Back
2015 1 Supreme(Guj) 1007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.G.SHAH, J.
HARESH NARAYAN JAGUJA & Anr. - Applicants
Versus
NAMRATA HARESH JAGUJA JYOTI D.O. JETHANAND ASWANI & Ors. – Respondents
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 25 of 2014
Decided On : 28-04-2015
Advocate Appeared:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Applicants No. 1 - 2
MR. P. P. MAJMUDAR FOR R M VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE for the Applicants No. 1 - 2
MR. VIJAY N TILOKANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondents No. 1 - 2
MR NJ SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondents No. 3
Important Point-There is no restriction to grant appropriate amount of maintenance even if an order exists under Section 125 of Code.
Headnote:Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005-Section 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22-Maintenance order-Competent Court under Protection of Domestic Violence Act 2005 has wide powers to grant loss of earning, medical expenses, loss due to other destruction and damages or removal of any property from the control of aggrieved person, as well as maintenance under Section 125 of Code or even in addition to Section 125 of the Code-Once it is proved before trial Court that there was domestic violence and trial Court is empowered to grant monetary benefits, there is no restriction to grant appropriate amount of maintenance even if an order exists under Section 125 of Code-If wife is enabled to prove more income of husband and may apply for more amount of maintenance and if husband is of the view that his income is now reduced, he could apply for rejection of such amount but such modification cannot be considered on such revision application stage, when material evidence is not produced before trial Court for such modification.
Result-Revision Application dismissed.
1. Petitioner No.1 herein is husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, whereas petitioner No.2 is mother – in – law of respondent No.1 and grand mother of respondent No.2., respondent No.3 is State being formal party.
2. Petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 17.12.2013 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2013, whereby Judgment and order dated 07.06.2013 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 111 of 2011 by the JMFC, Vadodara is confirmed.
3. The result of both the judgments referred herein above is to the effect that pursuant to an application under Section 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as wife and minor son of the petitioner No.1, the lower Court has restrained the petitioners from committing any act of cruelty against the minor petitioner No.2. It is further directed that petitioner shall manage to allow the respondents to stay in the house No. 132, Damodar Haridas Building, 2nd Floor, R-7, T. H. Kataria Road, Matunga – Mahim West, Mumbai during the month from such order (07.06.2013) or to pay Rs.5000/- per month towards rent for residential accommodation from the date of application (08.12.2011). It is further directed under Section 19(8) of the Act that petitioner shall return all the ornaments and other stridhan, properties and articles of the respondents within 10 days with all other relevant documents, which are otherwise documents viz. Bank Passbook, Election Card, Ration Card, Passport etc. It is further directed that if some documents are required by the petitioners, then as and when necessary, it would be provided to the respondents which shall be returned back to the petitioners on completion of work. For execution of such direction a liberty is granted to the respondents that if petitioner fails to comply with such directions, respondent – wife can approach Kishanwadi Police Station, who has to remain present for execution of above said direction. It is also further directed under Section 20(3) of the Act that petitioner No.1 shall pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.4000/- to the wife and Rs.1000/- to the minor child from the date of application (08.12.2011) per month. The amount of Rs.25,000/- is also directed to be paid by the petitioners to the respondents for mental pain and agony and suffering. Cost of such application was also awarded as Rs.5000/-. All such directions by the trial Court have been confirmed by the Sessions Court also. Hence, this revision application.
4. I have heard learned advocate Ms. R. M. Vaishnav with learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Vijay N. Trilokani for the respondents. Perused the bulky record, wherein both the sides have produced all relevant documents, which are necessary for deciding the present revision application. It mainly contains the pleadings and deposition before the trial Court and both impugned judgments.
5. The sum and substance of the petitioners’ case is to the effect that the amount of maintenance is too high, the nature and attitude of the respondent – wife is nothing but to harass the petitioners and that when petitioner is getting the maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, she is not entitled to additional maintenance under provisions of Domestic Violence Act.
5.1 In support of their submissions the petitioners are relying upon following un-reported judgments; (1) judgment and order dated 21.10.2010 between Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 2080 of 2010 by the Single Judge of this High Court, (2) judgment and order dated 30.08.2010 in Criminal Misc. Case No.130 of 2010 with Criminal Misc. Application No. 504 of 2010 between Rachana Kathuria vs. Ramesh Kathuria by Single Judge of Delhi High Court, (3) the judgment and order dated 21.05.2012 in Criminal Misc. Case No.3329 of
