Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 703
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Abdus Salam Laskar, S/o Haji Aymon Raja Laskar – Petitioner
Versus
Mustt Rehima Begum Laskar, D/o Md. Abdur Rejak Laskar – Respondent
CRL.PET.NO. 325 of 2020
Decided On : 26-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.C. Biswas, Ms. A. Das, Mr. P.S. Biswas, Ms. A. Borah, Ms. J. Ghosh
Domestic violence encompasses both physical and mental torture, and courts can award compensation and maintenance based on credible evidence, as established under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Headnote:
(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 20 and 22 - Domestic violence - Petitioner found guilty of domestic violence against the respondent, ordered to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- and one-time compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- by Magistrate Court, modified by Appellate Court to Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 3,500/- respectively - Evidence of mental and physical torture established. (Paras 3, 4, 12, 19)
(B) Domestic Violence - Definition and scope - The court emphasized that domestic violence includes both physical and mental torture, and the absence of witnesses does not invalidate the claims of domestic violence if supported by credible evidence. (Paras 12, 19)
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a case alleging domestic violence by the petitioner, who was found guilty by the Magistrate Court, which awarded maintenance and compensation. The Appellate Court modified the amounts but upheld the finding of guilt.
Findings of Court:
The courts found sufficient evidence of domestic violence, leading to the award of maintenance and compensation, which was deemed reasonable under the Act.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the compensation awarded and the evidence of domestic violence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence of domestic violence was credible, and the compensation awarded was justified under the Act, emphasizing that the sufficiency of evidence cannot be re-evaluated by a higher court once concurred by lower courts.
Result: Petition dismissed.
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 Four Thousand) only and one time compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) only.
4. Against the aforesaid order of the Magistrate Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court by Judgment & Order dated 25.03.2019, though was of the considered view that the Magistrate Court has committed no infirmity in holding the petitioner guilty of committing domestic violence upon the respondent, however, reduced the monetary benefit by modifying the compensation amount to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees 1 Lakh) only and the monthly maintenance to Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred) only. Situated thus, the present criminal petition has been filed.
5. Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the monthly maintenance is concerned, the petitioner accepted the same. However, as per the compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees 1 Lakh) only awarded by the Appellate Court is concerned, there being no evidence of mental torture discernable from the evidences brought on record, such award of compensation is totally erroneous and warrants interference from this Court.
6. I have given my prudent consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the materials available on record.
7. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as per the award of compensation by the Magistrate Court as well as the Appellate Court, apt to refer to the materials available on record.
8. It appears from the averments made in the complaint that the respondent has alleged that during her pregnancy period, the petitioner did not provide adequate treatment to her and the petitioner has further tortured her both mentally and physically.
9. It appears from the evidence of the respondent before the Magistrate Court as PW-1 that she deposed that the petitioner torturned her on the instigation of his mother as she gave birth to a daughter. She further deposed that in the year 2011, the petitioner tried to set her and her daughter on fire and her uncle came and saved her and sent her to her paternal home. She further deposed that the petitioner demanded Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only from her and threatened to marry again in the event of non-payment and that after she left, the petitioner married for the second time and is living with the second wife. She further deposed that three numbers of registered talaknama was also sent to her in her paternal home through post.
10. It further appears that the petitioner adduced himself as DW-1, wherein he has admitted the sending of the registered post talaknama and that there was no witness to the said talaknama. It further appears that the petitioner has also admitted the fact th
