Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Madhuri Kumari, Wife of Sri Anurag @ Anurag Prasad Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar and ors. – Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No.1544 of 2019
Decided On : 30-01-2024
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 2(g), 2(s), 3, 17, 18, 31, 468 Cr.P.C. - The court interpreted the definitions of 'domestic relationship', 'domestic violence', and 'shared household' under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, emphasizing that a domestic relationship exists even if the parties are not currently living together. The court also clarified that the limitation period under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. does not apply to applications for protection orders under the Act, allowing the petitioner to seek relief despite the time elapsed since the alleged incidents of domestic violence.
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 and the State.
2. Petitioner in the present case is seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 21.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, XIV, Patna in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2019 by which the learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 08.01.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Sub Judge-IVth, Patna in Domestic Violence Case No.21 of 2018.
Brief facts of the case
3. It appears from the records that the petitioner in the present case filed a Domestic Violence Case No.21 of 2018 against her husband who is opposite party no.2 in the present revision application. It is the case of the petitioner that she was married with opposite party no.2 on 30.01.2013 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs at Noorani Bagh, Alamganj, Patna. Her parents had given Rs.5 lacs by cheque in the name of the petitioner and had spent a sum of Rs.6 lacs in the said marriage. They had also given some gold ornaments and household utensils and other items of daily use for a prosperous martial life of the petitioner.
4. It is alleged that when the petitioner went to her matrimonial house, her mother-in-law kept the entire gold ornaments with her and the opposite party (husband) on provocation of his mother started asking her to bring a Scorpio jeep from her parents. She alleged abuse and torture in the hands of the O.P. She claimed that being an educated lady, she was facing all ill-behaviours under a hope that the things would become normal over the period. It is alleged that the O.P. in the name of visiting her maike, took her on his bike and left her in the way and returned back. The petitioner alleges that when these facts were brought to the notice of her father and brother, they went to the house of the husband where they requested him, his mother and brother to keep the petitioner with honour and dignity but they abused her parents and ousted them in a shameful manner and demand of Scorpio jeep was reiterated. The petitioner has filed a complaint case no.1670(C)/2013 against the O.P., his mother and other family members who had been allegedly involved in committing mental and physical torture upon the petitioner. In the said case, cognizance has been taken by learned S.D.J.M., Patna and during hearing of the bail petition in the High Court, the O.P. has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-per month for maintenance of complainant-petitioner. She submits that this meager amount is not sufficient to maintain her.
5. It is further stated that the O.P. has also filed a Complaint Case No.1334(C)/2013 before the court of learned C.J.M., Patna against the father and the brother of the complainant with all sorts of false and flimsy allegations. He filed a Matrimonial Case No.355 of 2013 against the complainant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but subsequently abandoned the said case as a result whereof the application has been dismissed in default.
6. It is stated that the O.P. has filed a Matrimonial Case No.1271 of 2016 seeking dissolution of the marriage by decree of divorce against the complainant and the same is pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. The petitioner has filed an application seeking interim order directing the O.P. to pay Rs.2,000/-more per month to the complainant besides cost of litigation. Accordingly, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court allowed the application, issued a direction as prayed for on 30.11.2017 but the O.P. has neither paid the amount of cost of litigation nor has been paying Rs.2,000/- per month.
7. It is stated that the mother and brother of the O.P. are living at Hazaribagh. The brother runs a readymade garment shop and his mother has been doing job on compassionate ground after death of her husband. The O.P. is a practicing lawyer and resides at Hazaribagh. He has two bighas of land at vi
The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 allows for protection orders to be sought without a limitation period, and a domestic relationship is defined broadly to include past cohabitation, regardless of curre....
The need for specific and substantial allegations of domestic violence to support proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
(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.
Divorced wives can invoke provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for claims regarding previous marriage responsibilities.
The right to reside in a shared household is not restricted to actual residence and can be enforced by any woman in a domestic relationship, irrespective of whether she has any right, title, or benef....
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.
Economic abuse is included in the definition of domestic violence under the DV Act, allowing for protection orders while property disputes are adjudicated in civil courts.
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.
Limitations under Section 468 of the CrPC do not apply until there is a breach of an order issued under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
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
