Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.
Saraswathy — Appellant
versus
Babu — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1999 of 2013
(arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.2190 of 2012)
Decided on : 25-11-2013
(b) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 3 – a Act of domestic violence though started
prior to enactment of Act 2005, contin-
ued even thereafter – Appellant wife entitled to protection of the Act. (Para 15)
(2012) 3 SCC 183 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The parties were married in 2000.
After 4 months of marriage the appellant wife was thrown out of matrimonial house for not fulfilling demand for more dowry.
The wife filed suit for restitution of marriage while the husband filed suit for dissolution of marriage.
Petition for restitution of marriage was allowed.
In 2008 the wife filed petition under Section 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which was allowed.
Respondent husband did not obey the decrees and orders of the courts.
High Court in the meantime held that the ordeal of the wife was continued from prior to enactment of the 2005 Act hence she is not entitled to its protection.
Finding of the Court:
High Court erred in law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife against the judgment and order dated 13th December, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision case filed by the appellant and thus affirmed the order of First Appellate Court.
2. The pertinent facts of the case are as follows:
The parties to the present dispute are married to each other and the said marriage was solemnized on 17th February, 2000. According to the appellant, she brought 50 sovereign gold ornaments and 1 kg silver articles as stridhan also Rs.10,000/- was given to the respondent. After marriage the appellant lived in her matrimonial house at Padi, Chennai. After four months of the marriage, the respondent-husband and his family demanded more dowry in the form of cash and jewels. The appellant was not able to satisfy the said demand. Therefore, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house by the respondent and her in-laws. Another allegation of the appellant is that after sending out the appellant from her matrimonial house, the respondent-husband intended to marry again. On hearing such rumour, the appellant filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, “the HM Act, 1955”) bearing no. H.M.O.P. No. 216 of 2001 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent-husband on the other hand filed H.M.O.P. No. 123 of 2002 under Section 13(1) (ia) and (iv) of the HMA Act, 1955 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu for dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the respondent . On 5th April, 2006, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the respondent-husband and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant-wife with the condition that the appellant should not insist for setting up of a separate residence by leaving the matrimonial home of the respondent. In the year 2008, the appellant filed Crl. M.P. No. 2421 of 2008 before learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai against the respondent seeking relief under Section 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, “the PWD Act, 2005”). The learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai partly allowed the same and directed the respondent to give maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the appellant to meet out her medical expenses, food, shelter and clothing expenses. The Magistrate Court’s held that the appellant is in domestic relationship with the respondent and the appellant being the wife of the respondent has a right to reside in the shared household. The officer in charge of the nearest Police Station was directed to give protection to the appellant for implementation of the residence orders and was also directed to assist in the implementation of the protection order. The respondent-husband being aggrieved preferred Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 2008 before the Sessions Court (Vth Additional Judge) at Chennai. In the meantime, as per the order passed by the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai the appellant-wife went to her matrimonial house for staying with the respondent-husband house along with Protection Officer. However, the respondent did not obey the order of the Court and refused to allow the appellant-wife to enter the house and locked the door from outside and went out. On 22nd December, 2008, the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent for not obeying the order of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the same was registered in Ambatur T3 Korattur Police Station as FIR No. 947 of 2008 under Section 31,32 and 74 of the PWD Act, 2005. The case was committed to the learned XIII Metropolitan M
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
