Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
R.R. PRASAD, J.
Smt. Huidrom Ningol Maibam Ongbi Omila Devi w/o Inaobi Singh Maibam - Petitioner
Versus
Shri Inaobi Singh Maibam s/o Maibam Yaima Singh - Respondent
CRIL.REVN. PETITION NO.16, 21 OF 2015
Decided On : 26-10-2016
Domestic Violence Act - Interpretation of Section 21 - [Custody orders, Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for time being in force, the Magistrate may, at any stage of hearing of the application for protection order or for any other relief under this Act grant temporary custody of any child or children to the aggrieved person or the person making an application on her behalf and specify, if necessary, the arrangements for visit of such child or children by the respondent: Provided that if the Magistrate is of the opinion that any visit of the respondent may be harmful to the interests of the child or children, the Magistrate shall refuse to allow such visit.]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over visitation rights of a child under the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The wife sought various reliefs including maintenance and a separate residence for herself and the child. The husband filed an application for visitation rights, which was initially dismissed by the Magistrate but later granted by the Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court allowed the husband's visitation right, finding that the provision in Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act is amenable to two interpretations. It held that the husband can maintain his application for visitation right even in the absence of an application for custody of the child by the aggrieved party.
Issues: The main issue was whether the husband could maintain an application for visitation right under Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act in the absence of an application for custody of the child by the aggrieved party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act and held that the husband can maintain his application for visitation right even in the absence of an application for custody of the child by the aggrieved party. It emphasized that the interpretation should advance the object of the provision, which is to prevent domestic violence and ensure the safety of the aggrieved person and the child.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition No.16 of 2015 filed by the wife was dismissed, and the order relating to the frequency of the visitation right was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the concerned Magistrate for further decision.
Based on the provided legal document, the main legal points are as follows:
Interpretation of Statutory Provisions: The judgment emphasizes that statutory provisions should be interpreted in a manner that advances their primary purpose. In cases of ambiguity, the interpretation that best serves the objective of preventing domestic violence and safeguarding the safety of the affected persons and children should be preferred (!) (!) .
Purpose and Object of the Domestic Violence Act: The Act is enacted to prevent domestic violence and to provide protection orders that ensure the safety and well-being of the aggrieved person and the child. Any interpretation that undermines these objectives is to be avoided (!) .
Interpretation of Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act: The provision allows the court, at any stage of hearing, to grant temporary custody of a child to the aggrieved person or her representative, and to specify visitation arrangements. If the court believes that visitation might harm the child's interests, it can refuse such visits (!) (!) .
Maintenance of Visitation Rights Without Custody Orders: The court held that a husband can maintain an application for visitation rights under the proviso to Section 21 even if there is no existing application for custody by the aggrieved person. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of the Act and ensures the child's and the parties' interests are protected (!) (!) .
Legal Interpretation and Legislative Intent: The court stresses that where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its literal meaning. Courts should avoid judicial legislation or reading into the statute words that are not present, especially when the language is susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation (!) (!) .
Ambiguity and Purposeful Interpretation: When a statutory provision is ambiguous, courts may resort to external aid to interpret the legislative intent, aiming to avoid absurd results or redundancy. The interpretation should promote the object of the legislation, which in this context is to prevent domestic violence and protect the safety of persons and children involved (!) (!) .
Custody and Visitation Rights in Family Disputes: The case demonstrates that even in the absence of a specific custody order, a husband may seek visitation rights, and such rights are consistent with the legislative intent to protect the child's interests and the rights of the parties (!) (!) .
Court's Discretion and Remand: The court acknowledged that certain orders regarding visitation frequency may have been made without full consideration of the child's best interests. Such orders are to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Magistrate for a proper, law-compliant determination (!) (!) .
These points collectively highlight the importance of interpreting domestic violence legislation in a manner that furthers its protective purpose, allowing for flexible yet lawful arrangements for custody and visitation that serve the best interests of the child and the safety of the affected persons.
Both the Revision Applications since arising out of a common judgment and order dated 03.10.2015 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Imphal East, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, the facts of the case leading to filing of these two applications are that when relationship in between the applicant namely Huidrom (N) Maibam (O) Omila Devi, applicant before the court below, and husband, Inaobi Singh Maibam, respondent became strained the applicant left association of her husband and came to her parental house along with her child. Thereafter the application filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Imphal East u/s 12 of the Protection of Women Against from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the following prayers:
“(a) An order restraining the appellant/respondent 1 and his men and agents from committing any repeated act of domestic violence against the respondent/complainant, the infant Abungo Maibam and her relatives.
(b) An order to forbid appellant/respondent 1 from making any communication with the respondent/complainant or her relatives.
(c) An order to forbid the appellant/respondent 1 or his men or agents or relatives to forcibly taking away of the infant Abungo Maibam from the aggrieved respondent/complainant.
(d) An order of ad-interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- only and a separate residence for the respondent/complainant and the infant.
(e) An order directing appellant/respondent 1 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- only in favour of the respondent/complainant.”
(f) An order directing O.C. Imphal Police Station for protection of the respondent/complainant.
(g) Pass any other order as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances in favour of the appellant/complainant.”
3. On such application, the learned Magistrate passed an interim order directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the applicant. During that period, the respondent-husband’s request of visit to Child was never acceded to and therefore husband-respondent filed a Criminal Misc.(DV) Case No.5 of 2015 u/s 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as Domestic Violence Act) praying therein to grant visitation right to meet his minor son on all holidays including Sundays from 10.30 AM to 2.30 PM. That application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the complainant wife has never filed an application u/s 21 of the Act for custody of child nor any order on the point of grant of temporary custody has been passed and thereby in absence of any order granting temporary custody of the child u/s 21 of the Act, no direction for visitation right to the appellant can be made.
4. Being aggrieved with that order, the respondent-husband preferred a Criminal Appeal bearing No.6 of 2015 before the Sessions Judge, Imphal East. The contention which was made before the learned Sessions Judge by the respondent-appellant is that the husband being respondent against whom a number of reliefs have been sought for including the relief of custody of the child though not directly but indirectly can maintain his application under the proviso to Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act for visitation right irrespective of the fact whether the wife aggrieved person pursue the case relating to custody of the child or not.
Contrary to it, the stand which was taken by the wife aggrieved party is that any application in terms of the proviso to Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act for visitation right cannot be maintained in absence of any application by the aggrieved party in terms of Section 21 of the Act relating to custody of the child. Further stand which was taken is that if the Court does hold that such application filed by the husband-respondent under the proviso to Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act is maintaine
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
