Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Thirupathi – Appellant
Versus
Umamaheshwari – Respondent
Crl. R.C (MD). No. 971 of 2022 & Crl. M.P (MD). Nos. 11947 of 2022 & 4846 of 2023
Decided on : 12-03-2024
Domestic Violence - Relief under Domestic Violence Act - Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, husband of the respondent, sought to set aside the judgment granting relief to the respondent under the Domestic Violence Act. The respondent alleged domestic violence and sought various reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Judge and the appellate Judge both found in favor of the respondent, granting relief under the Domestic Violence Act, including shared household, maintenance, return of jewels, and compensation.
Issues: Allegations of domestic violence, entitlement to relief under the Domestic Violence Act, and compliance with legal provisions such as obtaining reports and disclosure of assets were contested.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioner had committed domestic violence, and the relief granted by the lower courts was in accordance with the law, considering the evidence and records.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, confirming the order of the Principal District Judge, Karur, granting relief to the respondent under the Domestic Violence Act.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crl.A.No.27 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur, dated 06.08.2022 modifying the order dated 08.11.2021 made in D.V.C.No.37 of 2020, on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court/Judicial Magistrate, Karur and set aside the judgments of the Court below.)
1. The petitioner/husband of the respondent filed a petition before this Court to set aside the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.27 of 2022, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur, dated 06.08.2022, modifying the order dated 08.11.2021 made in D.V.C.No.37 of 2022, on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Karur.
2. The petitioner herein married the respondent on 09.02.2014. After the marriage, they lived in the joint family with the parents of the husband who is working as a Cashier in the Central Co-operative bank. At the time of marriage, 13 sovereigns of jewels and other house hold articles were given as dowry. It is alleged that the petitioner made harassment and also caused domestic violence to the respondent and also suspected the conduct of the respondent and he did not care about the child born on 01.05.2015. Hence the above conduct of the petitioner amounts to domestic violence and hence, the respondent filed a petition claiming various reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act.
3. The petitioner denied the allegation and also stated that H.M.O.P.No.137 of 2015, is pending before the Sub-Court, the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain her and she has not filed any proof of assets and liability as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. Further, the respondent is not entitled for any relief. The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence and the records produced by both the parties granted relief under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act and allowed the entire relief claimed by the respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Principal District Court, Karur on Crl.A.No.27 of 2022. The learned appellate Judge also confirmed the finding of the learned trial Judge, that the petitioner caused domestic violence to the respondent/wife and he confirmed the relief granted by the learned trial Judge except the return of jewels and household articles and he reduced the compensation granted under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, from a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Challenging the order passed by both the Courts below, the petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts below committed error in granting relief without order of the social welfare officer. They did not obtain any report from the local police officer. Further, no independent witness was examined for the alleged domestic violence as alleged by the respondent. The allegation that the petitioner assaulted the respondent is not correct and the same was not proved and no medical certificate was produced. Further, the respondent has sufficient means and hence, the claim of the maintenance is not legally sustainable. The assets of the respondent has not been disclosed in the petition as required as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 in the said circumstances, both the Courts below committed error and granted relief without any proof of ingredients of the Domestic Violence Act and hence, he seeks to set aside the order passed by both the Courts below.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the proper domestic violence report was furnished and on the basis of the report, the proceeding was initiated and the compensation and other relief also granted. For which, he relied on the documents in the typed set of papers. The
The court upheld the grant of relief under the Domestic Violence Act, emphasizing the importance of evidence and compliance with legal provisions.
The entitlement of reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is based on the occurrence of domestic violence and the suffering of the aggrieved person, as established by....
The provisions of the Domestic Violence Act apply only to individuals in a domestic relationship, which was not established in this case.
To claim maintenance under the DV Act, the petitioner must establish both a domestic relationship and a shared household, along with proof of domestic violence.
Entitlement of divorced wife to claim maintenance and compensation under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005
The appellate court's modification of maintenance was set aside for failing to adhere to the Domestic Violence Act, confirming the trial court's decision.
The court affirmed that domestic violence encompasses various forms of abuse, and maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application under the DV Act, not the date of the order.
The Domestic Violence Act provides for multiple forms of relief for women, and courts have the discretion to grant appropriate relief based on the circumstances, even if some claims are dismissed.
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
