Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Subhash Kakade, J.
Pancham Singh and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ranjana Singh Baghel – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1292 of 2013
Decided On : 10-03-2015
Domestic Violence - Maintenance - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12, 18, 20, 21, 22 - 2(a), 2(f) - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The aggrieved person filed an application for maintenance under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondents, alleging harassment and domestic violence after her husband's death. The lower courts awarded maintenance and compensation to the aggrieved person, which was challenged by the respondents in the revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the aggrieved person was subjected to domestic violence and was entitled to maintenance and compensation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Issues: The main issue was whether the aggrieved person was entitled to maintenance and compensation under the Act, and whether the lower courts erred in their decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definitions of 'aggrieved person' and 'domestic relationship' under the Act to establish the entitlement of the aggrieved person to maintenance and compensation. It also considered the evidence of domestic violence and emotional distress suffered by the aggrieved person.
Final Decision: The court upheld the lower courts' decision, ruling that the maintenance and compensation awarded to the aggrieved person were legal and proper, and dismissed the revision petition.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, concerning an order related to maintenance and compensation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (!) .
The aggrieved person, Ranjana Singh, filed an application alleging domestic violence, harassment, and emotional distress after her husband's death. She sought maintenance and compensation, which were granted by the lower courts (!) (!) .
The respondents denied the allegations, claiming that the applicant's claims were false and that she had fulfilled her requirements during her stay with them, including transferring land in her name and depositing insurance proceeds in her bank account (!) (!) .
The courts examined the definitions of 'aggrieved person' and 'domestic relationship' under the Act. It was established that Ranjana Singh qualifies as an aggrieved person due to her relationship and experiences of domestic violence and emotional distress (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Evidence from witnesses and documents supported the findings that the respondents had subjected her to acts of domestic violence, emotional distress, and harassment, including denying her access to her son and misappropriating her husband's insurance and stridhan (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that the monetary relief awarded should be fair, reasonable, and consistent with her standard of living. The order included monthly maintenance for her and her son, as well as a lump sum compensation and costs (!) (!) .
The appellate court upheld the lower courts' decisions, affirming that the awards were proper, justified, and legally sound. The revision petition filed by the respondents was dismissed as without merit (!) .
Overall, the judgment confirms that under the relevant provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, a woman in a domestic relationship who is subjected to domestic violence is entitled to maintenance, compensation, and protection from harassment [judgement_subject].
Would you like a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case?
Subhash Kakade, J.
This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicants, here-in-after referred as "the respondents", being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.06.2013, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 74/2013, by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur (M.P.), dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the respondents under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, here-in-after referred as "the Do. Vio. Act" filed against the order dated 30.01.2013 passed in M.J.C. No. 3/2011 by the learned J.M.F.C. Laundi, District Chhatarpur, allowing the application directed the respondents to pay the amount of Rs. 2000/- per month to the respondent No. 1, here-in-after referred as "the aggrieved person", and Rs. 1000/- per month to her son Shivam @ Om Shiva towards maintenance and also compensation of Rs. 5000/-in lump sum and cost of Rs. 500/-.
2. The aggrieved person had filed an application under the provisions of sections 12, 18, 20, 21 and 22 of the Do. Vio. Act against the respondents on the grounds that 8-10 years ago her marriage was solemnized with Shivram Singh and due to illness he died on 26.03.2009. After the death of her husband, the respondent No. 1 father and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 brothers of her husband used to harass her mentally and committing marpeet with her and her children. The respondents have received the insurance amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh of her husband and have kept stridhan also. Due to this harassment she is living with her parents at her paternal house, though they are not able to maintain her. Therefore she approached for maintenance before the learned J.M.F.C. Laundi.
3. The respondents entered their appearance by filing replies and denied the averments of the aggrieved person and stated that she has filed the said application for maintenance on false and concocted grounds. When aggrieved person was living with the respondents they have fulfilled all her requirements. The share of land of her husband Shivram Singh has also been transferred on her name and while going to parent's house she has taken all her stridhan. The amount of insurance police is deposited in her Bank Account and there is no domestic violence of any kind committed with the aggrieved person and her children.
4. Learned J.M.F.C. Court vide above mentioned order allowed the application filed by the aggrieved person. Appeal filed against this order also rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, hence the respondents before this Court by filing this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that learned Courts below grossly erred while exercising jurisdiction vested in them and passed impugned orders which are perverse and contrary both of the facts and the law. Oral as well documentary evidence is not properly appreciated and without availability of reliable evidence, passed the orders. Land which was recorded in the name of her deceased husband legally transferred on her name. The respondents having their own family and liabilities towards their families and weakness of the case of the respondents cannot be a ground for the success of the aggrieved person. The aggrieved person has not filed any affidavit or documentary evidence and has not filed any evidence regarding the income of the respondents, hence impugned order is erroneous.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the records of the Courts below also gone through the impugned judgments of Courts below, statements of Smt. Ranjana Singh (PW/1) and other witnesses Drigpal Singh (PW/2), Alag Singh (PW/3) her father and brother respectively. Also perused statements of respondent No. 1 Pancham Singh (DW/1), respondent No. 2 Shiv Mohan Singh (DW/2) and other respondents witnesses Babu Singh (DW/3) and Narendra Singh (DW/4) and after consideration of the documents (Exh. D-1 to D-17) exhibited by the respondents, the Court is of the view that no erro
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.
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
