Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. Ajithkumar, J.
Rasiya Wife Of Muhammed Navaz - Appellant
Vs.
Muhammed Navas Son Of Hameed - Respondent
CRL.Rev.Pet No. 377 Of 2022, CRL.Rev.Pet No. 869 of 2023
Decided On : 05-08-2024
PROTECTION OF WOMEN - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - The court discussed the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, particularly Section 12, which allows women to seek protection orders and monetary reliefs. The court emphasized the importance of providing a safe environment for women and the necessity of maintenance for dependents. The interpretations of the Act influenced the court's decision to uphold the protection order and maintenance while remitting the compensation claim for further consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a wife and her children, filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking protection and monetary reliefs from the husband, who was accused of domestic violence. The trial court granted several reliefs, including maintenance and return of property, which were partially challenged by both parties in appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court upheld the protection order and maintenance for the wife and younger child but set aside the trial court's orders regarding the return of gold ornaments and compensation due to insufficient evidence and procedural issues. The appellate court found that the trial court had denied the husband a fair opportunity to contest the claims.
Issues: Whether the trial court's orders regarding monetary reliefs and property return were justified, and whether the husband was given a fair opportunity to present his defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the trial court's orders on maintenance and protection were valid, the claims for compensation and return of property required a more thorough examination of evidence. The appellate court emphasized the need for fair trial principles and the importance of allowing both parties to present their cases adequately.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the protection order and maintenance payments but remitted the claim for compensation back to the trial court for fresh consideration, allowing both parties to present further evidence.
ORDER :
Petitioners No.1 and 3 in M.C.No.18 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Alappuzha filed Crl.R.P.No.377 of 2022. Respondents No.1 and 3 in that M.C. filed Crl.R.P.No.869 of 2023. Parties are referred to as they were arraigned in M.C.No.18 of 2013.
2. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the 1st respondent. Their marriage was solemnised on 03.11.1996. The petitioners No.2 and 3 are their children. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the mother and sister respectively of respondent No.1. The petitioners filed M.C.No.18 of 2013 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) claiming protection order and monetary reliefs including maintenance. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, granted reliefs as follows:
(2) The 1st and 3rd counter petitioners are restrained from alienating the property comprised in Sy.No.523/26B without the leave of the court concerned.
(3) The 1st counter petitioner is directed to return Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments or the market value of the gold ornaments prevalent on the date of this order, to the first petitioner.
(4) The 1st counter petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- each to the 1st petitioner, 2nd and 3rd petitioners as monthly maintenance from the month of October 2016 apart from the interim maintenance which is in arrears. The 1st petitioner is entitled to receive the amount for and on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners for 1st CP.
(5) The 1st counter petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) in lump sum as compensation to the 1st petitioner.”
3. Both sides went in appeal. The respondents filed Crl.Appeal No.232 of 2016. The petitioners filed Crl.Appeal No.234 of 2016. While the respondents challenged the correctness and legality of the reliefs granted by the trial court, the petitioners assailed the trial court order insofar as it denied the plea for custody of the 2nd petitioner, the elder daughter and a portion of the monetary claim.
4. The appellate court dismissed Crl.Appeal No.234 of 2016 and allowed in part Crl.Appeal No.232 of 2016. Following is the operative part of the appellate judgment.
(2) The 1st counter petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- each to the petitioners as monthly maintenance from the month of October, 2016 apart from the interim maintenance which is in arrears. The 1st petitioner is entitled to receive the amount for and on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. The reliefs No.2, 3 and 5 granted by the trial court are hereby set aside.”
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The grievance of the petitioners is in regard to the denial of monetary reliefs such as compensation and return of money and gold ornaments. The grievance of the respondents is essentially in respect of the order of maintenance. The respondents would contend that the 2nd petitioner, who is the elder daughter, was all along with the 1st respondent-father.
He met all the expenses of the marriage of the 2nd petitioner. Therefore, an order directing him to pay maintenance to the 2nd petitioner is incorrect. Insofar as the maintenance ordered to be paid to the 3rd petitioner, it is contended that in the light of the contention raised concerning her paternity, the 1st respondent has no obligation to pay maintenance to her.
7. From the records it is seen that the 1st respondent was declared exparte on 06.10.2016 for the reason that he did not pay the amount of interim maintenance. He challenged the order declaring him exparte before this Court. The order was set aside on the co
The judgment underscores the necessity of fair trial rights in domestic violence cases and the importance of thorough evidence evaluation when determining monetary claims under the Protection of Wome....
The court ruled that a claim for compensation under domestic violence legislation requires meticulous evidence evaluation, and insufficient evidence leads to a miscarriage of justice that necessitate....
The Family Court's prior ruling on the non-entitlement to Rs.2 lakhs bars the 1st respondent from claiming the same amount under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that maintenance under the DV Act can only be awarded to aggrieved persons and children, and not to unmarried daughters who have attained majority.....
Courts exercise revisional jurisdiction to enhance maintenance and rental relief under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, based on current economic factors like inflation. Additionally, residence order....
Emotional violence and dowry demands constitute domestic violence, affirming the petitioner as an aggrieved person under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In maintenance proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, the welfare of the minor child takes precedence over other considerations.
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
