Back
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SHOME NIKHIL DANANI – Appellant
Versus
TANYA BANON DANANI – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, residence and interim maintenance were indeed granted to the woman under the relevant legal provisions. The document indicates that the woman sought residence rights and monetary relief, including interim maintenance, under the applicable domestic violence legislation. The trial court initially declined to grant residence or additional rental relief, citing that her maintenance had already been considered in a separate proceeding. However, the appellate court found that the scope of relief under the domestic violence law is broader and that the woman was entitled to seek residence and monetary relief beyond the maintenance granted under the criminal procedure code. Consequently, the appellate court remitted the matter for reconsideration, implying that residence and interim maintenance claims were recognized and could be granted upon proper reconsideration (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal proceedings acknowledged the woman's right to residence and interim maintenance, and the appellate court remanded the case for further consideration of these claims.
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Petitioner impugns order dated 26.09.2018 whereby the appellate court set aside order dated 06.04.2018 and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the application under section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the DV Act), afresh.
2. Application under section 23 of the DV Act was filed by the Respondent-wife inter-alia seeking monetary relief under section 20, residence orders under section 19(f) and prevention of alienation of assets under section 18(e) of the DV Act.
3. By order dated 06.04.2018 the application under section 23 was dismissed. The Trial Court rejected the monetary relief claimed by the Respondent on the ground that she had already been granted maintenance of Rs 1,20,000/- per month under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the family court. Further the Trial Court observed that the rent to be paid by the Respondent had been considered by the family court while deciding the quantum of maintenance thus she was not entitled to relief under section 19 of the DV Act. In so far as the prayer for preventing alienation of assets was concerned the Trial Court declined the same holding that wh
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
