Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Krushna Chandra Pattnayak and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Swagatika Swain @ Kaberi Swain and Anr. – Opp. Party
Crl. Rev. No.419 of 2021 and
Crl. Rev. No.484 of 2021
Decided on 13.3.2024
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 17 and 19 – 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 – If a woman has right to reside in a shared household, she can accordingly enforce her right under Section 17(1) of D.V. Act – If a woman becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic violence, she can seek relief under provisions of D.V. Act including her right to live or reside in shared household under Section 17 read with Section 19 of D.V. Act – In cases of domestic violence, adopting a liberal legal construct is paramount to ensuring comprehensive protection and support for victims – Impugned order affirmed. (Paras 18, 21, 22 and 23)
Result: Criminal revision petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.—The Petitioners in both the CRLREVs have challenged the legality of the order dated 25.10.2019 passed in Misc. Case No. 229/2015 / Comp. No. 174/2018 by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge (Womens’), Jagatsinghpur, in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which has been confirmed by judgment dated 06.09.2021 passed in CRLA No. 35/2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur.
2. The learned A.S.J.(w), Jagatsinghpur passed the order dated 25.10.2019 partly allowing the prayer of the Opposite Party and passed order of protection under section 18 of the P.W.D.V. Act and directed the Petitioner to provide monetary relief to the Opposite Party by giving an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards her maintenance from the date of order under section 20 of the P.W.D.V Act.
3. Through CRLREV No.419 of 2021, the petitioner seeks the quashment of the impugned order with respect to the allowance of maintenance. Through CRLREV No.484 of 2021, the Opposite Party has prayed for increasing the amount of maintenance, share in ancestral property and return of Stridhan property and dowry articles.
I. Facts of the Case:
4. The concise yet comprehensive factual record of the case, pertaining to the matter at hand, is presented succinctly as follows:—
(i) The Petitioner is the sole surviving Opposite Party in the court of the Asst. Sessions Judge (Womens’), Jagatsinghpur (transferee court from the Court of the Id. S.D.J.M. Jagatsinghpur) in a proceeding initiated against him and his deceased son and wife under section 12 of the of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The FIR was filed on 28.12.2015 by the Opposite Party herein and registered initially as D.V. Crl. Misc. Case No. 229 of 2015 and after transfer as Misc. Case No. 229/2015 / Comp. No. 174/2018.
(ii) The Opposite Party in the complaint has alleged that she had married to late Ranjan Kumar Pattnayak, Petitioner’s late son as per customary Hindu rituals on 13.04.2009 and at the time of marriage there was a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) as dowry along with gold and silver ornaments and other household articles which was duly fulfilled. After marriage, the Opposite Party had resided for some time in the matrimonial home after which her husband demanded that Opposite Party’s parents buy him a plot at Bhubaneswar to which they expressed their inability to do so.
(iii) The Opposite Party alleged that her husband had mentally and physically tortured her at Sunabeda where she went to reside and even after she tried to explain her parents’ inability to fulfill their demand, there was no change in her husband’s behavior. Further, she alleged that her husband subjected her to cruelty at Sunabeda and at the behest of others ill-treated her and she was deprived of the basic necessities like food, clothing and medicines. Thereafter, her husband left for Goa on 17.05.2009 where he was serving. No settlement could be reached because of his insistence for fulfilling the demand for land at Bhubaneswar.
(iv) Her husband had filed a petition for divorce to declare the marriage as null and void in the Family Court, Cuttack and she had filed an F.I.R. at Raghunathpur against her husband, parents-in-law and married sister-in-law. Alleging that the parents-in-law had snatched away her ornaments she claimed maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month and a share in the house of the Petitioner at Gualipur for her residence. It is relevant to state here that the petition filed under Section 12 of the Act was not accompanied by any report of the Protection Officer nor supported by an affidavit as required under the statute.
(v) By the time summons were sufficient, the husband of the Opposite Party had died on 06.10.2016. On receiving notice of the petition from the court below, the Petitioner and his wife filed their show cause reply/ objection denying all the allegations of their daughter- in-law/ Opposite
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.
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.
A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., regardless of her marital status, emphasizing the husband's obligation to provide for his wife and children.
The need for specific and substantial allegations of domestic violence to support proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
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....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the aggrieved person has the right to seek relief under the Domestic Violence Act at any stage, even if living separately from the respondent.
(1) Ratio of decision is apposite to the facts and circumstances.(2) Cannot be said that no protection relief has been sought for against the present petitioner.
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
