Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
B. Karuppannan - Petitioner
Versus
A. Kavitha - Respondent
Crl.RC(MD). No.1197 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD). Nos.14971 and 14972 of 2022
Decided On : 12-03-2024
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - MAINTENANCE AND RESIDENTIAL ORDERS - Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act - The court discussed the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, emphasizing the importance of Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22, which provide for protection, residence, maintenance, and compensation for women facing domestic violence. The court interpreted these sections to affirm that even if some claims are dismissed, relief under other sections can still be granted. The court also highlighted the appellate court's authority to enhance maintenance amounts based on the cost of living, reinforcing the social justice objectives of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, husband of the first respondent, challenged the order of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, which modified the earlier order of the Judicial Magistrate regarding maintenance and residential relief under the Domestic Violence Act. The first respondent, after leaving the matrimonial home due to alleged cruelty, sought maintenance and protection orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts correctly applied the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, granting residential and maintenance relief despite dismissing some claims. The appellate court's enhancement of maintenance was justified based on the current cost of living.
Issues: 'Whether the lower courts were correct in granting relief under Sections 19 and 20 after dismissing claims under Sections 18 and 22.', 'Whether the appellate court could enhance the maintenance amount without an application from the wife.'
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Domestic Violence Act allows for different types of relief under its various sections, and the dismissal of some claims does not preclude the granting of others. The appellate court has the authority to enhance maintenance amounts based on the economic circumstances, aligning with the Act's purpose of providing social justice.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, upholding the decisions of the lower courts regarding maintenance and residential orders.
ORDER :
K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.
[PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for records relating to the order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli in Crl.A.No.92/2019 dated 20.10.2021 by modifying the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirapalli in M.C.No.81/2014 and set aside the same by allowing the Criminal Revision Petition.]
This Criminal Revision case has been filed against the order passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli in Crl.A.No.92 of 2019, dated 20.10.2021 by modifying the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli in M.C.No.81 of 2014 and to set aside the same.
2. The petitioner who is the husband of the first respondent, filed this revision case, challenging the order passed in Domestic Violence Case, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, which was confirmed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli, with some modification.
3. The first respondent married the petitioner on 30.10.1998. Out of their wedlock, on 29.10.1999, the second respondent was born. Thereafter some dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent along with her son left the matrimonial home on 30.11.2013. Thereafter, the first and the second respondents filed a petition for maintenance in M.C.No.81 of 2014, on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate), Tiruchirappalli under the Domestic Violence Act. In the said case, the respondents claimed reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act.
4. In the petition it is alleged that, she undergone untold cruelty on the hands of the petitioner and his family members. Therefore, she made a complaint before the jurisdictional police station. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.133 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Trichy for divorce. The same was dismissed for default and hence, he filed a petition to restore the same.
5. The respondents made a specific averment in the claim petition that the petitioner has number of properties and he is working as a teacher in the school. In view of the domestic violence attributed against the first respondent, she seeks protection order, residential order and monetary relief and compensation under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act.
6. But the petitioner filed a counter denying the allegations made against him. He said that the allegation made in the petitions are not proved. Further, he stated that he is not liable to pay any maintenance, on the ground that he did not commit any domestic violence. The petitioner also disputed his salary. The petitioner specifically stated that he is not liable to pay any maintenance, compensation or residential order.
7. To prove her case, the wife produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and examined P.W. 1 and P.W.2. The husband examined 3 witnesses as R.W.1 to R.W.3 on his side and produced Ex.R1 to Ex.R15.
8. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence dismissed the relief under Section 19 and 22 of the Act and granted an order under section 19 of the Act to pay the rental amount of Rs.3,000. The learned learned Magistrate also granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the appeal before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli in C.A.No.92 of 2019. After hearing the appeal, the learned appellate Judge confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Judge in granting rental expenses under Section 19 and 20 of the Act and dismissed the maintenance award granted in respect of the second respondent, on the ground that he attained majority. The learned appellate Judge, considering the present day cost of living, enhanced the maintenance amount
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in modifying maintenance orders and the consideration of the financial status and obligations of the parties.
Maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act is supplementary to that under Section 125 of the CrPC, and previous awards must be disclosed and considered in subsequent claims.
The Court emphasized the importance of awarding maintenance from the date of application in cases of domestic violence, as per the legal dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The court affirmed the authority to enhance maintenance under domestic violence protection laws, considering the prevailing cost of living.
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
