2019 Supreme(Bom) 776

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
M.G. GIRATKAR, J.
SAPNA WD/O NILESH PATEL - Appellant
Versus
PRAVIN ISHWARBHAI PATEL - Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 64 of 2015
Decided on : 03-05-2019

Headnote:

Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act – Sections 3, 12 – Maintenance – Refusal of – Case of the applicant/Sapna wd/o Nilesh Patel in short is that deceased Ishwarbhai Patel and Shantubhai Patel were the real brothers forming joint family. Shantubhai died in the year 1975. – Shantubhai had two sons namely Nilesh and Dilip. Applicant Sapna is the widow of Nilesh who died – Ishwarbhai Patel had two sons namely Pravin and Nitin. After the death of Shantubhai, his sons Nilesh and Dilip were looked after by Ishwarbhai. – They were forming a joint family. – There was joint family business of the applicant. – Deceased Nilesh, husband of applicant was looking after the business of Patel Mangal Karyalaya. – After the death of husband of applicant/Sapna, it is taken over by respondent No.1/Pravin Patel. – Thus, she had no source of income. – Therefore, application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act was filed by the applicant/Sapna. It was registered as PWDV Case – Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli has recorded the evidence of both the parties and partly allowed the petition. – The respondents were directed to restore the possession of Patel Mangar Karyalaya, Gadchiroli to the applicant/Sapna Patel within a period of one month from the date of the order – Her claim for monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- came to be rejected. – Non-applicant No.1 Pravin Patel filed Criminal Appeal challenging the restoration of possession of Patel Mangal Karyalaya to the applicant/Sapna. – Applicant/Sapna challenged the decision of JMFC in Criminal Appeal challenging the refusal of grant of maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. – Held, "Economic abuse" against the applicant is a continuous abuse. – In the judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Gangadhar Pradhan .v. Rashmibala Pradhan, (2013) AllMR(Cri)(Jou) 145, it is held that, "till the date of filing of petition, petitioner was not granted any of the reliefs she sought therein. – Therefore, petitioner having continuous cause of action i.e. continuous act of deprivation of her right. Petition under Section 12 is maintainable." – It is held that, "past relation is a domestic relationship." – In the judgment of this Court in the case of Dhananjay Ramkrishna Gaikwad and others .v. Sunanda Dhananjay Gaikwad and others, (2016) AllMR(Cri) 2291, it is held that, "Aggrieved Person, as laid down in Section 2(a) clearly provided that any women, who is or has been in domestic relationship with the respondent. – The definition of Domestic Relationship also means relationship between two persons, who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in shared household." – In the present case, the applicant lived in a shared household along with respondents. – Therefore, she is "aggrieved person".– Domestic violence apart from "physical abuse" and "sexual abuse", "verbal and emotional abuse" and "economic abuse" also constitute "domestic violence"." – In the present case, the applicant is suffering from economic abuse at the hands of respondent No.1. – Respondent No.1 has specifically admitted that the Patel Mangal Karyalaya is a joint family property. – He is having various businesses. – After the death of husband of applicant, respondent No.1 took over the possession of Patel Mangal Karyalaya and deprived the applicant from the source of income. Respondent No.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that after the death of Nilesh, husband of applicant, he had agreed in the meeting to maintain the family members of deceased i.e. applicant and her son. – Evidence on record shows that her son is not doing any business. – The applicant is not having any source of income. – She is suffering from economic abuse. – Learned JMFC taken into account all the evidence and rightly granted relief of restoration of possession of Patel Mangal Karyalaya to applicant/Sapna. – Once the restoration of Patel Mangal Karyalaya is granted, there is no need to grant maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to the applicant. – The judgment of learned JMFC is perfectly legal and correct. – Revision Partly Allowed