Allegations of domestic violence must be proven for entitlement to reliefs under the DV Act, and the court may consider the respondent's financial resources in determining maintenance allowance.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. hereunder) against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2020 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 4) West Tripura, Agartala partly allowing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First class (Court No. 8) Agartala in case No. CR 54 of 2016 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the DV Act' in short).

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The wife presented an application under Section 12 of the DV Act in the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First class (court No. 8) at Agartala on 22.01.2016 seeking various reliefs under the DV Act wherein she referred to several incidents of domestic violence against her husband. It was stated by her that after solemnization of their marriage a son was born to them on 28.05.2001. Their relationship was normal for a period of 01 year only. Thereafter, her husband subjected her to harassment and torture for dowry and since she was unable to meet his demand, she was physically assaulted by her husband on various dates. Gradually he developed an extramarital affair. When the wife raised protest against his conduct he assaulted her. As a result of continuous assault on 16.12.2015 and 17.12.2015 she became ill and received treatment in IGM Hospital at Agartala. Unable to bear his torture, the wife parted with his company on 17.12.2015. In this factual background, she claimed the following reliefs in the trial court under the DV Act:

(i) A protection order under Section 18 of the DV Act restraining her husband from committing acts of domestic violence to her.

(ii) Residence order under Section 19 of the DV Act restraining the husband from dispossessing her from the shared household.

(iii) Monetary relief under Section 20 of the DV Act @ Rs. 15,000/- per month along with one time medical expenses of Rs. 1 lakh.

(iv) Compensation order under Section 22 of the DV Act against the husband for payment of compensation and damages of an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs for the injuries including mental torture and emotional distress caused to her by her husband by his acts of domestic violence.

3. Her application was registered in the trial court as case No. CR 54 of 2016 and notice was issued to the husband.

4. The husband filed written objection against the complaint of his wife. In his written objection he stated that his wife filed a false and frivolous complaint against him. According to him, she was very arrogant and torturous right from the beginning of their marriage. But he condoned her conduct and wanted to continue the relationship. He noticed no change in her behavior even after the birth of their son. After he was transferred to the court of District and Sessions Judge at Kailashahar, he had taken his wife and child to there from where the wife used to visit her parents at Agartala frequently without taking any care of his convenience. Having noticed growth of abnormalities in her conduct day by day, the husband with the consent of her parents had taken her to various psychiatrists. He had also taken her to Bangalore for treatment in the National Institute of Mental Health And Neuro Science (NIMHANS) in 2012 which brought no change in her. The husband then approached the State Commission for Women for reconciliation. He also approached the State Legal Services Authority for a settlement. His efforts yielded no result. Ultimately, his wife filed an FIR against him and his old parents on 18.12.2015. Since then, the husband has been living separately along with his son who is studying in school. Having denied the allegations of his wife, he claimed that his wife was solely responsible for their matrimonial discord and as such she was not entitled to any relief under the DV Act.

5. During the trial of the case,