Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sankar Acharyya, J.
Shahira Khatoon Mullick - Petitioner
Versus
Rabiul Haque Mullick and others - Opposite Parties
C.R.R. No. 1012 of 2015
Decided on : 29-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Suman De, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. S.K. Humayun Rezzak, Advocate.
The word "or" in Section 20(3) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is disjunctive, allowing the Magistrate to order either an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, but not both.
Headnote:
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 - SECTIONS 20(1)(B), 20(3) - INTERPRETATION - MONTHLY MAINTENANCE AND LUMP SUM PAYMENT - DISJUNCTIVE OR CONJUNCTIVE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an octogenarian mother, filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) against her three sons for monetary relief, including monthly maintenance and a lump sum amount for medical expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the word "or" in Section 20(3) of the PWDV Act is disjunctive, meaning the Magistrate can order either an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, but not both.
Issues: 1. Whether the word "or" in Section 20(3) of the PWDV Act is conjunctive or disjunctive. 2. Whether the Magistrate can order both an appropriate lump sum and monthly payment of maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the word "or" in Section 20(3) of the PWDV Act as disjunctive, based on the plain reading of the provision and the legislative intent to provide flexibility to the Magistrate in determining monetary relief based on the nature and circumstances of each case. 2. The court held that the Magistrate cannot order both an appropriate lump sum and monthly payment of maintenance, as this would exceed the scope of Section 20(3) of the PWDV Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisional application, upholding the impugned judgment that set aside the Magistrate's order for a lump sum payment and enhanced the monthly maintenance.
Sankar Acharyya, J.
This revisional application under Sections 397/401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by petitioner Shahira Khatoon Mullick against her three sons as opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the State of West Bengal as proforma respondent no. 4.
2. Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 13.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arambagh, Hooghly in Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2014 arising out of order dated 31.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Court, Arambagh in M.C. 83 of 2013.
3. Petitioner filed M.C. 83 of 2013 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short P.W.D.V. Act) against her three sons who are opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein. In the order dated 31.03.2014 learned Judicial Magistrate passed residence order and order granting monetary reliefs in favour of the petitioner. In that order direction was given to the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 to provide Rs.2000/- each as monthly maintenance to the petitioner and to contribute Rs.50,000/- each in the fixed deposit to be opened in the name of the petitioner in some nationalised bank which is to be dedicated towards her unforeseen medical expenses and needs and treatments expenditure. Said order was challenged by opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2014. In that case learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arambagh allowed the revisional application in part and modified the order of learned Judicial Magistrate setting aside the order for contributing Rs.50,000/- each by the three opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of petitioner as fixed deposits and enhancing the sum of monthly maintenance allowance of the petitioner from Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/- each payable by said three opposite parties. In this revisional application petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. I have gone through the certified copy of the impugned judgment, revisional application and its annexure filed by the petitioner. Undisputedly, the petitioner is mother of the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the petitioner is an octogenarian lady having other sons and daughters also.
5. In this revisional application, inter alia, it has been contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in law setting aside the direction of learned Judicial Magistrate regarding the contribution of Rs.50,000/- each of the three opposite parties towards medical expenses of the petitioner. It has been claimed by the petitioner that Section 20 (1) (b) of the P.W.D.V. Act deals with medical expenses and according to Section 20 (3), maintenance may be paid in lump or monthly basis. Further claim of the petitioner is that in terms of Section 20 (1) (b) of the said Act, the Magistrate, which disposing of an application under Section 12 (1) of the said Act, may direct the respondent to pay medical expenses in addition to other monetary relief. In the same tune, Mr. Suman De, learned counsel advanced his arguments that learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the power of learned Magistrate under Section 20 (3) of the said Act is in addition to the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the said Act and not disjunctive in nature. Petitioner also contended that in view of the provision of appeal under Section 29 of the Act learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have dismissed the revisional application against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate.
6. Mr. Rezzak, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 argued that learned Magistrate erred in passing order for payment of monthly maintenance and lump sum amount both although Section 20 (3) of the P.W.D.V. Act provides for payment of either monthly maintenance or a lump sum amount. He advanced arguments that learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly modified the order of learned Magistrate by proper in
