Back
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Smt. Shikharani – Appellant
Vs
Hitendra Chudasma – Respondents
Cr.R. No. 2299/2019
Decided On : 27-02-2019
Domestic Violence - Marriage - Act 2005, Section 12, 2(f), 20, 26 - The court discussed the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, particularly focusing on the definition of aggrieved person, domestic relationship, shared household, and monetary reliefs. The court highlighted the interpretation of the term 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and its essential conditions as laid down by the Supreme Court. The judgment also emphasized the entitlement of the aggrieved person and her child to maintenance under the Act, and the absence of a limitation period for filing the application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging domestic violence by the respondent. The respondent denied the allegations and raised issues regarding the validity of the petitioner's marriage and the time-barred nature of the complaint. The trial court found the respondent guilty of domestic violence and awarded maintenance and compensation to the petitioner and her son. The appellate court set aside the trial court's order, stating that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent was not akin to marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to relief under the Act, 2005, as she fulfilled the conditions of domestic relationship and shared household. The court also held that the absence of a valid divorce from the petitioner's earlier husband did not preclude her from seeking relief under the Act. The court further ruled that the respondent's actions constituted domestic violence and ordered him to pay maintenance and arrears to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the petitioner's marriage, the time limitation for filing the application under the Act, and the entitlement of the petitioner and her son to maintenance under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Act, particularly the definition of aggrieved person, domestic relationship, and shared household. The court also relied on the Supreme Court's guidelines for determining a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and emphasized the entitlement of the aggrieved person and her child to maintenance under the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's order, directing the respondent to pay maintenance and arrears to the petitioner and her son.
ORDER :
1. Petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.04.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (MP), in Criminal Appeal No. 432/2017 & 450/2017arising out of the order dated 02.11.2017 in criminal Case No. 3200024/12, passed by JMFC Jabalpur, whereby the learned JMFC has considered the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act 2005’) and order to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/-per month to the petitioner and Rs. 2000/-per month to her son. Further, it is also directed that the respondent shall also pay Rs. 5000/-as compensation and Rs. 1000/-per month for arranging the residence of the petitioner. In appeal, the learned Appellate Court has set aside the order dated 02.11.2017.
2. According to case, petitioner/applicant has preferred an application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 stating that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent/non-applicant on 13.04.2011 according to Hindu rites and rituals and they have been blessed with one male child namely Ayush Kumar. The respondent and his family members maltreated the petitioner and they demanded one Maruti Car, one gold Chain and Rs.7,00,000/-as dowry. She further contended that the respondent has blamed on her character and committed sexual assault with her. The respondent has not fulfilled basic need of the petitioner. Her son-Ayush is studying and she has no source of income to take care of him properly. She further stated that the respondent restricted her to go out from the house, moreover, without taking her consent, the respondent had sold her stridhan and other valuable article. She further alleged that the respondent tried to throw her son from the terrace. She also prays to give interim compensation under the act.
3. On reply, the respondent stated that the petitioner has filed a false case against him and the facts narrated by her are concocted. The petitioner had suppressed the fact that she was already married with one Dhananjay Mandal and she is having two daughter to him. When this fact came to knowledge of the respondent, the petitioner started quarrel with him. He further stated that the petitioner demanded Rs. 4,00,000/-and threatened him to falsely implicate in the case. The family members of the respondent were not involved in the case in any manner even then the petitioner has also implicated them. He stated about his income saying that he is under suspension period whereas the petitioner is earning Rs. 20,000/-to 25,000/-from her beauty parlour work.
4. After evaluating the evidence available in the case, the learned JMFC found that the respondent committed domestic violence with the petitioner and her son. The JMFC has directed the respondent to pay the maintenance and compensation amount as aforesaid.
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by learned JMFC, both the parties have approached the Appellate Court by filing the appeals. By the impugned order, the learned ASJ has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and dismissed the another which was filed by the petitioner. The ASJ has set aside the order dated 02.11.2017 on the ground that the relation between the petitioner and respondent is not akin to marriage.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Court erred in reversing the order passed by the learned trial Court by giving the finding that there is no relation of marriage between the petitioner and respondent. The learned ASJ failed to consider that the parties have performed marriage on 13.04.2011 and they have been blessed with one child also. The order passed by the learned Appellate Court is based upon the assumption and presumption only. The Court has also overlooked the fact that the validity of marriage between the parties is still under adjudication before the High Court. In this proceeding of Domestic Violence Act, the Court
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
