IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Sirisha Dinavahi Bansal - Appellant
Versus
Rajiv Bansal - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1554 of 2020; Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 8821 of 2020
Decided On : 20-07-2020
CUSTODY - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 482 Cr.PC - Section 18, Section 21, Section 23, Section 29 - The court discussed the maintainability of a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking directions to set aside an order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court highlighted the availability of the remedy of Appeal under Section 29 of the Act and the limitations on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought various reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, including temporary custody of the children. The court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to avail the remedy of Appeal available under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC was not maintainable as there was a clear remedy of Appeal under Section 29 of the Act. The court emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy cannot be a ground to disentitle the relief under Section 482 Cr.PC.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC when an alternate remedy of a Statutory Appeal under Section 29 of the Act was available to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the availability of the remedy of Appeal under Section 29 of the Act was a compelling reason to dismiss the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. The court emphasized that inherent powers of the High Court should be exercised sparingly and with caution, especially when there are specific provisions of alternative remedies.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to avail the remedy of Appeal available to her in law, if so advised. The court clarified that nothing stated in the judgment was an expression on the merits of the case regarding the custody of the children.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking directions to set aside the Order dated 01.06.2020 passed in Complaint Case No. 2248/2020 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
2. At the threshold, an objection has been raised by Learned Counsel for the Respondent against the maintainability of the present Petition before this Court and, therefore, the narrative of the facts is only to the extent of deciding the maintainability.
3. The sequential narration, shorn of unnecessary details is that the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized on 09.03.2003 and after marriage the parties continued to stay in the United States of America. Over a period of time, Parties were blessed with three daughters aged 11 years, 7 years and 3 years, respectively, at present. After the birth of third child in 2017, parties shifted to India and the Respondent started working with a renowned Media house on a Senior Post. As the averments in the Petition go, in 2018, Respondent quit his job and started his own business in partnership with an erstwhile colleague. A couple of months later, there was a rift in their relationship, which eventually resulted in the Respondent taking away the three children to live with him under a separate roof.
4. On 04.03.2020, Petitioner filed a complaint under the Act and Notice was issued on 16.03.2020. By way of this complaint, Petitioner sought various Reliefs such as Protection Order under Section 18 of the Act, order restraining the Respondent from dispossessing the Petitioner from the shared household, and monetary reliefs such as medical expenses and rentals including household expenses. Custody orders with respect to the three minor children were also sought under Section 21 of the Act. Along with the complaint, Petitioner also filed an Application under Section 23 of the Act for grant of various interim reliefs, one amongst them being a direction to the Respondent to grant temporary custody of the children to the Petitioner. Reliefs sought were as under:-
"a. Direct the Respondent to bring the three minor children back home and grant temporary custody of the children to the applicant.
b. Direct the respondent not to take the children out of Delhi without her knowledge and permission.
c. Direct the respondent not to threaten, abuse the applicant in any manner whatsoever.
d. Direct the respondent from creating any third party access/interference/trouble/hurdles in the peaceful life of the applicant in the shared household.
e. Direct the respondent to restrain from trying to remove any household articles from the shared household.
f. Direct the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 5 lacs as interim maintenance in the present application from the date of filing of complaint.
g. Restrain the respondent from transferring the funds from the joint accounts, alienating or creating any charge over their jointly held properties.
h. Pass such order or further orders which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the above said facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice."
5. On 16.03.2020, Respondent entered appearance and with the consent of the parties, matter was referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for 17.03.2020. On account of the Pandemic Covid-19, Mediation could not take place and it was adjourned for 21.03.2020 and thereafter for 03.04.2020.
6. On 20.04.2020, Petitioner filed a Petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, being CRL.M.C. 1466/2020 before this Court seeking directions as under:-
"A. Direct the respondent to furnish the address where he is presently residing with the children,
B. Direct the respondent to facilitate meeting by way of video conferencing with the children everyday till they remain in his care and custody.
C. To grant the interim custody of the three minor children namely Baby Rid
Arun Shankar Shukla vs. State of U.P.
Avadh Narain Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another
Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Ors. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors.
Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
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.