Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, J.
Giridhari Nath - Petitioner
Versus
Mamitarani Sutar - Opp. party
CRLREV NO. 608 of 2016
Decided On : 15-11-2016
In the present case, no protection order or interim protection order has been passed nor has any complaint been filed to punish the petitioner in terms of section 31 of the P.W.D.V. Act. There is nothing in the P.W.D.V. Act that an application under section 12• has to be filed within one year from the date of alleged cessation of domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent. The application under section 12 of the P.W.D.V. Act is of different in nature than the complaint under section 31 of the P.W.D.V. Act. While in an application under section 12 of the P.W.D.V. Act, the Magistrate is competent to pass different orders as mentioned under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the said Act and can also pass interim and ex parte orders whereas in a complaint under section 31 of the Act, a Magistrate can pass order for punishment as provided under the said section on the respondent. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the P.W.D.V. Act proceeding is not maintainable as it was presented more than a year after the parties lived separately, is not acceptable.
2. PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 - Sec. 12 - If two persons lived together in a shared household as defined u/s.2(s) of the Act at any point of time and during the subsistence of such relationship, the woman is subjected to any act of domestic violence' as defined u/s. 3 of the Act, she can maintain an application before the Magistrate u/s. 12 of the Act.
JUDGMENT :
S. K. Sahoo, J.
Being dissatisfied by the order dated 04.04.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in C.M.C. No. 54 of 2016 in rejecting the petition dated 19.03.2016 challenging maintainability of the proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter “P.W.D.V. Act”) instituted by the opposite party Mamitarani Sutar which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2016 vide order dated 23.07.2016, the petitioner Giridhari Nath has preferred this revision petition.
2. The opposite party filed an application under section 12 of the P.W.D.V. Act against the petitioner in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar which was registered as C.M.C. No. 54 of 2016 praying for a direction to the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-(rupees fifty lakhs) to her for the act of domestic violence and further to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/-(rupees twenty five thousand).
It is the case of the opposite party that she is the married wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized at Laxminarayan Temple, Bahanaga, Balasore on 02.12.2002 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the petitioner tortured the opposite party and demanded Rs.5,00,000/-(rupees five lakhs) to be brought from her father. Subsequently, the opposite party came to know that she is the third wife of the petitioner which shocked her. The opposite party tolerated all the immoral activities of the petitioner for the sake of their girl child and to avoid social stigma. The petitioner threatened the opposite party to obtain a decree of divorce as he was a seasoned lawyer. The opposite party also got herself enrolled as an Advocate but could not actively pursue her legal profession due to unruly attitude of the petitioner. The opposite party lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner but subsequently withdrew the F.I.R. in order to lead a life of dignity. The opposite party in order to prepare herself for judicial service took a house on rent in the KIIT area, Bhubaneswar in 2013 to attend coaching institutions and concentrate on study. The petitioner did not allow the opposite party to enter into the matrimonial home and to see her daughter. When the petitioner persuaded the opposite party to part with all her jewellery worth of about Rs.3,00,000/-(rupees three lakhs), the opposite party bluntly refused to oblige the same. The petitioner instituted a divorce proceeding against the opposite party alleging that she had illicit relationship with several persons including one Law Officer of the Oriental Bank of Commerce. Even after coming to Bhubaneswar, the opposite party was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the petitioner who was frequently visiting the rented house of the opposite party and on 16.07.2015 the petitioner came to the rented house of the opposite party and asked her to sign on some papers but when the opposite party did not agree, the petitioner assaulted her and threatened her with dire consequence. The opposite party lodged an F.I.R. before Mahila Police Station, Bhubaneswar on 15.08.2015 for which Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No. 231 of 2015 was instituted under sections 498-A, 323, 294, 417, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further stated that the petitioner is having 22 years of active practice at Bhadrak and other places and he earns around Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) per month.
3. The petitioner entered his appearance in the P.W.D.V. Act proceeding and filed a petition on dated 19.03.2016 to dismiss the application filed by the opposite party under section 12 of the P.W.D.V. Act as not maintainable. It is the case of the petitioner that after solemnization of marriage in the year 2002, the petitioner and the opposite party resided at Bhadrak and on 04.03.2012 the opposite party left the house of the petitioner after taking away all her jewellery and ot
SupremeToday
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
