Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alok Jain, J.
Harvinder Kaur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M-8352-2023
Decided On : 03-03-2023
DV Act - Challenge to order for maintenance and residence in shared household - Sections 2(a), (f), (q) & (s), 19, 20 of the D.V. Act discussed - Court held that the complaint was maintainable against the petitioner and rejected the contention that the property was owned by the petitioner alone - Court emphasized the objective of the D.V. Act to protect women from domestic violence and the right to reside in the shared household - Court referred to the judgment in Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and struck down the words 'adult male' in Section 2(q) - Court highlighted the entitlement of the victim to monetary relief against her husband and female relatives
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to an order for maintenance and residence in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act). The petitioner, a mother, and her son were directed to pay interim maintenance and rental amount for suitable accommodation to the respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner's son and mother of a special child suffering from Autism. The petitioner and her son failed to comply with the orders, leading to the filing of the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was maintainable against the petitioner and rejected the contention that the property was owned by the petitioner alone. The court emphasized the objective of the D.V. Act to protect women from domestic violence and the right to reside in the shared household. The court referred to the judgment in Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and struck down the words 'adult male' in Section 2(q). The court also highlighted the entitlement of the victim to monetary relief against her husband and female relatives.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the complaint against the petitioner under the D.V. Act and the ownership of the shared household.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint was maintainable against the petitioner and rejected the contention that the property was owned by the petitioner alone. The court emphasized the objective of the D.V. Act to protect women from domestic violence and the right to reside in the shared household. The court referred to the judgment in Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and struck down the words 'adult male' in Section 2(q). The court also highlighted the entitlement of the victim to monetary relief against her husband and female relatives.
Final Decision: The present petition was dismissed as devoid of any merits, and the court recorded that the act and conduct of the petitioner was not bona fide and rather mala fide to the extent that every effort had been made to defeat the compliance of the order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
Alok Jain, J. (Oral) - The present petition raises challenge to the order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, in EXE-21-2021, whereby the learned Court below after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner and her son, was constrained and passed the following order:
'EXE-21-2021 Anju Bindra & Ors vs. Aman Deep & Ors.
Present: Sh. Rao Bhagat Singh, counsel for DH.
Sh. Rakesh Kumar Saini, counsel JDs no. 1 to 3.
Today the case was fixed for making the payments of arrears of maintenance, rupees more than 10 Lakhs are pending, the son of petitioner is suffering from Autism and approximately expenses of Rs. 26,000/- are being incurred on his treatment every month and despite making a specific statement by respondent no. 1, husband in the court on 17th October 2022, he failed to pay even a single penny. The respondent had also even undertook to take petitioner with him in the shared household. But, today the petitioner has moved an application for permitting her to reside in the shared household which is opposed by the counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. She submitted that this house is not shared household and she is using filthy language and the respondent no. 1 has no means to pay maintenance and expenses of the child.
Thus, after having heard the arguments advanced by counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondents and in view of the fact that respondent no. 1 had already suffered a statement on 17.10.2022 in the Court for taking the petitioner with him for keeping her happily and now the petitioner is stating that he is not permitting her in the matrimonial/shared household which is corroborated by objection made by counsel for petitioner and the petitioner present in the Court submitted the respondent no. 1 is residing in live in relationship with this very counsel appearing on his behalf today in the Court. Therefore, in view of the fact that a huge amount of maintenance of rupees more than 10 Lakhs is pending and the respondent no. 1 is intentionally has failed to appear in the Court and failed to make even a single penny despite fact that only child of petitioner and respondent no. 1 is suffering from a serious aliment known as Autism which incurs Rs. 26,000/-per month. Therefore, warrant of arrest be issued against respondent no. 1. SHO concerned shall ensure the execution of warrant against this respondent and in view of the statement suffered by respondent no. 1 in the court for taking the petitioner whim him, the petitioner is held entitled to reside in the house. However, to rule out the possibility of the allegations and counter allegations of assault, the respondent no. 1 is directed to install CCTV camera in the shared household. In case, he does not install the CCTV camera, the petitioner is at liberty to install the same and in case still the respondent no. 1 resists the petitioner to reside in the matrimonial house, SHO concerned is directed to record an FIR against FIR respondent no. 1 on receipt of proper evidence regarding resistance either in the form of videography or affidavit otherwise to ensure the compliance of order of this Court. Now to come upon 22.02.2023 for appearance and for payment of maintenance and for compliance report regarding residence order."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the said order is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law on the grounds that the petitioner could not have been made a party in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'D.V.Act') as the same is in violation of provisions of Section 2(q). Learned counsel submits that the house belongs to the petitioner, who is the mother of the respondent no. 4 and is not liable to discharge the liability of her son and lastly submits that the said house was purchased by the petitioner on her own and from her own resources.
4. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the
Award of maintenance – It is not mandatory for aggrieved person to have actually lived or resided with those persons against whom allegations have been levelled at the time of seeking relief.
The need for specific and substantial allegations of domestic violence to support proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The duty of the Maintenance Tribunal to consider the rights of the daughter-in-law under the Act, 2005 and the need for a composite order considering the competing claims of the parties under both ac....
The right to reside in a shared household is not restricted to actual residence and can be enforced by any woman in a domestic relationship, irrespective of whether she has any right, title, or benef....
Right of a woman to secure residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by simple expedient of securing order of eviction by adopting summary procedure under Senior Citizens Ac....
(1) Ratio of decision is apposite to the facts and circumstances.(2) Cannot be said that no protection relief has been sought for against the present petitioner.
Section 3 of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to over-ride and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman s right to a shared household under Sections 17 of DV Act 200....
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
