Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Hari Pal Verma, J.
Fakru - Appellant
Versus
Minsira & Ors. - Respondents
CRR No. 4362 of 2015
Decided On : 14-01-2020
Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate, for the Appellant; Amit Jain, Advocate, for the Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is the continued applicability of the DV Act to cases of domestic violence, even if the violence occurred before the Act came into force, emphasizing the protection of women's rights and the liability of the respondent.
Headnote:
DV Act - Domestic Violence - 2005 - Section 3, 18, 19 - The court discussed the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, including sections 3, 18, and 19. The court highlighted the interpretation of these sections in the context of domestic violence, maintenance, compensation, and accommodation orders. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the law as provided in the V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot case and Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-husband challenged the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, granting relief to the respondents, his wife and minor son. The petitioner argued that the DV Act was not applicable as the respondents were living separately and the wife had been divorced. He also cited previous legal proceedings to support his claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the judgments passed by the lower courts, stating that the petitioner was still amenable to the jurisdiction of the DV Act, even if the domestic violence occurred before the Act came into force. The court emphasized the rights of women under the Constitution and the provisions of the DV Act, and dismissed the revision petition for lack of merit.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of the DV Act to a case where the wife and minor son were living separately from the petitioner, and the petitioner's claim that the allegations were unwarranted due to the divorce and living arrangements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the DV Act and relevant legal precedents, emphasizing the protection of women's rights and the continued liability of the respondent even after divorce.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the revision petition for lack of merit.
JUDGMENT
Hari Pal Verma, J. - The petitioner-husband has filed present criminal revision impugning the judgment dated 03.11.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur Jhirka, whereby, learned Magistrate while placing reliance upon V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 834 (SC) , disposed of the petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the DV Act) filed by the respondents, namely, Smt. Minsira and Faisal, who are the wife and minor son of the petitioner, and granted the relief to the respondents, as mentioned in paragraph No. 20 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:
'20. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner is entitled to the following relief:
(a) The respondent shall not commit any act of domestic violence as defined in section 3 of the Act against the petitioners-Minsira and Faisal. He shall restrain himself from hurling abuses and also from beating petitioner till the domestic relationship subsists between him and Minsira. This apart, he must restrain himself from harassing petitioner with regard to any dowry demand. The Protection Order is accordingly passed as per section 18 of the Act.
(b) A Maintenance and Compensation Order is hereby passed in favour of the petitioner that the respondent Fakru shall pay Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to Smt. Minsira and Faisal respectively as maintenance allowance from date of filing as no interim maintenance was ordered to the petitioners during pendency of this petition. This apart, as Smt. Minsira has been subjected to the physical, emotional and economical abuse and violence so the respondent Fakru pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- to petitioner-Minsira.
(c) Accommodation/Residence Order under section 19 of the Act is hereby passed provide accommodation to the applicant Minsira by the respondent Fakru in his house and is restraining the respondent from dispossessing or throwing out petitioner from her matrimonial house, if that is not possible, then to provide a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the petitioner towards rental charges for acquiring an accommodation of her choice.'
2. Challenge has also been laid to the judgment dated 08.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mewat, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-husband against the aforesaid judgment dated 03.11.2014 passed by learned Magistrate, was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents have filed a petition under the DV Act and the learned Magistrate has wrongly allowed the said petition vide impugned judgment dated 03.11.2014. Similarly, the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been wrongly dismissed by the appellate Court. Since the respondents are living separately from the petitioner from March 2001 and the respondent No. 1-wife has already been divorced by the petitioner on 26.09.2001 and she is residing separately in her parental house, the petition under the DV Act was not maintainable as the said petition was filed in the year 2010, whereas the DV Act had come into operation in the year 2006.
4. He has further contended that even otherwise, the respondent-wife had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed vide judgment dated 07.03.2007 passed by learned Magistrate and she is getting maintenance under that Act. The respondent had also lodged an FIR no. 194 dated 08.07.2002 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC at Police Station Punhana, wherein the petitioner had been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 08.12.2008, though the respondent-complainant had filed an appeal, wherein the petitioner was convicted, but against the said judgment of conviction, the petitioner has preferred a criminal revision, which is pending before this Court.
5. He has further contended that the petitioner has never harassed or demanded anything from the respondent-wife, and therefore, the allegatio
