Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
K.M.A. Zabira - Petitioner
Versus
A.S.M. Kader Hussain – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.1088 of 2021 and Crl. M.P. No. 14007
Decided On : 26-03-2025
(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12, 18, 19, and 20 - Domestic violence claim - The petitioner sought relief under the Domestic Violence Act, alleging physical and mental abuse by the respondent. The trial court found insufficient evidence to substantiate claims of domestic violence, awarding only nominal compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- - The appellate court upheld this decision, stating the petition lacked merit due to the absence of a domestic relationship at the time of filing. (Paras 6, 10, 12)
(B) Domestic Relationship - The court emphasized that the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act apply only to those in a domestic relationship, which was not established in this case. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged continuous abuse and financial exploitation by the respondent, who was unemployed and led a wayward life, despite the petitioner’s efforts to support the family. The petitioner filed a domestic violence complaint after enduring years of mistreatment.
Findings of Court:
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate concluded that the petitioner failed to prove her claims of domestic violence and awarded minimal compensation. The appellate court affirmed this finding, emphasizing the lack of evidence and the absence of a domestic relationship.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner was an aggrieved person under the Domestic Violence Act and whether the courts below erred in their findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner did not establish a domestic relationship or sufficient evidence of domestic violence, thus affirming the lower courts' decisions.
Result: Criminal Revision Case dismissed.
ORDER :
(SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.)
This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the judgment dated 27.10.2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl. A. No. 33 of 2021, confirming the order dated 11.02.2020 passed in D.V.C. No. 211 of 2016 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahia Court, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The brief facts which are relevant for considering this Revision are as follows:-
2.1. The marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was arranged by the elders of both the families and it was solemnised on 08.12.1991 at Melapallivasal, Elayangudi. At the time of marriage, the parents of the Petitioner paid Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and 40 sovereign of gold jewellery to the the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent did not go to any job. He spent his time in watching Television and led a wayward life. In the course of the matrimonial life, the Petitioner delivered a child on 05.10.1994. The Respondent/husband thereafter was employed as an Electrician. The father of the Petitioner, in order to help the Respondent, borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- and set up a business in paper & stationery business to the Respondent. However, due to the conduct of the Respondent, the business suffered loss and it was closed. Once again, the father of the Petitioner borrowed money and helped the Respondent to proceed with his business and this time also, it ended in loss due to the attitude of the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent demanded money frequently from his father-in-law and exploited the Petitioner, received gold jewellery to meet the expenses of the family. After the second child was born, frequent quarrels erupted, during which, the Respondent ill-treated and abused the Petitioner physically and mentally. Meanwhile, the Petitioner's father died on 14.02.2015. The Petitioner in order to support her children took up many jobs, earned her livelihood and also provided for the education of the daughters. The Petitioner went as a Yoga Teacher and earned her livelihood. The first daughter joined B.E. in 2012 and completed the course. As the Respondent indulged in physically assaulting and harassing the Petitioner, she preferred a Complaint under the Provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 .
2.2. Upon receiving the complaint, the Social Welfare Officer conducted enquiry and gave a report to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Based on the report, Domestic Violence Application was filed by the Petitioner and it was taken on file as D.V.C. No. 211 of 2016.
2.3. On service of summons, the Respondent entered appearance and filed counter. In the enquiry, the wife had given evidence. She had filed affidavit as examination-in-chief of the Petitioner. She was cross-examined on behalf of the Respondent. After enquiry, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, as per order in D.V.C. No. 211 of 2016, dated 11.02.2020, rejected the claim of the Petitioner under several heads. Instead directed the Respondent to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the Petitioner.
2.4. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.02.2020, the Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2021 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. After hearing the argument of both parties and on assessment of evidence, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, dismissed the Appeal. Therefore, the present Criminal Revision Case had been filed before this Court by the Petitioner.
3. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Revision Petitioner is the Wife. She had filed the Domestic Violence Case against the husband and her in-laws. The case against her in-laws, who are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 and 3, was quashed by this Court in the order dated 09.08.2018 passed in Crl.O.P No. 8866 of 2017.
4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the marriage between the Revision Petit
The provisions of the Domestic Violence Act apply only to individuals in a domestic relationship, which was not established in this case.
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 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 court upheld the reduction of compensation and maintenance amounts based on the husband's financial constraints and the welfare of the children, deeming the wife's claims as an abuse of process.
The court emphasized that maintenance amounts must match the living standards and financial capabilities of both parties, rejecting the husband's claim of poverty due to his affluent background.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for courts to conduct a detailed enquiry into the merits of a case, especially in matters concerning domestic violence and resident....
Emotional violence and dowry demands constitute domestic violence, affirming the petitioner as an aggrieved person under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
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
