Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
Jagadesan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Public Prosecutor & Others - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case Nos.1418 & 1494 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2012
Decided on: 17-02-2015
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 2(b), 2(f), 2(k), 3(d)(iv), 12, 18, 19, 22 and 23(2) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 357 - Definition of the word, “Child – Divorce - Maintenance - Monetory relief - Economic abuse - Domestic relationship - Protection Orders - Before learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, Wife has contended that marriage between herself and petitioner was solemnized Son was born - At time of filing of DVA. Son was in Standard 11th - From 9th Standard, Wife was incurring educational expenses - At time of marriage, petitioner, his parents, brother and sister, demanded 60 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.1,00,000/- Cash, as dowry - It was agreed to, by both parties, to have 30 sovereigns of gold jewels, for Wife and 2 sovereigns of gold jewels, for the Husband - Both parties have also agreed to share the marriage expenses - Held, Court is not inclined to accept same, for reason that mere payment of tuition fees, alone is not sufficient to pursue higher education. One may require a reasonable sum for purchase of books, stationaries, travel and other incidental expenses - Therefore, sum of Rs.50,000/- ordered to be paid to son, cannot be said to be without any basis - Hence, this Court is not inclined to upset same - Statutory provision empowers the Magistrate to pass suitable orders under Section 12 of Act - All orders, that could be passed under Sections 18 to 22 of Act, can be passed at the interim stage of any proceedings, which includes lumpsum payment also, under Section 23 of the Act, provided the Court is satisfied, what is just and proper - Husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,11,200/- towards the college fees for 3rd and 4th years, in two instalments – Directions issued - Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a dispute under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, with related proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code, including orders for monetary relief and education expenses (!) (!) (!) .
The wife and son filed a complaint alleging domestic violence, dowry demands, neglect, and ill-treatment by the husband and his family, leading to various orders for protection, residence, and monetary reliefs (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The wife contended that the marriage was solemnized in 1993, and the son was born in 1995. She claimed that the husband and his family demanded dowry at the time of marriage and subsequent occasions, which caused depression and mental stress (!) (!) .
Allegations include neglect of the wife and son, physical and mental cruelty, and improper conduct during family events, leading to the wife and son living separately and suffering financial hardship (!) (!) (!) .
The wife also alleged that the husband transferred properties in his name and threatened to transfer properties to his family members unless she agreed to divorce, thus causing economic abuse (!) (!) (!) .
The proceedings included interim orders for educational expenses, with the husband directed to pay a specific amount towards college fees, and deposit a sum for the son's expenses, with provisions for further payments based on proof of admission and fee structure (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The appellate court modified the interim orders, requiring the husband to furnish proof of admission and fee structure, and to pay 50% of the fees and other expenses, including a sum for the son's personal expenses and maintenance (!) (!) .
The petitioner-husband challenged the interim orders, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction to order lumpsum payments under Section 23 of the Act and that such payments should only be ordered at the final stage under Section 12 (!) (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the Act empowers the Magistrate to pass interim orders, including monetary relief and lumpsum payments, at any stage of proceedings if deemed just and proper, based on affidavits and the circumstances of the case (!) (!) (!) .
It was emphasized that the provisions of the Act are meant to provide effective protection and relief to victims of domestic violence, and the Court should adopt a beneficent and purposive approach in interpreting these provisions, ensuring that interim reliefs serve the objectives of the legislation (!) (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the definition of "child" includes persons under 18 years, but even after majority, obligations related to basic amenities, health, and education continue to be morally and legally binding, especially under the scope of economic abuse (!) (!) (!) .
The Court observed that interim orders for educational expenses and maintenance are permissible at any stage if justified by the circumstances, and the purpose of such orders is to prevent hardship and uphold the rights of the aggrieved person and her children (!) (!) (!) .
The Court directed that the main proceedings should be disposed of within a specified period and that the petitioner shall pay the ordered amounts in installments, with further directions for the continuation of the son's education and the enforcement of the orders (!) (!) .
Overall, the case underscores the broad powers of the Magistrate under the Act to grant interim reliefs, including monetary and educational expenses, to ensure protection and support for victims of domestic violence, while emphasizing the importance of interpreting the legislation in a purposive and beneficent manner.
1. Both the revision petitions arise out of the order dated 21.08.2012, made in C.A.No.180 of 2012, on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, modifying the order, dated 15.06.2012, passed in C.M.P.No.2112 of 2012 in D.V.A.No.34 of 2010, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore. As pleadings and submissions are common, both the revision petitions are disposed of, by a common order. For brevity, husband is described as petitioner, wife and son, as respondents.
2. Wife and son/respondents, have filed DVA.No.34 of 2010, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, "Act"), before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, against the petitioner and others, for the following reliefs:-
(1) To pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each, towards medical expenses and clothing, under Section 20(1)(d) of the Act,
(2) To pay Rs.20,00,000/- for educational expenses, under Section 20(2) of the Act, which includes Rs.5,00,000/- already spent by the Wife,
(3) To pay Rs.10,00,000/- under Section 20 of the Act,
(4) For an order to protect the right to reside in the share household, under Section 17 of the Act,
(5) For protection order, under Section 17(e) of the Act, not to alienate or encumber the property.
3. Before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, Wife has contended that marriage between herself and the petitioner was solemnized on 22.08.1993. Son was born on 13.03.1995. At the time of filing of DVA.No.34 of 2010, Son was in Standard 11th in Vithya Vikash School, Thiruchengode. From 9th Standard, Wife was incurring educational expenses. At the time of marriage, the petitioner, his parents, brother and sister, demanded 60 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.1,00,000/- Cash, as dowry. It was agreed to, by both the parties, to have 30 sovereigns of gold jewels, for the Wife and 2 sovereigns of gold jewels, for the Husband. Both parties have also agreed to share the marriage expenses.
4. In D.V.A.No.34 of 2010, it was further submitted by the wife that when arrangements for the marriage was in progress, an additional demand of 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.50,000/- Cash, was made. As invitations were already distributed, additional demand of dowry caused depression to the Wife. Though it was beyond the capacity of her parents, they had no other option, except to accept the same, for payment of Rs.20,000/- Cash. After marriage, spouses started their matrimonial life, at Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore. Son was born on 13.03.1995. However, Husband refuted consortium, particularly physical relationship. Certain habits of the Husband were inexplicable.
5. Wife has further contended that the schedule mentioned properties in DVA.No.34 of 2010, were purchased in the name of the petitioner. But construction was made, out of her dowry amount, and also by pledging her jewels. Her father extended financial assistance to the petitioner. During night time, either his mother or aunt, would sleep, in the same room, where the spouses slept.
6. Even during the Son's Ear Boring Ceremony, the petitioner and others conducted themselves in a manner, which was disgusting to the Wife's parents. For some reasons or the other, Husband has categorically refused to spend any money for the education of the 2nd respondent-Son. One day, when the Wife, requested him to accompany her, for affixing his signature in a document, in the school, he replied to her to take somebody, as Husband and refused to come to the school. Son was not allowed to enter the house and he was sent out. Thus, the petitioner neglected both his Wife and Son. While things stood thus, spouses went to Trichy. The petitioner and in-laws hated respondents. Picking up the frequent quarrels and using unparliamentary words, they caused mental agony. Husband forcibly removed the marriage sacred thread, "Mangalsutra" from the Wife and sent both the respondents out of the house
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
