IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
RAJENDRA MAHAJAN, J.
Manoj Pillai S/o Shri K.V.S. Pillai - Applicants
Versus
Smt. Prasita Manoj Pillai D/o Shri N.G. Nair, W/o Shri Manoj Pillai - Respondent
Cr.R No. 967 of 2015
Decided On : 17-03-2017
Domestic Violence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 468 of Cr.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The non-applicant-wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking reliefs under various sections of the Act, alleging domestic violence by the applicants. The applicants challenged the maintainability of the proceeding under various grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the domestic relationship between the parties was established, and the provisions of the Act were applicable despite the time of separation. It also ruled that the provisions of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. were not applicable in the case. The court affirmed the jurisdiction of the JMFC court at Bhopal and allowed the application against the female respondent as well. It further held that the Act's provisions were applicable to the applicant No.1 despite residing in Dubai. The court also addressed the executability of orders in Dubai and dismissed the revision, directing the applicants to pay expenses to the non-applicant.
Issues: Maintainability of the proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, applicability of Act's provisions, jurisdiction of the court, and executability of orders in Dubai.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established the applicability of the Act's provisions despite the time of separation, affirmed the jurisdiction of the JMFC court at Bhopal, and addressed the executability of orders in Dubai.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the applicants were directed to pay expenses to the non-applicant.
RAJENDRA MAHAJAN, J.
1. The applicants have filed this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 08.04.2015 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No.695/2014, thereby affirming the order dated 03.07.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhopal in MJC No.1187/2014 after holding that the application filed by the non-applicant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "the Act") is maintainable.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are given below -:
2.1 On 10.12.2013, the non-applicant-wife has filed in the court of JMFC Bhopal an application under Section 12 of the Act (for short "the application") with her own affidavit seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act stating that on 07.11.1999, she got married to applicant No.1 Manoj Pillai as per Hindu rites and customs at Bhopal. Applicant No.2 Smt. Kowalli Pillai is the mother of applicant No.1, and therefore, she is her mother-in-law by marital relation. At the time of her marriage, he was working in the Bridgestone Company at Indore. In the year 2000, he left the company and joined the Apollo company at Baroda. He worked with the company between the years 2000 and 2006. Thereafter, he got a job in Dubai (UAE). She lived in the company of applicant No.1 in Indore, Baroda and Dubai. She has alleged that in her marriage her father gave her nearly 600 gms of gold ornaments presently valued at Rs.18,00,000/- (eighteen lakhs) in addition to other valuable gifts. He took the ornaments in his custody at the beginning of her marital life. He would not allow her to meet her parents and misbehave with them. He always demanded money from her father as expenditure incurred by his mother at the time of his marriage with her. Her father gave him one lakh rupees for repayment of his outstanding dues. He would drink alcohol heavily. In the drunken state, upon the provocation and instigation of applicant No.2, he would brutally beat her. He forced her to have perverted sex with him. However, she suffered in silence all kinds of violence and atrocities being meted out to her at the hands of the applicants as an obedient Indian house-wife. When she and applicant No.1 were residing in Baroda, she gave birth to a son who is christened Aryan. He dropped her and new born Aryan with her parents in Bhopal, and he moved to Dubai to do the job there. Some time later, she with Aryan joined him in Dubai, where he often committed marpeet (beatings) with her in the drunken state. He never loved and cared her and Aryan. He only gave her monthly expenses. She observed that he lavishly spent money on friends. She also came to know that he had illicit relations with some women whose names have been mentioned in para 8 of the application. Whenever she opposed his extra-marital relations, he tortured her mentally and physically. He sold all her gold ornaments, which is her Stridhan, despite her strong protest. He forcibly sent her and Aryan to Bhopal from Dubai. Ever since, she along with Aryan has been living perforce with her parents in Bhopal.
2.2 The non-applicant has also averred that applicant No.1 has his own business of interior decoration under the name and style of the Immersion Interior Designs in Dubai. His monthly profit from the said business is around Rs.4,75,000/- (four laks and seventy five thousand) per month in terms of the Indian currency. She is a house-wife. She does not have any independent source of income and her father incurs presently their all living expenses. She does not have her own accommodation, therefore, she along with Aryan has to reside under compulsion with her parents. As such, she and Aryan are living in misery in Bhopal. She, therefore, prays to allow the application and direct the applicants to provide her the reliefs as specified in para
Hima Chugh v. Pritam Ashok Sadaphule
Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora
Krishna Bhatacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhary
Smt. Kanchan v. Vikramjeet Setiya
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.