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 necessitates reconsideration.

ORDER :

1. 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 1^st petitioner is the wife of the 1^st 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:

“1) 1^st and 3^rd petitioners are restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitions.

2) The 1^st and 3^rd counter petitioners are restrained from alienating the property comprised in Sy.No.523/26B without the leave of the court concerned.

3) The 1^st 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 1^st counter petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- each to the 1^st petitioner, 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners as monthly maintenance from the month of October 2016 apart from the interim maintenance which is in arrears. The 1^st petitioner is entitled to receive the amount for and on behalf of the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners for 1^st CP.

5) The 1^st counter petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) in lump sum as compensation to the 1^st 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 2^nd 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.

“1) The 1^st and 3^rd counter petitioners are restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the 1^st petitioner.

2) The 1^st 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 1^st petitioner is entitled to receive the amount for and on behalf of the 2^nd and 3^rd 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 2^nd petitioner, who is the elder daughter, was all along with the 1^st respondent-father. He met all the expenses of the marriage of the 2^nd petitioner. Therefore, an order directing him to pay maintenance to the 2^nd petitioner is incorrect. Insofar as the maintenance ordered to be paid to t