Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
M.G. Giratkar, J.
Sapna —Applicant
versus
Pravin Ishwarbhai Patel and Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Revision Application (Revn) No.64 of 2015
Decided on 3.5.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:Shri V.N. Morande, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.3: None
IMPORTANT POINT
Economic abuse against applicant is a continuous abuse.
Headnote:Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Maintenance – Refusal to grant maintenance – Applicant and respondents were residing jointly and till date their joint family property is not partitioned – Applicant was having only source of income from property in question during lifetime of her husband – After death of her husband, respondent No.1 took over possession of said property in question and deprived applicant from financial resources from property in question – It amounts to economic abuse – Economic abuse against applicant is a continuous abuse – Petitioner having continuous cause of action i.e. continuous act of deprivation of her right, petition under Section 12 is maintainable – Applicant lived in a shared household along with respondents – She is aggrieved person – JMFC taking into account all evidence and rightly granted relief of restoration of possession of property in question to applicant – Once restoration of property in question is granted, there is no need to grant maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to applicant – Judgment of JMFC is perfectly legal and correct and restored. (Paras 14, 17, 19 to 23)
Criminal Revision Application Partly allowed.
M.G. Giratkar, J.—The present revision is against the common judgment dated 18th April, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Criminal Appeal Nos.45 of 2014 and 48 of 2014.
2. The case of the applicant/Sapna wd/o Nilesh Patel in short is that deceased Ishwarbhai Patel and Shantubhai Patel were the real brothers forming joint family. Shantubhai died in the year 1975. Shantubhai had two sons namely Nilesh and Dilip. Applicant Sapna is the widow of Nilesh who died on 27.03.2010. Ishwarbhai Patel had two sons namely Pravin and Nitin. After the death of Shantubhai, his sons Nilesh and Dilip were looked after by Ishwarbhai. They were forming a joint family. There was joint family business of the applicant. Deceased Nilesh, husband of applicant was looking after the business of Patel Mangal Karyalaya. After the death of husband of applicant/Sapna, it is taken over by respondent No.1/Pravin Patel. Thus, she had no source of income. Therefore, application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred as DV Act) was filed by the applicant/Sapna. It was registered as PWDV Case No. 03 of 2014.
3. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli has recorded the evidence of both the parties and partly allowed the petition. The respondents were directed to restore the possession of Patel Mangar Karyalaya, Gadchiroli to the applicant/Sapna Patel within a period of one month from the date of the order dated 16th October, 2014. Her claim for monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- came to be rejected. Nonapplicant No.1 Pravin Patel filed Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2014 challenging the restoration of possession of Patel Mangal Karyalaya to the applicant/Sapna. Applicant/Sapna challenged the decision of JMFC in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2014 challenging the refusal of grant of maintenance of Rs.30,000/per month.
4. Heard Shri V.N. Morande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
5. Shri Morande, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that Patel Mangal Karyalaya was looked after by the husband of applicant/Sapna namely Nilesh Patel. It was the only source of income of Nilesh Patel and his family. There is no dispute that it is joint family property. After the death of Nilesh Patel in the year 2010, respondent No.1 took over the possession of Patel Mangal Karyalaya. The applicant is not having any source of income. He has pointed out material admission of respondent No.1/Pravin Patel and submitted that he has given specific admission that after the death of Nilesh, there was meeting of relatives. In the said meeting, till the partition of joint family property, he agreed to maintain the family of Nilesh. He has further admitted that son of the applicant is not earning. He is aged about 18 years. Learned Counsel has further submitted that some part of Patel Mangal Karyalaya is in the possession of respondents Nitin and Dilip. Shri Morande, learned Counsel has also submitted that the learned JMFC has rightly granted relief of restoration of possession of Patel Mangal Karyalaya. Therefore, prayed to allow the revision.
6. Shri Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that Patel Mangal Karyalaya was constructed by respondent No.1/Pravin. It was his own property and, therefore, it could not be restored to the applicant/Sapna. Learned Counsel has further submitted that there was no domestic relationship when the application was filed. He has also submitted that the entire family of deceased Nilesh and others are residing separately. Therefore, there is no domestic relationship. At last, he has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly decided both the appeals.
7. There is no dispute that there was joint family and it is having joint family property. The applicant examined herself and other witnesses. Her evidence
