Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 975
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
C.V. BHADANG, J.
Dajvip V. Patkar – Petitioner
Versus
Vina D. Patkar – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 47 of 2015
Decided on : 06-07-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S.S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Preetam Talaulikar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M.S. Khandeparkar, Advocate.
The Act of 2005 provides a summary and speedy remedy for women subjected to domestic violence, and it allows seeking reliefs before different forums without restricting other available remedies.
Headnote:
Domestic Violence Act - Maintenance and Custody Dispute - Act of 2005, Section 12, 20, 21, 26, 36
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute between a husband and wife, who had filed separate matrimonial petitions seeking dissolution of marriage. The wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the Act of 2005) for maintenance and custody of the child. The husband challenged the application, arguing that similar reliefs were already claimed before the Civil Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Act of 2005 provides for effective protection of the rights of women subjected to domestic violence. The Magistrate's jurisdiction to grant reliefs is conditional upon finding the aggrieved person subjected to domestic violence. The Act provides for a summary and speedy remedy, and the Magistrate is bound to dispose of the application within 60 days from the first hearing.
Issues: The main issue was whether the wife could simultaneously pursue maintenance and custody claims under the Act of 2005 and before the Civil Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Act of 2005 is not intended to restrict other remedies if available. The Act allows seeking reliefs before Civil, Family, or Criminal Courts, and the Magistrate is not expected to apply principles akin to Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which would frustrate the purpose of the Act. The Act provides for coordination between different forums to avoid conflicting decisions/orders.
Final Decision: The revision application was dismissed, and the Court found no irregularity in the judgment and order of the lower courts.
1. Heard. Admit. Shri Khandeparkar, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. By this revision application, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 22.05.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Margao, in Criminal Appeal No. 5/2015. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order dated 09.01.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco-da-Gama, rejecting the application (Exhibit-10) filed by the petitioner.
3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the criminal revision may be stated thus:
That the parties are husband and wife. They were married on 27.08.2008 and the marriage is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar of Bardez at Mapusa. Sometime thereafter, the marriage ran into rough weather and disputes arose between the parties. It is undisputed that both, the petitioner and the respondent have filed separate matrimonial petitions, seeking dissolution of marriage. The respondent had lodged a complaint against the petitioner, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. According to the petitioner, the said complaint is a malicious attempt by the respondent for wreaking vengeance. The petitioner has deliberately roped in other family members, in the dispute. Be that as it may, the present dispute arises out of an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the Act of 2005, for short), filed by the respondent before the learned Magistrate, for various reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act of 2005. The controversy in the present appeal is confined to the relief as to prayer for maintenance to the respondent and custody of the child, who is said to be four years old and is presently staying with the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner after putting in appearance had filed an application (Exhibit-10), for rejection of the application for maintenance and custody of the child i.e. under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act of 2005. It was contended that the respondent has previously instituted a Matrimonial Petition No. 57/2014/B, in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco, for dissolution of marriage and for grant of maintenance and custody of the child. It was contended that the respondent has also filed separate applications for interim reliefs, as regards maintenance and custody of the child. It was thus claimed that the reliefs sought under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act of 2005, are already claimed by the respondent before the competent Court. It was contended that a second application, seeking similar reliefs would not be maintainable, particularly when the Civil Court is seized of the matter. It was contended that the reliefs sought under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act of 2005 are thus, an utter abuse to the process of the Court, resulting into multiplicity of judicial proceedings, so as to cause undue harassment to the petitioner.
4. The respondent filed a reply opposing the claim. It was not disputed that in the matrimonial petition, which was previously filed, a prayer for maintenance and custody of the child is made and is pending. It was contended that the proceedings under the Act of 2005 are distinct and the pendency of similar application before the Civil Court cannot preclude the respondent from seeking reliefs before the learned Magistrate.
5. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 09.01.2015 had dismissed the application (Exhibit-10), which has been confirmed in appeal. That is how the petitioner, is before this Court.
6. I have heard Shri Kantak, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Khandeparkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent.
7. It is submitted by Shri Kantak, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the conjoint reading of Sections 20(1)(d), 26 and 36 of the Act of 2005 would show that the remedies ava
