Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
Neha Chawla - Appellant
Versus
Virender Chawla And Ors. - Respondents
CRR-1503-2019
Decided On : 04-10-2019
Domestic Violence Act - Maintenance - 2005 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, including Section 12(1), Section 20(1), Section 2(a), Section 2(q), Section 2(f), and Section 2(s). The court emphasized the definition of 'aggrieved person,' 'respondent,' 'domestic relationship,' and 'shared household' to determine the rights and obligations under the Act. The judgment also highlighted the absence of evidence to establish a 'shared household' and the lack of domestic violence committed by the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, alleging harassment and domestic violence by her brothers-in-law after the death of her husband. The lower court granted maintenance, rental allowance, and medical expenses to the petitioner, but the Court of Sessions Judge set aside the order. The petitioner challenged the decision, arguing that the complaint was not barred by limitation and that the marriage dissolution and death of her husband did not render the complaint not maintainable. The respondents opposed the petition, claiming that the petitioner's complaint was false and concocted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act was not barred by limitation, but the marriage dissolution and death of the husband rendered the complaint not maintainable. The court also noted the absence of evidence to establish a 'shared household' and the lack of domestic violence committed by the respondents. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims.
Issues: The issues included whether the complaint was barred by limitation, whether the marriage dissolution and death of the husband rendered the complaint not maintainable, and whether the petitioner had a domestic relationship with the respondents to claim relief under the Domestic Violence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint was not barred by limitation, but the marriage dissolution and death of the husband rendered the complaint not maintainable. The court emphasized the absence of evidence to establish a 'shared household' and the lack of domestic violence committed by the respondents. The court also clarified that the petitioner or her son could continue with other cases, if any, without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims.
Key Points:
- The Court held that no limitation is prescribed for instituting a complaint under Sections 17‑22 of the Domestic Violence Act, making such a complaint maintainable regardless of delay. (!)
- The Court held that a living divorce decree subsisting before the filing of a domestic‑violence complaint bars that complaint as maintainable, deeming it an abuse of process. (!)
- The Court found no evidence that the petitioner lived in a shared household with the respondents or that they committed domestic violence, leading to dismissal of the petition. (!) (!)
- The Court held that the ex‑parté divorce decree remained operative until set aside; the petitioner had the right to challenge it even after the husband’s death. (!) (!) (!)
- Consequently, the petition was dismissed and no maintenance or other relief was awarded to the respondents. (!)
- The Court clarified that the petitioner or her son may continue with any other pending cases unaffected by this judgment. (!)
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - The petitioner challenges judgment dated 11.4.2019, passed by Court of Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby an appeal filed by respondents against order dated 30.7.2018 passed by JMIC Ambala has been accepted and said order dated 30.7.2018, passed under provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter, in short being referred to as Domestic Violence Act) granting maintenance, rental allowance and medical expenses to petitioner, has been set aside.
2. A few facts, necessary to notice for disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Domestic Violence Act alleging therein that she is a resident of Jammu and that her marriage was solemnised with Surinder Chawla in the year 1995 who somehow expired on 24.3.2010. The petitioner alleged that her brothers-in-law namely the respondents Virender Chawla and Rajinder Chawla had, however, been harassing her and also been giving beatings to her on various occasions while stating that the petitioner had not brought dowry as per their expectations. It is alleged that when the petitioner was living in shared household she was not permitted to move alone out of home and the respondents used to threaten her that they would cause friction in her relationship with her husband. It is further alleged that earlier she had been awarded maintenance at the rate of ` 5000 per month by the Courts at Jammu & Kashmir which was later enhanced to ` 11,000 per month. However, after death of her husband the petitioner or her son had not been given a single penny towards maintenance out of the property of her husband and the entire business of her husband had been usurped by her brothers-in-law i.e. the respondents who had also misappropriated all the articles of her dowry. It is further alleged that when her husband was on death bed the respondents forged his signatures and got all the money released from banks and also operated the lockers and took out gold ornaments lying therein. The complainant alleged that she was not being allowed to enter into the shared household by respondents and was not given a single penny from the property or business of her husband.
3. The respondents, in their reply, opposed the petition. While the factum of marriage of the petitioner with Surinder Chawla i.e. the brother of the respondents was admitted but a stand has been taken that in fact Surinder Chawla was a divorcee and it was a simple marriage without any dowry. It is further stated therein that the marriage had been solemnized in a temple at Jammu in a very simple manner. The respondents asserted that the relations between the petitioner and her husband were strained right from the very beginning and she resided in her matrimonial home barely for 2-3 months after her marriage and thereafter left while taking away the valuables not only those belonging to her but also those of mother and elder brother of respondents. It has been stated in reply that the petitioner had never made any complaint either under section 406 or 498-A of IPC against her husband during his lifetime but after his death she started a tirade against the respondents in order to pressurise them to part with their properties. The respondents have further taken a categoric stand that the property i.e. house No. 109, the Mall, Ambala Cantt, was never a shared household and the petitioner had never resided in the said house. It is further the case of respondents that the petitioner had been residing at Jammu since last more than 15 years and was getting Migration Allowance from Jammu & Kashmir Government. It is thus alleged by the respondents that the present petition has been filed by levelling false and concocted allegations against the respondents.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective stands. The JMIC accepted the application and awarded monthly maintenance @ ` 10,000, rental allowance at the rate of ` 5000 per month and medical expen
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
