Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.
Ramachandrachar —Appellant
versus
Smt. Devakumari —Respondent
Crl. Revision No.181 of 2012
Decided on 19.1.2016

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sri. R.K. Sridhara Murthy for Murthy Associates, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri M.K. Bhaskaraiah, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act, as pointed out by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, could be granted in favour of a woman who is thrown out of the matrimonial home prior to the coming into force of the D.V. Act is also entitled to seek maintenance.

Headnote:(i) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 — Application seeking maintenance and other reliefs filed by wife — Petitioner husband resisted application on plea that applicant was imposter as he had married a lady by the name of applicant in 1965 and both had separated in 1966 — Proceedings under the Act, were quasi-criminal and quasi civil in nature — Applicant-complainant was not expected to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt and evidence was to be assessed on broad preponderance of probabilities — PW-2, sister of applicant proved a photograph taken on occasion of marriage of her son where petitioner and applicant/complainant were appearing —No illegality in finding in favour of applicant/complainant by first appellate Court. (Paras 20, 22, 23 & 26)
       (ii) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 — Application by wife seeking maintenance and other reliefs — Marriage had taken place in 1965 and parties were living separate soon after marriage — Whether a married women could seek maintenance under the Act even if she had been driven out of shared household before coming into force of the Act? Yes.
       Held: The decision rendered in the case of Maroti Devaji Lande is in tune with the explanation (1)(iv) to Section 3 of the D.V. Act. The provisions of the Act to claim maintenance are in addition to Section 125, Cr. P.C. which is general law. Section 12 of the D.V. Act speaks about the procedure for obtaining orders and reliefs under the D.V. Act. Section 18 speaks about the protection orders and Section 20 of the Act speaks about the monetary reliefs. Monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act, as pointed out by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, could be granted in favour of a woman who is thrown out of the matrimonial home prior to the coming into force of the D.V. Act is also entitled to seek maintenance. The Act being a welfare legislation connected with the protection of rights of women, economic abuse also amounts to violence and therefore, the first appellate court has granted monetary relief. Hence point no.(2) is answered in the affirmative. (Para 30)
       Result: Revision dismissed.

ORDER

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Divergent judgment passed by the learned judge of Fast Track Court-VI in Crl.A.687 of 2011 is called in question. Respondent herein was the complainant in the said case, i.e. Crl.Misc.102 of 2011 and petitioner herein was the accused-respondent.

2. Petition had been filed under Sections 9(b) and 37(2)(c) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the D.V.Act, for brevity). Parties will be referred to as complainant and respondent as per their ranking before the trial court in Crl.Misc.102 of 2011.

3. Facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are as follows:

(a) Claiming herself to be the legally wife of the accused, the complainant chose to file a petition requesting the trial court o direct the accused to provide accommodation in his house and also to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m. as maintenance during her lifetime and to issue necessary direction to the local police in the event the respondent were to cause inconvenience and harassment and also to grant such other reliefs as the court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

(b) The respondent is stated to have married the complainant on 24.2.1965 as per Hindu customs in his residential premises at Bengaluru. After the marriage, it is stated that she lived with him discharging her duties as a dutiful wife. They have no issues out of their marriage. It is alleged that after some time, the respondent started neglecting her and refused to maintain her due to ill-advice of his relatives. He is stated to have developed illegal intimacy with a lady called Ratnamma. In spite of her repeated requests, respondent did not allow her to join him and continued to neglect her, without making any provision for her maintenance.

(c) After the death of the respondent’s father, complainant is stated to have once again requested him to allow her to live with him in the said house. He refused to take her back. Hence a legal notice was gotissued by the complainant on 17.8.2009 and the same was acknowledged by the respondent. She wanted a portion of the premises where the respondent is living and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- for food, clothing, shelter and medical expenses as maintenance.

(d) Respondent-accused has filed detailed objections opposing the complaint. He has admitted that his marriage took place with one Devakumari. But according to him, the person who has filed the complaint is not Devakumari whom he had married, and the complainant is stated to have falsely represented herself as Devakumari-his wife and that the real Devakumari with whom he had married was not traced and she had given up her status as his wife.

(e) According to the accused-respondent, Devakumari whom he had married, had no objection for granting a decree of divorce in the proceedings initiated by him. He does not have any proper income and he is aged more than 64 years and is dependant on his son for his daily necessities and his son also does not have much income. He has called upon the complainant to prove her relationship with him as the legally wedded wife. She is stated to be a fictitious person having approached the court in the name of Devakumari. With these pleadings, he had requested the court to dismiss the petition.

(f) Devakumari (complainant) herself is examined as PW-1 and the respondent’s sister-Hemavaathi is examined as PW-2. She has got marked two exhibits, viz., Ex.P1-marriage invitation card and Ex.P2- photograph. The accused-Ramachandrachar is examined as RW-1 and two persons namely, Shamantha and V.R.Vishwanath are examined on his behalf as RW-2 and RW-3 respectively. Five exhibits have been got marked on his behalf.

(g) Ultimately the learned judge of the trial court chose to dismiss the petition vide considered order dated 7.9.2011 as against which an appeal was filed under Section 29 of the D.V. Act before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The said appeal filed in Crl.a.687 of 2011 is allowed vide judgment da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

KARNATAKA HIGH COURTA.V. Chandrashekara, J.Ramachandrachar —AppellantversusSmt. Devakumari —RespondentCrl. Revision No.181 of 2012Decided on 19.1.2016

IMPORTANT POINTMonetary relief under Section 20 of the Act, as pointed out by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, could be granted in favour of a woman who is thrown out of the matrimonial home prior to the coming into force of the D.V. Act is also entitled to seek maintenance.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.
Ramachandrachar —Appellant
versus
Smt. Devakumari —Respondent
Crl. Revision No.181 of 2012
Decided on 19.1.2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act, as pointed out by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, could be granted in favour of a woman who is thrown out of the matrimonial home prior to the coming into force of the D.V. Act is also entitled to seek maintenance.