Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Sapna Paul - Appellant
Versus
Rohin Paul - Respondent
CRL. REV.P. No. 224 of 2021
Decided On : 19-01-2024
DV Act - Maintenance and Compensation - Section 12, Section 22 - The judgment discussed the interpretation and application of Section 12 and Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The court highlighted the definition of 'aggrieved person' under Section 2(a) of the DV Act and the provisions for maintenance and compensation under Section 22. The court also emphasized the importance of timely maintenance and the obligation of a father towards his child's expenses even after the child attains majority.
Fact of the Case:
The Wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, alleging domestic violence by the Husband. The Trial Court granted maintenance and compensation to the Wife, which was challenged by the Husband in the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment and remanded the matter for re-trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the revision petition filed by the Wife to be maintainable under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC. It also held that the findings of cruelty in the divorce proceedings would not be a ground to deny maintenance to the Wife under the DV Act. The court set aside the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Court for adjudication of the appeal on merits.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the revision petition, the relevance of the judgment in divorce proceedings, and the errors in the judgment of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the DV Act, the principles of maintenance and compensation, and the need for timely relief to the aggrieved party. It emphasized the obligation of a father towards his child's expenses even after the child attains majority.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Court for adjudication of the appeal on merits. It also directed the Husband to pay interim maintenance to the Wife and provided guidelines for the Appellate Court to decide the quantum of maintenance.
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (Wife) impugning the judgment dated 1st November, 2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Appellate Court), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby, the judgment dated 16th November, 2016, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Trial Court), Mahila Court, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court.
2. Vide the judgment dated 16th November, 2016, the Trial Court had allowed the application filed by the Wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and directed the respondent (Husband) to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month towards maintenance as well as compensation under Section 22 of the DV Act to the Wife.
3. Assailing the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court, the Wife filed the present petition along with an application for condonation of delay and an application for stay of the proceedings before the Trial Court. Vide detailed order dated 22nd July, 2022, the application for condonation of delay was allowed by the predecessor bench. Vide order dated 2nd September, 2022, the proceedings before the Trial Court pursuant to the remand judgment passed by the Appellate Court were stayed by the predecessor bench.
4. The final arguments were heard in this petition on 1st August, 2023, 20th September, 2023 and on 23rd November, 2023 when the judgment was reserved and parties were given liberty to file brief note of arguments. Written notes of arguments have been field on behalf of the Husband as well as the Wife.
5. Subsequently, an application was filed by the respondent to place on record a copy of the judgment in MAT. APP. (F.C.) No.38/2021 dated 18th December, 2023, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the divorce proceedings between the parties hereto. The application was allowed vide order dated 12th January, 2024 and the said judgement was taken on record. Both sides have also filed written submissions qua the effect of the aforesaid judgement on the present proceedings.
6. Briefly stated, the parties got married on 10th February, 1991 as per Arya Samaj Rituals. One child was born out of the said wedlock on 28th December, 1991. As per the Wife, the Husband was an alcoholic and a womanizer and had several extra marital relationships. The Husband often used to beat up their child under the influence of alcohol, on account of which the child suffered 80% loss of hearing in his left ear.
7. In these circumstances, the Wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act before the Trial Court on 16th December, 2009. Notice was issued in the aforesaid complaint and the Husband filed the written statements on 6th February, 2010. Subsequently, the Husband stopped appearing before the Trial Court and was accordingly proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29th November, 2010.
8. The Husband filed an application for setting aside the aforesaid ex-parte order on 11th February, 2011, which was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- vide order dated 15th July, 2011 and the matter was listed for cross-examination of the Wife on the same date. In the said order, it has also been recorded that the Husband was ready and willing to bear all the educational expenses of the son.
9. Subsequently, the parties were referred for mediation vide order dated 22nd May, 2014. The parties arrived at a settlement in the mediation proceedings on 25th September, 2014. However, it is the case of the Wife that the Husband did not comply with the terms of the settlement.
10. Accordingly, the Trial Court proceeded with the trial. On 17th March, 2015, the appearance of the Husband was recorded, though the Presiding Officer was on leave. Thereafter, once again, the Husband stopped appearing and the Trial Court proceeded ex-parte against the Husband.
Accordingly, his right to cross-examine the Wife was closed v
Courts can grant maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act while other maintenance orders exist; proper assessment of the husband's income is essential for determining just....
The court emphasized that the interim maintenance should be adequate, fair, and reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living of the aggrieved person. The court also highlighted the presumpt....
The determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the parties and the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.
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.
Quantum of maintenance must be decent and adequate.
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....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of actual earnings, standard of living, and liabilities in determining the maintenance amount under the Protection of Women from Dom....
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
