SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 386

SURENDRA SINGH I
Purushottam Das – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ray Sahab Yadav.
For the Respondent: Umesh Chandra Prajapati.

Judgement Key Points

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act No. 43 of 2005). This provision empowers the Magistrate to grant interim and ex-parte monetary relief, as deemed just and proper, to an aggrieved person (including a woman who alleges domestic violence, even if not currently in a domestic relationship) and her child, to cover expenses and losses from domestic violence. Such relief under Sections 20 and 23 is distinct from and can be in addition to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and is a social welfare measure not barred by prior separation or other proceedings. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)


JUDGMENT :

SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

1. Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Umesh Chandra Prajapati, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The instant criminal revision has been instituted against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi, in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2022 (Smt. Bharti Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others) filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act No. 43 of 2005’)

3. By the impugned order, the appellate court has set aside the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC (CAW)/J.M. Jhansi in Complaint Case No. 1023 of 2016 and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance allowance Rs. 3000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2000/- to her son, Harshit, till he attains the age of majority, from the date of order of the (Junior Division)/FTC (CAW)/J.M. Jhansi on 10th of each calender month.

4. By the aforesaid order, the trial court has rejected the application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the oppo

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
          whatsapp-icon Back to top