Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, J.
Tayenjam Robinkumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Chingtham Ningol Tayenjam Ongbi Sharmila Devi - Resopndent
C.R.P.(CRP.ART.227) No. 11 of 2012
Decided On : 09-04-2015
Domestic Violence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12, Section 20(6), Section 28 - The court discussed the execution of orders passed under Section 12 of the Act for payment of maintenance and compensation, and the recourse available to the Magistrate for execution of such orders. The court held that the order passed under Section 12 of the Act can be executed under Section 20(6) of the Act if the respondent has employment or a debtor, and in the absence of these, recourse can be taken under Section 28 of the Act and further under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking relief of protection, monthly maintenance, compensation, and medical expenses, alleging domestic violence and extra-marital relationship by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order passed under Section 12 of the Act can be executed under Section 20(6) of the Act if the respondent has employment or a debtor, and in the absence of these, recourse can be taken under Section 28 of the Act and further under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Issues: Execution of orders passed under Section 12 of the Act for payment of maintenance and compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order passed under Section 12 of the Act can be executed under Section 20(6) of the Act if the respondent has employment or a debtor, and in the absence of these, recourse can be taken under Section 28 of the Act and further under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The revision was disposed of with the modification that the petitioner must furnish the address of his employer, and the learned Magistrate shall pass an order for execution in terms of Section 20(6) of the Act.
Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 14th May, 2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 of 2012 arising out of Criminal (C) Case No. 46 of 2009.
2. The brief background of the case is that the respondent filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called the "Act") praying for relief of protection, monthly maintenance, compensation, medical expenses etc. Her case is that she had eloped with the petitioner on 13th January, 2006 and formal marriage was performed on 22nd November, 2007 according to Manipur Hindu Rituals and Customs in presence of friends, relatives and parents. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife. After two months of their marriage, she came to know that the petitioner was keeping an extra-marital relationship with another lady. On being questioned, he ridiculed her by saying that he had illicit relationship with many beautiful women who are young and modest. She further alleged that the petitioner used to quarreled on trivial issues and beat her without any reason. However, she conceived for the first time in the month of December, 2007 and disclosed about her pregnancy to her mother-in-law and requested for medical check-up. She was advised by her mother-in-law to abort the pregnancy. Thereafter, she was ill-treated and tortured by her mother-in-law. When she informed about the pregnancy to the petitioner, over phone, she was told that he will not take responsibility of the child and she was advised to terminate the pregnancy. She also alleged that one woman with whom the petitioner had an extra-marital relationship registered a complaint for commission of offence u/s 376/417of IPC and consequently, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Because of the above incident, she was abused by her in-laws. On these allegations and on some other allegations also, the complaint was filed by her u/s 12 of the Act. The said complaint was registered as Criminal (c) Case No. 46 of 2009. The learned Magistrate after issuing notice to the present petitioner and hearing parties, passed an order on 28th November, 2010 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per month and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only. Subsequently, a joint application was filed by both the parties and it was agreed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only to the respondent towards arrear of maintenance from the month of September, 2009 to April, 2011 and pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) as compensation to the respondent. On the basis of the joint application, the Court modified the order.
After the said application was disposed of, the respondents filed the present Criminal Misc. case No. 1 of 2012 on 19.1.2012 u/s 125(3) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 31 and sub-section 6 of Section 20 of the Act praying for enforcement of order dated 20.11.2010 passed in Criminal (c) case No. 46 of 2009. The said application was heard on merit and was disposed of in the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- as well as the outstanding amount towards monthly maintenance within 30 days.
3. Challenging the above order the present revision petition has been filed. Shri H. Nabachandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when an order is passed u/s 12 of the Act for payment of maintenance, the same can only be executed u/s 20 sub-section (6) of the Act and recourse to Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be taken. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Magistrate, in the impugned order could not have taken recourse the section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. for passing order not only to pay monthly maintenance but also to pay arrear of monthly maintenance.
Mrs. Ayangleima, learned counsel appearing for the responde
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
