Back
2016 Supreme(Jhk) 868
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D.N. PATEL, ANANDA SEN, JJ.
Rajen Kumar, son of Gauri Shankar Prasad & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 420 of 2015
Decided on : 11-05-2016
For the Appellants :M/s Manoj Kr. Sinha and Sanjay Kr. Singh, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P.V.
The judgment emphasizes the obligation to comply with orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the right of the aggrieved person to seek relief under Section 12 of the Act.
Headnote:
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - Notice Challenge - Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, husband and wife, challenged a notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi, which was in response to their non-compliance with an order to provide accommodation to appellant no.1's mother as per the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, for providing accommodation to appellant no.1's mother had attained finality, and the appellants' criminal appeal and revision applications had been dismissed. The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge.
Issues: Non-compliance with the order to provide accommodation to appellant no.1's mother under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 12 of the Act, the mother of appellant no.1 had the right to reside where appellant no.1 resided, and the order for accommodation had to be complied with.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited by appellant no.1 before the Jharkhand High Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society.
Per D.N. Patel, J. - Office defects pointed out by the Registry of this Court are ignored.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4949 of 2013 vide order dated 13th April, 2015 whereby, the petition preferred by these appellants was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
3. These appellants are the original petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 4949 of 2013. In the writ petition notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi dated 31st July, 2013 was under challenge.
4. The notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi was to the effect that a Complaint Case No. 2798 of 2008 was preferred before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 because these appellants, who are husband and wife, are not keeping the mother of appellant no.1 in the house. Hence, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi has passed an order in Complaint Case No. 2798 of 2008 on 9th August, 2010 for giving two rooms from the house of these appellants to the mother viz. Smt. Surat Prasad of appellant no.1.
5. It appears that the order, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi was not complied with by these appellants and they preferred Cr. Appeal No. 130 of 2010 before the Sessions Court and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 25th November, 2011. Against this order, these two appellants preferred criminal revision application before this Court bearing Cr. Revision No. 853 of 2011 and this High Court has dismissed the criminal revision application. Thus, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi dated 9th August, 2010 has attained its finality for giving two rooms to Smt. Surat Prasad, who is mother of appellant no. 1.
6. Despite the order of the Judicial Magistrate, in Complaint Case No. 2798 of 2008 dated 9th August, 2010 and despite the fact that the criminal appeal and the criminal revision applications preferred by these appellants were dismissed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi was not complied with and hence, the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi issued a notice on 31st July, 2013, which is at Annexure 1 to the memo of this LPA. This Notice was challenged in the writ petition by these appellants in W.P.(C) No. 4949 of 2013, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original writ petitioners.
7. Having heard counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondent-State and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the mother of appellant no.1 has got all right to reside where this appellant no.1, who is son, is residing. For ready reference Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 reads as under:
"12. Application to Magistrate.(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:
Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.
(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a such for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent:
Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the dec
