Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
POONAM BASSI – Appellant
Versus
SUDHAKAR BASSI – Respondent
CRM-M No. 6519 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided on : 04-12-2017
(B) Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, S.20 – Maintainability – Held; Conjoint reading of "aggrieved person", "Domestic Violence" and "domestic relation" under DV Act, 2005 would lead to concludes that if a woman in a domestic relationship is subjected to some kind of domestic violence, she would be entitled to claim relief against respondent under Section 20 of Act – Section 125 Cr.PC provides that a person being married woman/child in entitled to seek maintenance against father/husband in case he fails to maintain them – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125.
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 & S.498-A – Maintenance – Held; Respondent had filed appeal against order passed by JMIC under Section 12 of DV Act, and on dismissal of the appeal he did not challenge it further – Orders thus attained finality to the effect that there has been domestic violence – Therefore, accused acquittal under Section 498-A IPC will have no effect on claim of maintenance from husband under DV Act – Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, S.12. (Para 11)
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 – Maintenance – Enhancement of – Total salary payable to petitioner without the deductions is Rs.1,49,580- per month – Payment to petitioner for maintenance has been enhanced to Rs.45,000/- per month out of which Rs.15,000/- is for son – Petition allowed – Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, S.12.
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying for enhancement of maintenance awarded to the petitioner and her minor son by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala under section 12 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. In brief, the petitioner married respondent No. 1 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 30.9.1999 at Patiala. After their marriage, they resided at Rewari where respondent No. 1 was posted with Bharat Petroleum. A baby boy was born on 04.11.2000. On account of ill-treatment meted out to her at the hands of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed a complaint under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV Act' for short) and examined herself, her brother and other witnesses to prove her case. The trial Court by order dated 22.08.2012 held that the petitioner had suffered domestic violence at the hands of respondents and assessed amount of maintenance @ Rs. 12,000/- per month for her and the minor son. Aggrieved against the said judgment, both parties filed an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed by order dated 11.11.2013 and the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per month of which Rs. 15,000/- was granted to the petitioner and Rs. 5,000/- was granted to the minor son from the date of the order passed by the trial Court that is 22.08.2012. The appeal filed by the respondent-husband was dismissed. Aggrieved against the said enhancement, being inadequate, the instant petition has been preferred, while the respondent has not challenged the dismissal order.
3. Mr. A.K. Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the amount of maintenance as assessed at Rs. 20,000/- per month is inadequate, while pointing out that respondent No. 1 herein is earning a gross salary of about Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. It is argued that as per Exhibit CW5/B which is Form 16, the gross salary of the respondent-husband has been shown to be Rs. 11,50,036.49/- for the financial year 2008-2009, while also submitting that the respondent no. 1 had admitted to earning a gross salary of Rs. 1,30,000/- per month in proceedings which had been filed before the High Court seeking divorce. It is argued that respondent No. 1 has no liability other than the moral obligation of maintaining the petitioner and the minor child. It is argued that respondent No. 2, father-in-law of the petitioner, has an independent source of income in the form of his pension. It is submitted that the minor son is getting good education and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month towards his education as monthly expenditure is wholly inadequate.
4. Per contra, Mr. Avhinav Sood, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, argues that the petitioner herein is not entitled to any maintenance under the DV Act as the petitioner voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any cause and has filed the instant proceedings under the DV Act only to harass and extract funds. It is also argued the petitioner had got an FIR registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC in which proceedings he had been acquitted and, therefore, the charge of any domestic violence/cruelty would not arise.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the pleadings of the case.
6. Admittedly, a marriage was solemnised between petitioner and respondent No. 1, out of which wedlock, a son was born on 04.11.2000. On account of the differences that arose between the parties, they separated and the petitioner filed a petition under the DV Act seeking the relief of residence and maintenance. The JMIC allowed the petition to the extent of granting maintenance but disallowed the relief of residence, against which order both parties filed an appeal. The appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 was dismissed and maintenance amount was enhanced on the appeal fi
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
