Order On Board

15/11/2019 Heard.

1. This revision petition has been brought being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.3.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg in CRA No.229/2018 by which the appellate Court has upheld the order of the learned JMFC passed under Sections 18, 20 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short' the Act').

2. Respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Act making statement that she was married to the applicant on 1.3.1991 and she has three sons from this wedlock. The applicant used to torture the respondent for demand of dowry and also used to treat her with cruelty on various pretext and ultimately he has driven her out of his house.

She has stated that applicant has fraudulently obtained her signature on a stamp paper, which he is projecting as a divorce deed and on that basis he has married another woman named Laxmi Saujanya. It is stated that applicant is neglecting in providing maintenance to the respondent, whereas applicant is the man of means. A prayer was made for protection under Section 18 of the Act, residence order under Section 19 of the Act, financial assistance under Section 20 of the Act and for compensation under Section 22 of the Act.

3. The applicant had contested the application and except admitting his marriage with the respondent, he has denied all the other averments made in the application. He has alleged that the respondent has made false allegations, lodged false complaint and is making false claims against the applicant. It is submitted that applicant himself is maintaining his three sons. Because of the various complaints made by respondent to the department where the applicant was serving, he had to take voluntary retirement and now he is residing in Andhra Pradesh with his parents. He has made all efforts and given all support for proper education of his sons. He has also made allegations against the respondent that she was having illicit relation with her sister's husband because of which dispute arose and then the respondent has willingly signed a divorce-deed on 23.4.2011 which has been registered in the office of sub-Registrar. The applicant had been paying Rs.6,000/- to the respondent in accordance with the terms of divorce- deed and thereafter at the instance of respondent herself, he has stopped paying the maintenance to her. He has stated that the respondent herself is engaged in business of clothes, she is owner of vehicles, commercial plots and two houses from which she is receiving income. She is running a business of hardware in the name and style of “Maa Durga Enterprises” and submitting income tax returns. She has never taken care of her children, hence, on this basis the entitlement of the respondent was challenged by the applicant.

4. The Court of learned JMFC allowed the application of respondent and granted relief according to the prayer made by the respondent.

5. The learned appellate Court, while deciding the appeal has held that the respondent is residing in the house which belongs to the applicant.

Therefore, there was no need for any residence order, hence, the relief under Section 19 of the Act was set aside. However, the relief granted under other provisions were maintained and upheld.

6. It is submitted that the applicant never acted in such manner with the respondent which can be regarded as domestic violence. The learned Courts below have not considered the fact that respondent was a woman of compromised integrity which is the reason of separation of applicant and respondent. The learned Courts below have also not appreciated that respondent herself is having means and source of income, as she has borrowed loan from banks, which shows her financial status. It is also submitted that the marriage of the applicant with respondent was already dissolved on 23.4.2011 and since then he and respondent No.3 are living separately. After passing of about four years, the application under the Act was filed on 23.9.2015