SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ORISSA HIGH COURT
S.K. Mishra, J.
Namita Mohanty and another —Petitioners
versus
Pankaja Kumar Mohanty
and others —Opposite parties
Criminal Revision No. 89 of 2013
Decided on 10.1.2014

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:M/s. S.Ratho, A. Hota and L. Sahoo, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party: None.

IMPORTANT POINT
It is not necessary for the Magistrate to wait for the domestic enquiry report before issuing notice to the respondents.

Headnote:(i) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005— Section 12— Revision Application against judgment passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, reversing the findings given by J.M.F.C. in complaint case— Sessions Judge had held that there had been violation of mandatory provision of Section 12 of Act, 2005, inasmuch as, Magistrate without waiting for Domestic Incident Report, issued notice to respondents—Held it is not necessary for the Magistrate to wait for the domestic enquiry report before issuing notice to the respondents —Addl. Sessions Judge had based his findings on the conjectures and surmises— An application under Section 12 of the Act is in the nature of a quasi civil proceeding— Though violation of any order passed by the court is punitive, the aggrieved person need not establish the allegations made by her to be true beyond any reasonable doubt—Such allegations can be held to be sufficient if it is proved by preponderance of Evidence—Impugned order passed by Additional Sessions Judge being not sustainable set aside and order passed by J.M.F.C., restored— Revision Application allowed. (Paras 9 & 10)

       (ii) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005— Section 14—Scope and ambit of—Section 14 of the Act provides that Magistrate may at any stage of the proceedings under this Act, direct the respondent or the aggrieved person, either singly or jointly, to undergo counseling with any member of a service provider who possess such qualifications and experience in counseling as may be prescribed— From the expression “Magistrate may” it appears that counseling in this case is not compulsory and only when Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the matter can be settled by conciliation, he may ask for counseling of the parties. (Para 8)

       Result: Revision Application allowed

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J.—In this Revision Application, the petitioners being the aggrieved persons in I.C.C. No. 12 of 2011 before the learned J.M.F.C., Jaipatna assail the judgment dated 06.12.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharamgarh in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2012 reversing the findings given by the learned J.M.F.C. in the aforesaid complaint case.

2. The aggrieved persons filed an application before the learned J.M.F.C., Jaipatna inter alia alleging that in the year 2007 she and respondent no.1, present opposite party no.1, got married as per the Hindu rites and customs. They led a happy conjugal life for a period of one year and out of the wedlock, a girl child was born on 22.03.2008 and her name is Tamana. After delivery of the child, the aggrieved persons stayed in the paternal house at Jaipatna for five months and then returned to her in-laws house at Kalampur. She found illicit relationship between the respondent no.1, i.e her husband with respondent no.5, her sister-in-law. The aggrieved person raised her objection to such relationship and made a complaint before her father-in-law and mother-in-law. On such event, all the opposite parties became united and assaulted the aggrieved person and also demanded dowry. Regarding the demand of dowry made by the respondents, the aggrieved person has already lodged an F.I.R. before the Jaipatna Police Station, for which P.S. Case No.139 of 2011 corresponding to C.T. Case No.267 of 2011 in the file of the J.M.F.C., Jaipatna was initiated. The aggrieved person after sustaining physical and mental torture stayed in her in-laws house till 03.03.2011. When the parents of the aggrieved person invited her to attend the marriage of her brother, she came back to her parental home at Jaipatna. Thereafter, the respondents did not allow her to enter their house and she was compelled to stay along with her child in her parental home at Jaipatna since 03.03.2011.

3. The respondents appeared and file their show-cause. They admitted that Tamanna Mohanty was born on 22.03.2008 out of the wed-lock between the aggrieved person and Respondent no.1. They pleaded that the aggrieved person was never interested to stay in her matrimonial home and she used to stay twentyfive days in every month in her parental house. The aggrieved person asked the respondent no.1 to leave his home and stayed with her in her parental house and the respondent no.1 denied the proposal. The aggrieved person came back to her parental house and stayed there until her husband brought her back to his house. In the month of March, 2011, one day in absence of the respondent no.1, the aggrieved person has left her in-laws house and came back to her parental house along with her daughter and she filed a case against the family members of her husband at Jaipatna Police Station. The respondents also denied the existence of any illicit relationship between her husband and her sister-in-law, demand of dowry and also any torture either physical or mental to the aggrieved person.

4. After leading evidence from both the sides, arguments were heard and the learned J.M.F.C., Jaipatna allowed the petition on contest and prohibited the respondents from alienating any assets including the Stridhana of the aggrieved person. The Respondent no.1 was directed to provide accommodation for the aggrieved person and her daughter or to pay monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) for the same. He was further directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) for maintenance of the aggrieved person as well as her daughter. The Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) as compensation to the aggrieved person.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jaipatna, the Respondents filed an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharamgarh, which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2012. After hearing the parties and on exam













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top