Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.
Ram Kumar Mishra – Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 4777 Of 2023
Decided On : 02-11-2023
D.V. Act - Maintenance - Section 23 of D.V. Act - [Mamta Devi] - [Domestic Violence] - [Section 23 of D.V. Act] - The court discussed the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and the definition of shared household, and concluded that the aggrieved person had the right to seek relief under the D.V. Act at any stage, even if living separately from the respondent. The court found no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the lower courts and dismissed the criminal revision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between the revisionist and the opposite party no.2, who had filed a case under Section 23 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act) seeking maintenance allowance. The revisionist contested the case, arguing that the opposite party no.2 had already received maintenance amount and was residing separately after a compromise in 2009. The courts below had passed orders in favor of the opposite party no.2, directing the revisionist to pay maintenance allowance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite party no.2 had the right to seek relief under the D.V. Act, even if living separately from the revisionist. It concluded that no illegality or infirmity was found in the orders passed by the lower courts and dismissed the criminal revision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the opposite party no.2 was entitled to seek maintenance allowance under the D.V. Act, despite living separately from the revisionist after a compromise in 2009.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the D.V. Act, particularly the definition of shared household, and the right of the aggrieved person to seek relief under the Act at any stage, irrespective of living separately from the respondent.
Final Decision: The court found no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the lower courts and dismissed the criminal revision.
JUDGMENT :
(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)
1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to quash the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C./W.P./Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in Complaint Case No. 2256 of 2017 (Smt. Mamta Devi Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra & Others) and the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Pilibhit dated 27th July, 2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2022 (Ram Kumar Mishra Vs. Smt. Mamta & Another), whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2022 has been dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. M. Ashif, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Case of the Revisionist
3. Opposite Party No. 2 was married with the revisionist in year 2001 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals without any fulfilment of dowry. After sometime of the marriage due to misguidance of parents of Opposite Party No. 2, the relationship between the husband and wife became strained and incompatible and opposite party no.2 refused to joins the company of the revisionist and started matrimonial litigation. The Opposite Party No. 2 filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit for maintenance which was registered as Maintenance Suit no.650 of 2009 (Smt. Mamta Devi Versus. Ram Kumar Mishra). Thereafter the court below has recorded the statement of P.W.1 Mamta Devi in which she has stated that she has received total maintenance amount in one time as Rs.1,50,000/- and she did not want to proceed this case against the revisionist any further. After that the statement of D.W.1 Ram Kumar has been recorded in which he has stated that he has paid Rs.1,50,000/- to his wife and now he had no concern with her in any manner. The Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit after consideration of the aforesaid fact had rejected the application of the Opposite Party No. 2 vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.7.2009. Thereafter in the aforesaid case compromise has been arrived at between the both the parties on 28.7.2009 in the presence of some respected person of the society in which the opposite party no.2 has stated that she has received all the maintenance amount from the revisionist and no dues upon the revisionist was left.
4. Thereafter the opposite party no.2 also filed a case under Section 23 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (for short “D.V.Act) in the year 2017 which was registered as Complaint Case No.3356 of 2017 (Smt. Mamta Devi Versus Ramkumar Mishra and others). The Civil Judge (Junior. Division)/F.T.C./W.P/ Judicial District-Pilibhit without considering the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the complaint case under Section 23 of D.V. Act with the direction upon the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance allowance on every 10 day of the the calender month vide order dated 8.4.2022. Being aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/F.T.C./W.P/ Judicial Magistrate, District-Pilibhit, revisionist filed Criminal Appeal before the court of Additional District Judge-III Pilibhit which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2022 (Ram Kumar Mishra Vs. Smt. Mamta and others). The Additional District Judge- III Pilibhit without considering the proper facts and circumstances of the case rejected the appeal of the revisionist and confirmed the order dated 8.4.2022 passed by Civil Judge Jr. Div.)/F.T.C./W.P/ Judicial Magistrate, District-Pilibhit vide order dated 27.7.2023. Both the orders passed by the courts below dated 8.4.2022 and 27.7.2023 are against the evidence on record. Both the courts below did not apply the judicial mind and disbelieved the objection of the revisionist and also believed the version of Opposite Party No. 2.
5. Submissions of the learned counsel for th
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the aggrieved person has the right to seek relief under the Domestic Violence Act at any stage, even if living separately from the respondent.
The findings of the Family Court in a maintenance order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. do not have a binding effect on the Courts dealing with the DV Act, and the order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. can....
A husband must ensure his wife’s financial support and maintain her standard of living unless he proves his inability to earn, as emphasized under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Domestic Violence Act.
A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., regardless of her marital status, emphasizing the husband's obligation to provide for his wife and children.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 23 of the Act No. 43 of 2005, which empowers the Magistrate to grant interim monetary relief to aggri....
Maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act is supplementary to that under Section 125 of the CrPC, and previous awards must be disclosed and considered in subsequent claims.
A wife must demonstrate sufficient reason to refuse cohabitation with her husband to be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Domestic violence legislation mandates adequate monetary relief for the aggrieved spouse, with courts retaining jurisdiction to modify relief only under exceptional circumstances, substantiated by ev....
Point of Law : Right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of....
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
