Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, J.
Smt. Shailja - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. - 3630 of 2022
Decided On : 11-01-2023
Domestic Violence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 23 - 2(f), 2(s), 3 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the definitions of 'domestic relationship', 'shared household', and 'domestic violence' as per the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It emphasized the importance of these definitions in adjudicating the controversy and highlighted the key legal provisions and their interpretations that influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist filed an application under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, alleging domestic violence and seeking to reside in the shared household. The appellate court set aside the order allowing the application and directed the husband to pay rent for a rental house. The revisionist challenged this decision in the present revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revisionist had lived in the shared household with her husband and son, and the husband's actions constituted domestic violence. It held that the appellate court's decision to provide rental money to the revisionist was not sustainable.
Issues: Dispute over shared household, domestic violence, and rental payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the definitions of 'domestic relationship', 'shared household', and 'domestic violence' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and considered the living arrangements and actions of the parties to determine the rights of the revisionist.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the impugned order of the appellate court was set aside. The order passed by the lower court was affirmed, directing the husband not to interfere in the revisionist's residence in the shared household.
JUDGMENT :
1. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that learned counsel for the revisionist has filed some documents along with another stay application, but perusal of record shows that she has already filed an stay application alongwith memo of revision. So learned counsel for the revisionist wants to withdraw this additional stay application. Learned counsel for opposite no. 2 has no objection to it, therefore, his prayer for withdrawal of this additional stay application is allowed.
2. Accordingly, the additional application seeking stay is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. Perused the record.
4. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2022, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut, in Appeal No. 84 of 2021 (Sandeep Mittal Vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby the appeal was allowed and the order dated 24.9.2021, passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) (Fast Track Court), Offence against Women, Meerut was set aside and appellant no. 2 was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to her wife (present revisionist) for rental house in Case No. 6504 of 2015 (91556 of 2015) (Smt. Shailja Mittal Vs. Sandeep Mittal), allowed the application under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the direction to opposite party no. 1 (Sandeep Mittal), not to disturb her residence in common/shared house i.e. 28 Meera Enclave, Garh Road, Meerut.
5. The brief facts of the revision are that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals on 26.02.1995. Out of their wedlock a male child was born. It is alleged that in the course of time, there arose difference between the husband and wife. At this, the revisionist (wife) filed an application dated 16.03.2021 under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act. Before Civil Judge (J.D.) (Fast Track Court), Offence against Women, Meerut, to which opposite party no. 2 (husband) filed objections. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and evidence on record, passed by the Magistrate concerned vide its order dated 24.09.2021 allowed the application of revisionist to reside into the common/shared house, situated at 28 Meera Enclave, Garh Road, Meerut. The said order was get complied with. Aggrieved by this order, opposite party no. 2, Sandeep Mittal filed Appeal No. 84 of 2021 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, which was allowed by him vide impugned order dated 20.8.2022 and the order dated 20.8.2022 was set aside on the ground that there is dispute between the parties, they do not have cordial relation with each other, and appellant shall pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the revisionist to hire a rental house for her residence. The revisionist had also filed Suit No. 165 of 2016 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance which was allowed and the opposite party no. 2 was directed to pay Rs. 7,500/- per month as maintenance amount to the revisionist. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.8.2022, the revisionist filed the present revision.
6. For ready reference, the orders passed by both the trial Magistrate on 24.9.2021 and Appellate Court on 20.8.2022 are reproduced herein under:-
(2) Order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut on 20.8.2022
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist (Wife) submitted that she revisionist lived in combined/common house with Respondent no. 2 (husband) from the date of her marriage i.e. 26.02.1995 to 20.06.2016. In the course of time opposite party no. 2 engaged in extra marital affairs with his maid, namely, Geeta. On protest to this ugly act of husband started committing domestic violence and cruelty on revisionist (wif
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the definitions of 'domestic relationship', 'shared household', and 'domestic violence' under the Protection ....
A wife has the right to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, affirming joint family rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the definition of domestic relationship and shared household under the DV Act should be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the statu....
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.
A divorced individual lacks the status of an aggrieved person under the Domestic Violence Act, and thus is not entitled to claim residence rights post-divorce.
Domestic violence- Trial Court shall before passing a decree and dispossession on the wife ensuring in view of the subsisting rights of the daughter-in-law under the DV Act to provide with an additi....
A divorced woman cannot claim the right of residence in a shared household based on an earlier domestic relationship with the husband.
The court clarified the nature of interlocutory orders and their impact on the rights of the parties involved.
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
