IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
MD. MUMTAZ KHAN, J.
Shabnam Parveen - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Opposite parties
CRR No. 979 of 2017
Decided On : 24-11-2017
Domestic Violence - Maintenance Obligation - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - Section 20(d)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a widow daughter-in-law, filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against her in-laws seeking relief under various sections of the Act. The learned Magistrate granted monetary relief to the petitioner under Section 20(d) of the Act, which was later set aside by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, leading to the instant revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that under the Muhamadan Law, there is no obligation on the father-in-law to maintain the widow of his son, citing relevant legal principles and case law. It upheld the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge and directed the trial court to hear the main application of the petitioner under the Act expeditiously.
Issues: The main issue was whether the father-in-law had an obligation to maintain the widow daughter-in-law under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Muhamadan Law and legal precedents to establish that the father-in-law had no obligation to provide maintenance allowance to the widow of his son under the Act.
Final Decision: The revisional application was disposed of, upholding the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge and directing the trial court to expedite the main application of the petitioner under the Act.
Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.
1. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner/widow daughter-in-law of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 5 and sister-in-law of Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 assailing the order dated January 24, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, First Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2016 setting aside the order granting monetary relief to the petitioner under section 20(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
2. The facts leading to the instant revision is that the petitioner/widow daughter-in-law filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘PWDV’ Act) against her in-laws namely the Opposite Parties before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah seeking relief under section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Act which registered as Complaint case no.63 of 2015. She also prayed for interim relief and the learned Magistrate, 2nd court, Sealdah by an order dated June 22, 2016 allowed the monetary relief directing Opposite Party No. 2/father-in-law to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to the petitioner/widow daughter-in-law under Section 20(d) of the PWDV Act. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same Opposite Party No. 2/father-in-law preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2016 and the learned Additional Session Judge, First Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas allowed the appeal and set aside the order directing payment by Opposite Party No. 2/father-in-law to this petitioner/widow daughter-in-law by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner has preferred the instant revision.
3. It was submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that this petitioner after marriage started her conjugal life with her husband in the joint mess of the opposite parties but during her stay there she was subjected to cruelty by the opposite parties and was finally driven away by them from the matrimonial home. It was also submitted by him that there was a joint family business and after death of the husband of the petitioner father-in-law is looking after that business and their family income is more than Rs.50,000/- per month whereas this petitioner has no independent source of her income and accordingly learned Magistrate taking into account the same directed Opposite Party No.2/father-in-law to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month till the disposal of the proceeding under Section 12 of the protection of PWDV Act but the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge set aside that order by the order. According to him learned Additional District & Sessions Judge was not justified in not taking into account that petitioner has no independent source of her income whereas father-in-law is looking the joint family business and earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month while rejecting the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
4. Learned Advocate for the opposite parties submitted that opposite party no.2 is a retired person having no independent source of income and denied having joint family business with the deceased husband of the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner is the widow daughter of Opposite Party No.2 and they are governed under the Mohammedan law and as per the Mohammedan law widow daughter-in-law is not entitled to any maintenance from her father-in-law. According to him learned Additional District & Sessions Judge was quite justified in setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
5. He relied on the decisions in the matter of Mahomed Abdul Aziz Hidayat Vs. Khairunnissa Abdul Gani reported in AIR (37) Bombay 245 and Mrs. Nanadita Sarkar Nee Sen Vs. Sri Tilak Sarkar and Ors. reported in (2015) 1 C Cr LR (Cal) 892 in support of his submissions.
6. I have considered the submissions of both sides and gone through the impugned order and the documents annexed with the instant revision.
7. The procedure for obtaining orde
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.