Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sandeep K. Shinde, J.
Ms. Kanaka Kedar Sapre (Through Grandmother) and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Mr. Kedar Narhar Sapre and Ors. —Respondents
Writ Petition No.2790 of 2021
Decided on 4.1.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Abhijeet Sarwate, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:Mr. Tapan Thatte a/w. Mr. Amar Patil i/by. Mr. Shantanu Adkar, Advocate
For the State: Mr. A.R. Patil, APP
IMPORTANT POINT
Enforcement of personal rights of aggrieved person—Aggrieved person must be living (alive), while presenting application.
Headnote:
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Enforcement of personal rights of aggrieved person – Although “any other person” can present an application under Section 12 of D.V. Act, on behalf of “aggrieved person”, nevertheless, such “other person” cannot maintain an application independently of an “aggrieved person” – Section 12 of D.V. Act, simply enables “aggrieved person” to present an application under the Act through “any other person” – That being Scheme of the Act, “aggrieved person” must be living (alive), while presenting application – Petitioners attempt to claim rights through deceased, not being acknowledged by provisions of D.V. Act, application has been rightly rejected by trial Court Appellate Court. (Paras 9 and 10)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep K. Shinde, J.—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for hearing forthwith.
2. Petitioner’s application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“D.V. Act” for short), was held not maintainable by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune. As a result, the application was rejected. In appeal, rejection of order was confirmed. These orders are challenged in the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Heard Mr. Sarwate, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Thatte, Advocate for the respondents.
Background Facts Are As Under :
4. Petitioner no.1 is the minor daughter of late, Suchita Kedar Sapre (“deceased” for short). Respondent no.1 is father of petitioner no.1; respondents no.2 and 3 are grandfather and grandmother of petitioner no.1; whereas, petitioner no.2 is mother of deceased, Suchita. It is petitioner’s case that, Suchita got married to respondent no.1 on 24th November, 2009 whereafter petitioner no.1 was born on 7th October, 2012. Throughout, Suchita was neglected by her husband and in-laws. She was subjected to physical, verbal and economic abuses by the respondent, due to which, she suffered serious sickness and was admitted in the hospital in April, 2013. Suchita passed away on 27th October, 2013. Her mother and father were taking her care. Petitioners alleged, the respondents did not bother to look after Suchita in her lifetime and even during her illness. Petitioner no.2 (mother of Suchita) would claim that, she had spent Rs.60,00,000/- for Suchita’s treatment and would also claim that, she had gifted gold ornaments in Suchita’s marriage, which are in custody of mother-in-law, respondent no.3 herein. On the backdrop of these facts, petitioners presented an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, seeking following reliefs :
“a. The application may kindly be allowed.
b. That as per the list mentioned herein above in Para 21, the respondent no.3 may kindly be directed to hand over the same to applicant no.1 through applicant no.2.
c. That respondent no.1 may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rs. Sixty Lacs) to the Applicant no.2 spent towards the medical expenses and Hospitalization expenses of Late, Mrs. Sucheta.
d. That all the respondents may be directed to pay Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation to each Applicant.
e. The cost of the present application Rs.50,000/- may be awarded from the respondents.
f. That the applicants craves the leave to amend/alter the application and lead oral as well as documentary evidence if and when necessary.
g. Any other just and equitable orders may please be passed.”
5. Respondents sought dismissal of the application, inter-alia, questioning locus of the petitioners and maintainability of the present application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act; reason being, reliefs under the said Act, could not have been sought on behalf of deceased, Suchita. In consideration of the facts of the case and objection raised by the respondents as to maintainability of the application, the objection was upheld. As a result, petitioner’s application was rejected vide order dated 11th March, 2019. In appeal, rejection order was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune vide order dated 16th March, 2021. These orders are assailed in this petition.
6. Question is, whether an application presented by the petitioners under Section 12 of the D.V. Act on behalf of deceased, Suchita Sapre, seeking (i) monetary relief under Section 20(b) i.e. reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by petitioner no.2 for the treatment of deceased, Suchita; (ii) possession of “Streedhan” of late, Suchita under Section 19(8) of the D.V. Act; and (iii) compensation under Section 22 from the respondents, was maintainable ?”
7. Before answering the question, it may be noted that; Suchita died in the year 2013; whereas; petitioners presented an application un
