Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
JAY SENGUPTA, J.
Kaushik Ghosh – Petitioner
Versus
Shatarupa Ghosh @ Shatarupa Brahma – Opp. Party
CRR No. 3428 of 2018, CRR No. 1267 of 2019, (CRAN 1 of 2021) And CRR No. 2264 of 2019
Decided On : 01-10-2021
Domestic Violence - Protection of Women - Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - 188 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved three revisional applications related to a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act between the same parties. The wife filed an application under Section 23 of the Act, alleging domestic violence and seeking monetary relief and expenses for alternative accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a prima facie case of domestic violence was made out against the husband, and the wife was entitled to claim monetary relief and expenses for alternative accommodation. The court also discussed the applicability of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the relevance of the suggested form under the DV Act, and the quantum of monetary relief.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of Section 188 of the Code on domestic violence under the DV Act, the relevance of a prayer under the DV Act not being in the suggested form, and the relevance of an enquiry in a foreign land by a foreign agency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 188 of the Code did not apply to domestic violence under the DV Act, compliance with the suggested form under the DV Act was not mandatory, and the result of an enquiry by a foreign agency in a foreign land was not automatically relevant before an Indian Court. The court also emphasized the various forms of domestic violence under Section 3 of the DV Act and discussed the quantum of monetary relief.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate, directing the husband to pay monthly interim monetary relief to the wife and a sum for expenses for alternative accommodation, effective from the date of the wife's application.
JUDGMENT :
(Jay Sengupta, J.) :
1. The three revisional applications at hand pertain to a proceeding under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. CRR No. 3428 of 2018 is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the husband challenging an order dated 19.09.2018 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 108 of 2017, thereby directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-as monetary relief and a sum of Rs. 25,000/-as expenses for alternative accommodation per month to the wife from the date of application, i.e. 20.09.2017. CRR 1267 of 2019 is a revision preferred by the husband under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code challenging an order dated 15.02.2019 passed by the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 95/2018, thereby directing him to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-per month to the wife and Rs. 50,000/-per month for her alternative accommodation from the date of passing of the order by the learned Magistrate, i.e. 19.09.2018 and further directing the husband to pay Rs. 4 lakhs as a lump sum as arrear maintenance along with the current maintenance. On the other hand, the wife filed a revisional application being CRR No. 2264 of 2019 under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of the Code challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court in Appeal No. 95 of 2018, thereby modifying the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
2. As the three revisional applications relate to the same original proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act between the same parties, the said applications were taken up for hearing together, one after the other.
3. The admitted facts relating to the present case may be enumerated as follows. On 20.07.2016 a marriage was registered between the two under the Special Marriage Act. On 05.02.2017 a social marriage took place as per the Hindu rites and customs. On 21.02.2017 the couple arrived at New Jersey, United States. Soon thereafter, the wife lodged a complaint against the husband there alleging ill-treatment and harassment. The police enquired into the matter and filed a report. On 11.03.2017 the wife approached the police and the husband was arrested. The troubles continued between the parties. On 22.03.2017 the husband applied for a decree of divorce before a Court in the US. On 03.07.2017 the wife’s father brought her back to India and since then she had been residing at her parental home.
4. On 20.09.2017 the wife filed an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Among other things, she alleged that her family gifted expensive presents to the husband and his family members on the betrothal ceremony and the reception held at Arambagh, Hooghly. After the marriage ceremony on 05.02.2017, the husband misbehaved with the wife’s father. He also misbehaved with her family members on 07.02.2017 at the reception. Immediately after the reception on 17.02.2017, the mother-in-law asked her to hand over all the jewellery received on her wedding. She had to comply with such directions. On 12.02.2017 (on Ashtamangala) the husband refused to stay at the wife’s parental home and booked a room at Lalit Great Eastern, Kolkata. Even in Ghaziabad, the husband did not let the wife sleep on the same room. On 19.02.2017 the husband, in an inebriated state, insulted the wife’s family members. In fact, he misbehaved with his wife and her family members on various occasions. Although the wife expressed her desire not to travel with her husband to US, she changed her mind on an assurance by the husband’s family that he would not misbehave with her any more. Being unable to bear the torture inflicted by the husband in the US, the wife filed a complaint before the US police on 21.02.2017. Following the call given to the police, the husband left apartment and did not provide any food
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the applicability of Section 188 of the Code of C....
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.
Domestic violence legislation mandates adequate monetary relief for the aggrieved spouse, with courts retaining jurisdiction to modify relief only under exceptional circumstances, substantiated by ev....
A wife must establish a prima facie case of domestic violence to be entitled to interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, considering both parties' financial statuses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 23 of the Act No. 43 of 2005, which empowers the Magistrate to grant interim monetary relief to aggri....
Quantum of maintenance must be decent and adequate.
The court established that economic abuse constitutes domestic violence under the DV Act, and that interim relief can be granted based on a prima facie case rather than requiring conclusive evidence.
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
