act 2005 - Court also refused to exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC - Held - Family Court has powers of Civil Court - Protection order passed by Family Court if violated, Family Court required to try it under Section 31(2) of Act 2005 - It can pass orders consequent upon disobedience of breach of its order under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC - Family Court like any other Court has inherent power under Section 151 of CPC to pass orders - Impugned order of Family Court set aside - Family Court directed to try application of petitioner either under Section 31 of Act 2005 or under Order XXXIX, Rule 2- A of CPC for breach of its own order - Petition allowed. - Further, since the Family Court is a Civil Court and has all the powers of a Civil Court, it can pass orders consequent upon disobedience of breach of its order under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the CPC. Further the Family Court like any other Court has the inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC to pass such orders as would be just and equitable, including orders to effectuate its own orders. In this case, the application of the petitioner herein was specifically made under Section 31 of the DV Act.

       Family Court would, therefore, have the jurisdiction under Section 31(2) of the DV Act as the Magistrate which had passed the order of interim protection to frame charges under Section 32(3) of the DV Act and to levy the penalty under Section 32(1) of the DV Act for breach of its interim protection order. However, the Family Court would also have the jurisdiction to proceed under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the CPC for breach and disobedience of its order and injunction.

       Consequently, the order of the Judge, Family Court No. 4, Pune, dated 7.5.2009 is set aside. The learned Judge, Family Court No. 4, Pune, shall try the application of the petitioner herein either under Section 31 of the DV Act or under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the CPC for breach of its own order. For that purpose both the parties shall be entitled to file such applications/affidavits as required by both of them. The writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

       

Judgment :

1. Rule, returnable forthwith.

2. The parties are wife and husband. The Petitioner (wife) has filed a Petition for divorce against the Respondent (husband) under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The Petitioner has taken out a Petition for the protection of herself and her child under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). An order came to be passed under the DV Act on 19.7.2008. That order is stated to have been breached. The Petitioner took out an application under Section 31 of the DV Act upon violation of the order. The Family Court rejected the application on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 31 of the DV Act. The Court also refrained from exercising its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Section 31 of the DV Act lays down penalty for breach of protection of the order by the Petitioner. Section 31 of the DV Act runs thus:-

31. Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent: (1) A breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.

(2) The offence under sub-section (1) shall as far as practicable be tried by the Magistrate who had passed the order, the breach of which has been alleged to have been caused by the accused.

(3) While framing charges under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may also frame charges under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other provision of that Code or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), as the case may be, if the facts disclose the commission of an offence under those provisions.

(Emphasis supplied)

3. Section 31, therefore, lays down the specific procedure to be followed giving jurisdiction to the Magistrate who had passed the order to punish for breach of any protection order which is specified to be an offence committed by the party breaching the order under the DV Act. That offence is punishable as mentioned in the section. The orders under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may be passed by a Magistrate or by a Civil or Criminal Court under Section 26 of the DV Act where a proceeding was initiated before such Court. Section 26 of the DV Act runs thus:-

26. Relief in other suits and legal proceedings:-(1) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act.

(2) Any relief referred to in sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal court.

(3) In case, any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief.

Consequently, therefore, though initial application is required to be made before a Magistrate for obtaining orders and reliefs under Section 12 of the DV Act, if a legal proceeding is already filed in a Civil or a Criminal Court affecting the aggrieved person and the Respondent, relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 could be granted by such Civil or Criminal Court.

4. The Family Court follows the procedure laid down in the CPC under Section 10(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Section 10(1) runs thus:

10. Procedure generally.- (1)Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings other than the proceedings under Ch
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top