Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
MRS. GITIKA BARMAN D/O LATE MUKUNDA BARMAN – Petitioner
Versus
SANJEEV BARMAN S/O SHRI UPENDRAJIT BARMAN – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 33 of 2020
Decided On : 21-10-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482, 125, 397, 401 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 3(d), 12, 18, 19, 20, (3), 22, 23 - Marriage - Claim For Maintenance - Petitioner had filed an application against respondent and his father, mother and brother, alleging inter-alia amongst others that her marriage was solemnized with present respondent as per Hindu rites and rituals and thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife at her matrimonial home - After 15 days, of marriage respondent left for his workplace - During period of 15 days she found respondent an arrogant person, suspicious, and greedy - Then, on one day, respondent informed her that he had affairs with a girl for last 10 years - However, that he want divorce from her and then she refused - Then respondent had put three conditions to continue their conjugal relationship - Then as per direction of respondent she stopped visiting her parental abode, then her father in-law, mother in-law and brother-in-law asked her to visit her parental abode and when she refused they reacted angrily and assaulted her and took her to her parental house and dropped her there. Para 16.
Finding of the Court :
While finding, so recorded by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari in respect of committing ‘domestic violence’ upon petitioner by respondent, is examined in light of definition of ‘Domestic Violence’ as provided in section 3 and also in light of legislative intent behind enacting said Act, this court is of view that conclusion so arrived at, appears to be justified and born out of facts and circumstances on record - In that view of matter, finding, so recorded by learned Sessions Judge, appears to be unjustified and if allowed to stand, then same will perpetuate injustice to petitioner - It appears that learned Sessions Judge has misread evidence and also overlooked material evidence, adduced by petitioner and arrived at a perverse finding - In case of Rajnesh (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in no uncertain terms, held as It is well settled that a wife can claim for maintenance under different statutes - For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under DV Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. or under HMA - It would however, inequitable to direct husband to pay maintenance under each of proceedings, independents of relief granted in a previous proceeding - If maintenance is awarded to wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment - While deciding quantum of maintenance in subsequent proceeding, civil court/family court shall take into account maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine maintenance payable to claimant”- Impugned Judgment and Order passed by learned Sessions Judge, in Criminal Appeal stands set aside and quashed - Consequently, Judgment and Order, passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Misc. Case, stands restored.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. This petition, under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by Smt. Gitika Barman, for quashing and setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2018. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2019, learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari had set aside the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2017, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari in Misc. Case (DV) No. 654/2015, lodged under Sections 12/18/19/20/22/23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, where by the respondent (husband of the petitioner) was directed to pay a lump sum relief i.e. Rs. 1,75,000/- under the said Act.
2. The factual background, leading to filing of this petition, is briefly stated as under:
It is worth mentioning in this context that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was enacted with the objective of providing more effective protection of the rights of women guar....
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....
Quantum of maintenance must be decent and adequate.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in modifying maintenance orders and the consideration of the financial status and obligations of the parties.
The proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are independent of those under Section 125 Cr.P.C., allowing for separate maintenance claims.
Award of maintenance – It is not mandatory for aggrieved person to have actually lived or resided with those persons against whom allegations have been levelled at the time of seeking relief.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance and other relief from her father-in-law according to the provisions of the PWDV Act.
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
