Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
M.S. Sonak, J
Shri Rajendra D. Seth v. Rekha Jha
Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2012|Criminal Case No. 59 / AOA / DVA / 2011 / B
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pangam
For the Respondents: Ms. Matkar
Domestic violence laws establish rights for maintenance based on domestic relationships, defining entitlements and responsibilities while assessing claims of shared household criteria.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Application under S.12 - Interim reliefs including maintenance granted by the Trial Magistrate - The opposite party disputed shared household and relationship - The court examined evidence including marriage certificate, affidavits, and photos to establish relationships and rights under the act. (Paras 15-28)
(B) Domestic Relationship - Definition and relationship in the nature of marriage defined under S.2 (f) and S.2 (s) of the Act - The court held that prima facie status was established for the applicant as a domestic partner of the respondent, entitling her to protective remedies. (Paras 17-21)
(C) Monetary Relief - S.20 outlines that monetary relief must be adequate, fair and reasonable - The Trial Magistrate's direction to provide Rs.5,000/- monthly maintenance was upheld, while relief for children above 18 years was disallowed as they do not fall under the purview of the Act. (Paras 22-28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed against the order from the Trial Magistrate which provided the applicant with maintenance and prohibitions against the respondent while examining their domestic relationship.
Findings of Court:
The interim reliefs were justified, establishing the domestic relationship under the Act and the obligation for maintenance was upheld while dismissing child maintenance due to age.
Issues: The central issues involved the definition and acknowledgement of the relationship under the Act and the resulting monetary obligations involving the children’s entitlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded on the nature of relationships under the Act and the reasonable grounds for maintenance as provided under its provisions while ensuring the rights of the respondent are not ignored.
Result: Petition partly allowed; maintenance for children was quashed and set aside while maintaining the monetary relief for the applicant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial hearing of the counsel. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of the case and procedural background. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. allegations of domestic violence and non-provision of maintenance. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. opposing claims regarding relationship status and maintenance responsibilities. (Para 8 , 11 , 13) |
| 5. definitions established under the act for shared households and domestic violence. (Para 14 , 15 , 20) |
| 6. considerations of monetary relief as per legislation. (Para 16 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. final ruling and orders regarding monetary relief. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
1. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Matkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.
3. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Panaji (' Appellate Court' for short) in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2012 and the judgment and order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (B - Court), Ponda (' Trial Magistrate' for short) in Criminal Case No. 59 / AOA / DVA / 2011 / B.
4. The petitioner is the opponent whereas the respondent is the applicant in the said Criminal Case No. 59 / AOA / DVA / 2011 / B. The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal Case.
5. An application has been filed by the applicant under S.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (' the Act' for short), before the Trial Magistrate for various reliefs under the Act. The said application has been registered as Criminal Case No. 59 / AOA / DVA / 2011 / B. In the said application, the applicant also prayed for interim reliefs. The respondent filed a reply before the Trial Magistrate. The applicant filed an affidavit - in - rejoinder to which an affidavit - in - sur - Rejoinder was filed by the respondent. The applicant then filed affidavit - in - sur - rejoinder.
6. In this petition also the applicant has filed her affidavit - in - reply and an additional affidavit in - reply to which the opponent has filed affidavit - in - rejoinder.
7. The applicant claims that the opponent is her husband and that their shared household is a flat bearing No. D - FOX - 2, Dr. Almeida Complex, Ponda, presently occupied by her. According to the applicant, the opponent threw out her articles and assaulted her after about two months from the date of their marriage. She alleges that the opponent has not been providing money for her maintenance and for the maintenance of her two children who are staying with her. She claims that she and her children have not been provided with clothes, food, medicines etc., by the opponent. She further alleges that the opponent disposed of all her Stridhan and did not pay the bills of electricity, etc. She also claims that the opponent forced her to leave her shared household and prevented her from accessing a part of the house. She claims that the opponent demanded for dowry, after earlier demand had been satisfied and also advertised about his marriage on the internet.
8. The opponent, in short, claims as under:
The relationship of the opponent with the applicant is not of 'Husband' . The applicant is associated with the opponent on ' living together relationship' basis. It is false that he assaulted the applicant or insulted her, etc. The opponent has duly provided proper maintenance amount, food, clothes, medicines etc. to the applicant and her two children, from time to time. The opponent never forced the applicant to leave the house where she has been living. The flat in which the applicant is presently residing is of his son by name Nandlal Seth and that the opponent is forced to stay outside the flat by the applicant and her family members. The applicant was in possession of all her ornaments when the opponent was forced to leave the flat. The applicant was causing harassment to him. There
