SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Pat) 1246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Manish Kumar Soni Son Of Sunil Kumar Soni - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Respondents
Criminal Revision No.258 of 2014
Decided On : 14-10-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. S.D. Yadav, Advocate.
For the O.P. No. 2 :Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, APP.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides a civil remedy to protect women from domestic violence and prevent its occurrence in society. The court has the power to grant interim and ex parte orders, and the Act's reliefs are civil in nature, with only two penal provisions.

Headnote:

Domestic Violence - Protection of Women - The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Sections 12, 23) - The Act provides for a civil remedy to protect women from domestic violence and prevent its occurrence in society. The Act allows the court to lay down its own procedure for disposal of applications under Section 12 or Section 23. The court has the power to grant interim and ex parte orders when the application prima facie discloses domestic violence or likelihood of its occurrence. The Act's reliefs are civil in nature, with only two penal provisions. The court may adopt the procedure for disposal of applications under the Act, and departure from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not vitiate the proceeding initiated under the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a complaint filed under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the wife against the husband and in-laws for torture and non-fulfillment of dowry demand. The court found that the petitioners deliberately refused to receive the notice, leading to an ex-parte order for the wife's residence, maintenance, and other reliefs.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners' refusal to receive the notice and appear before the court justified the ex-parte order. The court held that the Act provides a civil remedy to protect women from domestic violence and prevent its occurrence in society.

Issues: The issues involved the proper procedure for disposal of applications under the Act, the validity of the ex-parte order, and the interpretation of the Act's provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act allows the court to lay down its own procedure for disposal of applications under the Act, and departure from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not vitiate the proceeding initiated under the Act. The court also emphasized that the Act's reliefs are civil in nature, with only two penal provisions.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the application, finding no apparent perversity in the impugned judgments and declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appropriate application for passing an appropriate order by the learned Magistrate under Section 25(2) of the Act in case of a change in circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the opposite parties.

2. The present Criminal Revision application is directed against the judgment dated 04.03.2014, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 04 of 2014, by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, affirming the ex-parte order dated 24.01.2014, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur, in Complaint Case No. 3971/2013, Trial No. 3816/2014, whereby the petitioner no.1 Manish Kumar Soni has been directed to provide a room in his house for residence purposes, to opposite party no. 2 and her minor daughter, having the facilities of electricity, water, bathroom, latrine and other facilities and to get the room repaired and cleaned at his own cost from time to time. The petitioner no.1 has further been directed to make payment of Rs. 12,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 by 15th day of every succeeding month for maintenance, education and other miscellaneous expenses of O.P. No. 2 and her daughter. The petitioners have also been directed not to torture O.P. No. 2 and her child physically or mentally nor will restrain the O.P. No. 2 and her minor child from meeting her relatives. Hence, the setting aside of the order dated 24.01.2014, passed in Complaint Case No. 1397 of 2013, by the learned S.D.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur as well as the judgment dated 04.03.2014, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, has been prayed for.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that opposite party no. 2 filed Complaint No.3971/2013 on 25.11.2013 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, stipulating therein that she was married to petitioner no. 1 on 14.07.2010 and at the time of marriage, Rupees Five Lacs was given in cash and besides this, gifts worth Rupees Ten Lacs were also given to the in-laws. Subsequently, torture was inflicted by the petitioners for non-fulfillment of dowry demand of a Car. The O.P. No. 2, subsequently got pregnant and was brought to her parent?s house where she gave birth to a female child but none of the in-laws family members, came to see the new born baby. Assurance was given by the family of O.P. No. 2 to give a Car, when she was taken to the matrimonial house but again torture was inflicted and she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house when the jewellery and other belongings were retained by the petitioners. Subsequently, a criminal case was lodged vide Hajipur Mahila P.S. Case No. 32 of 2013, with accusation under Sections 498A and 406/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, thereafter the issue got temporarily resolved on assurance of petitioner no. 1 that he will not inflict torture again but subsequently the O.P. No. 2 was driven out from the matrimonial house. Consequently, the Complaint no. 3971 of 2013 was filed under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act?) for following reliefs (i) to allow the O. P. No. 2 and her minor daughter to reside in matrimonial house, (ii) the petitioners be restrained from inflicting physical or mental torture upon O.P. No. 2 and her daughter, (iii) O.P. No. 2 be provided Twenty Thousand Rupees per month for maintenance, education of the child and miscellaneous expenses, (iv) the parents/relatives of O.P. No. 2 be allowed to visit the O.P. No. 2 and her child and O.P. No. 2 be allowed to appear at forthcoming examination or for any other relief which the court may deem fit and proper.

4. It appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, after taking cognizance in the matter, transferred the Complaint under Section 192 Cr.P.C., for enquiry and disposal to the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur. The learned S.D.J.M. on 28.11.2013, recorded the S.A. of the complainant and the Protection Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur was directed to submit a report. The learned S.D.J.M. vide order dated 20.12.2013 directed




















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top