Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Appa Pogula Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
versus
S.H.O. W.P.S. Saroornagar Ano – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.1767 of 2015
Decided on 7.12.2022
(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 12 and 19(1)(a) – Right to continue to reside in shared household, maintenance under Section 20 of Act and damages for stress and agony faced by respondent – Respondent has no means to maintain herself and her son, whereas petitioner is working in Visakhapatnam Port Trust and earning sufficient income by way of salary besides income from other sources but failed to provide maintenance and subjected to economic abuse – While deciding an application under Section 12(1) of Act, Magistrate passed order under Section 19(1)(a) of Act – In view of serious disputes between petitioner and respondent No.1 regarding their matrimonial relationship, Magistrate ought to have exercised his power under Section 19(3) of Act with condition to execute bond if circumstances so require – Act did not enumerate any circumstances under which Magistrate can exercise power under Section 19(3) of Act but it varies from case to case – It is difficult to live together under one roof – If court passed an order, it may lead to serious consequences of filing cases against one another or sometimes it may lead to serious disputes of causing physical injury or bloodshed – To avoid such consequences, it is appropriate to pass an order under Section 19(1)(f) of Act, read with Sub-section 3 of Act directing petitioner to provide same level of alternate accommodation to respondents as enjoyed by them in share household – This is a fit case to set aside restraint order passed under Section 19(1)(a) of Act while directing petitioner to secure alternate accommodation of same level for aggrieved person as enjoyed in shared house hold or pay rent for the same and to execute bond with or without surety for preventing commission of domestic violence and, accordingly, order passed by Magistrate and confirmed by Appellate Court modified. (Paras 4, 17 and 20)
(B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 20(1)(d), 22 and 3(iv) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 – Domestic violence and economic abuse – Failure to provide maintenance also amounts to ‘economic abuse – Clause (d) of Section 20 of Act, manifestly envisages to award maintenance in addition to order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – There is no fetter on power of Magistrate to pass order – Magistrate has to take into consideration relevant circumstances which means standard of living; maintenance awarded under Section 125 or under any other Act for the time being in force; and cost of living as on date of deciding petition – No ground to reverse or set aside order passed by Magistrate and Sessions Judge under Section 22 of Act awarding damages by way of compensation of Rs.20,000/-. (Paras 22 and 23)
Result: Criminal Revision Case disposed of.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is filed by respondent in D.V.C.No.2 of 2008 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli, and appellant in Crl.A.No.223 of 2013 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, whereby the Magistrate and Sessions Court passed an order granting various reliefs in a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’). The Magistrate, having found that respondent herein was subjected to domestic violence, granted relief, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, entitling her to continue to reside in the shared household; maintenance under Section 20 of the Act; and damages for stress and agony faced by her.
2. Parties hereinafter will be referred to as ‘petitioner’ and ‘respondent’ for the purpose of convenience.
3. The respondent as aggrieved filed petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming various reliefs alleging that the respondent is working as a Grade-II Mechanic in CME Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, earning Rs.15,000/- p.m; and, in addition to salary, he own and possessed house No.55, 3rd layout, Sramikasakthi Nagar, China Mushidiwada, Pendurthi, in an extent of 290 sq. yards, fetching Rs.5,000/- p.m. towards rent. The petitioner neglected the aggrieved person, respondent herein, as well as her son without providing daily necessaries and threatened that he would apply long leave or take voluntary retirement and would go abroad leaving them or would kill their son and commit suicide throwing blame on her if she initiates any legal action.
4. Respondent has no means to maintain herself and her son, whereas petitioner is working in Visakhapatnam Port Trust and earning sufficient income by way of salary besides income from other sources but failed to provide maintenance and subjected to economic abuse and, thereby, claimed maintenance for both respondent Nos.1 and 2 at the rate of Rs.6,000/- p.m. and Rs.4,000/- p.m respectively. Petitioner’s father and other relatives instigated him to harass respondent both physically and mentally and, at their advice, he did not pay any amount towards maintenance and her health is deteriorated due to domestic violence. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not provided any shelter and drove them out from quarters and locked house No.55, 3rd layout, Sramikashakthi Nagar, China Mushidiwada, Pendurthi. Thereby, she claimed various reliefs viz. protection order, restraining petitioner from further committing domestic violence and alienating assets, operating bank lockers, bank accounts used or held or enjoyed by both parties jointly, including the aggrieved person, without permission of the Court; return of dowry amount, adapaduchu lanchanams, saresamans with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of marriage till the date of realization; residence order, in favour of respondent, to stay in plot No.55, 3rd layout of Sramasakthi Nagar, Chinnamushidiwada, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam, restraining petitioner from dispossessing the respondent from the shared household; to provide safety of the respondents by executing bond with or without sureties from preventing commission of domestic violence; pay monetary relief of Rs.2.00 lakhs for the loss suffered by respondents; monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- from 24.10.2002 to 07.05.2007 i.e. from the date of petition and future maintenance of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.4,000/- p.m. to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively; and grant Rs.2.00 lakhs for mental torture and emotional distress faced by the respondents in the hands of petitioner.
5. Petitioner herein (respondent before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli) filed a counter denying material allegations while admitting relationship between the parties. Filing of the present case is a second round of litigation as respondent No.1 had already lodged complaint for the of
Award of maintenance – It is not mandatory for aggrieved person to have actually lived or resided with those persons against whom allegations have been levelled at the time of seeking relief.
The court affirmed that domestic violence encompasses various forms of abuse, and maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application under the DV Act, not the date of the order.
The right to residence under the PWDV Act is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of other family members, while the obligation to provide maintenance is crucial for the livelihood of th....
Allegations of domestic violence must be proven for entitlement to reliefs under the DV Act, and the court may consider the respondent's financial resources in determining maintenance allowance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in modifying maintenance orders and the consideration of the financial status and obligations of the parties.
The court clarified the nature of interlocutory orders and their impact on the rights of the parties involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a divorced woman is entitled to the right of residence under S.17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 only if she is i....
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
