Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2943
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
RAJESH S. PATIL, J
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 2 ORS. – Respondent
WP/491/2020
Mr.Pramod G. Kathane (Appointed Advocate) with Mr.Samyak A. Bhatkar and Mr.Anjaykumar R. Kori for the Petitioner. Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for Respondent No.1. Mr.N.B. Patil, APP for the State – Respondent No.2.
The Domestic Violence Act permits maintenance applications even after divorce if domestic violence occurred, emphasizing the broad definition of 'aggrieved person'.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2(a), 2(k), 18, 19, 20, and 22 - Challenge to the order of maintenance granted under the D.V. Act - The Sessions Court set aside the maintenance order on grounds of non-maintainability post-divorce, which was erroneous as the divorce decree was under appeal and not final - The definition of 'aggrieved person' under the D.V. Act is broad, allowing applications even after divorce if domestic violence occurred - The maintenance amount of Rs.2,300/- was deemed inadequate given current living costs. (Paras 18, 24, 28, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner married the respondent in 1990 and had a daughter. The respondent filed for divorce in 1997, which was granted in 2006. The petitioner filed for maintenance under the D.V. Act in 2009 after the daughter's suicide. The M.M. Court granted maintenance, which was later set aside by the Sessions Court. (Paras 2-11)
Findings of Court:
The Sessions Court erred in concluding that the maintenance application was not maintainable due to the divorce decree, which was under appeal. The M.M. Court's findings on mental ill-treatment were confirmed. (Paras 24, 30)
Issues: Whether a maintenance application under the D.V. Act is maintainable after a divorce decree that is under appeal. (Paras 18, 28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the D.V. Act allows for maintenance applications even after divorce if the domestic relationship existed at the time of violence, and the definition of 'aggrieved person' is broad enough to include such cases. (Paras 24, 28)
Result: The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed, the Sessions Court's order is quashed, and the M.M. Court's maintenance order is confirmed.
JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
This Criminal Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Judgment and Order dated 25 July 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2010, thereby setting aside the order of maintenance which was granted by the M.M. Court, Sangli, under the Domestic Violence Act (for short “D.V. Act.”).
FACTS:
2. It is undisputed that the Petitioner got married with Respondent No.1 on 26 May, 1990, at Miraj. On 5 July 1991, a female child namely Charuta alias Manasi, was born out of the said marriage.
3. The Petitioner has alleged that in the year 1997, Respondent No.1 drove her away from the matrimonial house and shortly thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed Divorce Petition No.27 of 1997 against the Petitioner, on the ground of cruelty, before the Court of Senior Division, Sangli. The Petitioner at the same time filed an Application for restitution of conjugal rights.
4. Divorce Petition filed by Respondent No.1 (husband) was allowed by judgment and order dated 17 August 2006 and application of the Petitioner (wife), for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.
5. On 3 October 2006, the Petitioner (wife) filed an Appeal challenging the divorce decree passed by the Court of Senior Division, Sangli. In the meanwhile, custody of the daughter was given to Respondent No.1 (husband).
6. On 29 September 2007, Charuta alias Manasi, daughter of the Petitioner (wife) and Respondent No.1 (husband), died by committing suicide.
7. The Petitioner (wife) filed an application under D.V. Act before the M.M. Court, Sangli, against Respondent No.1 (husband).
8. The M.M. Court, Sangli, after hearing the Application for maintenance, by its Judgment and Order dated 13 April 2010, allowed the Application of the Petitioner (wife) and granted maintenance of Rs.2,300/- per month (inclusive of rent) to be paid by Respondent No.1 (husband).
9. Respondent No.1 (husband) challenged the Order of maintenance, by filing an Appeal before the Sessions Court, by way of Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2010.
10. In the meantime, Appeal filed by the Petitioner (wife), challenging the divorce decree passed by the Court of Senior Division, Sangli, was allowed by the Judgment and Order dated 26 February 2013. Second Appeal filed by Respondent No.1 (husband) is admitted by this Court and is pending for hearing and final disposal.
11. The Sessions Court after hearing Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2010 of the Respondent No.1 (husband), wherein the Order of maintenance was under challenge, by its Judgment and Order dated 25 July 2019, allowed the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the Order of Maintenance.
12. Present Criminal Writ Petition challenges the Judgment and Order dated 25 July 2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2010. 13. This Court by its Order dated 10 February 2021 admitted the present Criminal Writ Petition and thereafter by Order dated 20 October 2023, matter was posted for hearing and final disposal.
SUBMISSIONS
14. Mr. Kathane made submissions on behalf of the Petitioner/Wife.
(i) Mr. Kathane submitted that the Sessions Judge committed an error in allowing the husband's Criminal Appeal and setting aside a well-reasoned Order passed by the M.M. Court, Sangli.
(ii) The Sessions Court committed a mistake by holding that the Application made by the Petitioner (wife) under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘D.V. Act’) is not maintainable. Mr. Kathane further submitted that the Sessions Court did not consider the fact that the Petitioner (wife) had no place to reside of her own and had no source of income.
(iii) Mr. Kathane submitted that the Sessions Court committed an error by holding that Respondent No.1 (husband) did not have his own business and did not have sufficient income to pay compensation.
(iv) Mr. Kathane further submitted that the Sessions Court misdirected itself by holding that parties are separated by the decree of di
