The legal obligation of a party to maintain and provide shelter to a spouse under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Kuldip Singh, J.

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside, quashing judgment dated 9.1.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2011, affirming order dated 15.12.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in Complaint No.309-I/2010.

2. The facts in brief are that respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short Act) against petitioner claiming her to be the wife of respondent. The petitioner for the last one year had physically and mentally tortured the respondent. A complaint was made to the Gram Panchayat where a compromise was affected but petitioner was turned out from matrimonial home in January, 2010. The petitioner filed reply, he denied marriage between the parties or parties lived as husband and wife. He denied maltreatment to respondent as claimed by respondent.

3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the petition. The petitioner was directed to provide suitable accommodation for the residence of respondent under Section 20 of the Act. The respondent was held entitled to Rs.20,000/- on account of physical and mental harassment, Rs.10,000/- for food and clothing and another Rs.10,000/- for house hold expenses, total amounting to Rs.40,000/-. The petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge on 9.1.2012.

4. It has been stated that there is no evidence regarding relationship of husband and wife or parties lived together. The respondent is not aggrieved under the Act. The respondent is not entitled to any amount as held by Courts below. The evidence has been misconstrued and misinterpreted. The domestic relationship and domestic violation have not been proved. The marriage between the parties has not been proved. The petition itself is not maintainable. The respondent was the wife of one Bhadru. The respondent has been getting pension as widow of Bhadru. The complaint has been filed for unjust enrichment. The submission has been made for setting side the impugned orders.

5. Heard and perused the record. The respondent has filed the complainant under Section 12 of the Act. In the complaint the respondent has stated that she is the wife of the petitioner and at the time of filing of the complaint she was living with her daughter in Village Seobag. The petitioner is serving as Chowkidar in HP PWD at Seobag and he has sufficient movable and immovable properties. The petitioner has turned out the respondent from matrimonial home in January, 2010. The petitioner is neither providing shelter nor maintenance to respondent. She has been tortured physically and mentally. The respondent has prayed protection from domestic violence, residence order and monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act for physical and mental harassment of Rs.1,00,000/-, food and cloths etc. Rs.50,000/-, household expenses Rs.20,000/-, medial expenses Rs.20,000/- and other expenses Rs.5,000/-. Total amounting to Rs.1,95,000/- from the petitioner. The petitioner has filed reply. He has denied the allegations made in the complaint.

6. AW-1 Nokhi Devi has stated that she married to petitioner 12 years ago after the death of her previous husband Bhadru and also after the death of previous wife of petitioner. The parties after marriage lived together as husband and wife in the house of petitioner. The petitioner started giving beatings to respondent. She moved an application Ex.AW-1/A before the Panchayat and the parties had compromised the matter vide Ex.AW-1/B. In January, 2010 the petitioner gave beatings to respondent and turned her out from the matrimonial home. The petitioner since January, 2010 has not provided any maintenance, shelter to the respondent. She has no means to support herself. She is residing with her daughter since January, 2010. The petitioner is an orchardist and employed in HP PWD. She was cross-examined