SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 703

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kaushik Goswami
Abdus Salam Laskar, S/o Haji Aymon Raja Laskar – Appellant
Versus
Mustt Rehima Begum Laskar, D/o Md. Abdur Rejak Laskar – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.C. Biswas, Ms. A. Das, Mr. P.S. Biswas, Ms. A. Borah, Ms. J. Ghosh

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Magistrate Court directed monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000 and one-time compensation of Rs. 2,00,000; Appellate Court modified to Rs. 3,500 per month and Rs. 1,00,000 compensation (!) (!) (!) - The evidence showed mental and physical torture, including sending talaknama, threats, and prior violence; Court held petitioner committed domestic violence under the Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Appellate Court held talak not valid due to lack of witnesses, but domestic violence evidence remained and compensation/maintenance upheld with reduction (!) (!) (!) - Section 20 authorizes monetary relief including maintenance; Section 22 permits compensation for injuries including mental torture; monetary relief can be lump sum or monthly (!) (!) (!) - Court emphasized that sufficiency of evidence as to domestic violence cannot be re-evaluated by a higher court once concurred by lower courts (!) (!) - The petition under CrPC 482 was dismissed; appellate and magistrate decisions not infirmed in legal terms (!) (!)

What is the scope of monetary relief and compensation under sections 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in a case of proven domestic violence?

What is the sufficiency of evidence required to establish domestic violence and justify maintenance and compensation under the Act?

What is the standard of review for appellate modification of monetary relief and compensation when lower courts have found domestic violence?


JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent on call, despite the name of the learned counsel being reflected in the cause list.

2. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), the petitioner is assailing the Judgment & Order dated 04.06.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate Court’) in M.R.(D.V.) Case No. 195/2016 and the Judgment & Order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2018.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent had filed a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2005’) before the Magistrate Court alleging domestic violence committed by the petitioner against her. The Magistrate Court upon trying the said case, held the petitioner guilty of committing domestic violence upon the respondent and accordingly, was pleased to direct monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees F

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top