The absence of a specific finding of domestic violence does not preclude the court from awarding monetary relief if there is evidence of economic abuse under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Iftikhar Agha for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Palekar for the respondent. 2. The challenge in this Criminal Revision is to the Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2017 made by the Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa partly allowing Criminal Appeal No. 122/2015 instituted by the respondent herein and issuing the following directions:-

“The respondent herein is directed to pay to the applicant an amount of Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.1000/- per month each to his children, which amount to be paid on or before 5th day of every month. The arrears of the aforesaid amount to be paid by the respondent herein to the applicant and his two children from the date of filing the application under section 12 of the said Act by the applicant within 3 months from the date of this order excluding the amount of interim maintenance already paid to the applicant.”

3. The aforesaid means that the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of 3,000/- per month to Rs. his wife Sampadha and Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the two children.

4. Mr. Agha, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not recorded any finding that the petitioner committed any domestic violence. He submits that a finding of commission of domestic violence is a sine qua non for awarding any monetary reliefs to the opposite parties i.e. the wife and the children in the present case. He points out that in the absence of any findings that the petitioner has committed any domestic violence, the Courts lack jurisdiction to award any monetary relief to his wife and children. Mr. Agha also pointed out that by now the two children have attained the age of majority and therefore, are excluded from the definition of “child” to be found in section 2 (b) from the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). He, therefore, submits that the impugned Judgment and Order be set aside.

5. Mr. Agha also points out that the petitioner has been made to stay out of the residential home and is presently staying with his old mother in rented premises. He points out that two of the rooms in the residential home have been let out by the petitioner's wife and the rents are also appropriated by her. He submits that all these aspects are not properly considered by the two Courts and therefore the impugned Judgment and Order warrant interference.

6. Mr. Palekar defends the impugned order based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submits that all aspects have been considered and there is no case made out for exercise of the discretionary revisional jurisdiction.

7. The rival contentions now fall for my consideration.

8. The main contention of Mr. Agha, in this case, is that in the absence of any finding as to domestic violence, the Court lacks jurisdiction to award any monetary reliefs to the respondent. He placed reliance on Koushik s/o. Anil Gharami vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & Ors. (2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2398), Mr. Gurudas Sanvalo Naik & Ors. vs. Mrs. Saanvi Gurudas Naik & Anr. (2018 ALL MR (Cri) 2375)and Shri Vjayanand Dattaram Naik & Ors. vs. Smt. Vishranti Vijayanand Naik & Anr. (Cri. Rev. Appl. 60 of 2018).

9. Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act provides an exhaustive definition to the expression “domestic violence” and the same reads as follows:-

“3. Definition of domestic violence.—For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it—

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the