Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
In the realm of family law, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) serves as a crucial shield for aggrieved persons facing economic abuse. A common query arises: whether evidence of the respondent can be struck down due to non-payment of maintenance in the DV Act. This question strikes at the heart of enforcement mechanisms designed to ensure compliance with court orders. While courts typically empower aggrieved women to seek swift relief, wilful defiance by respondents can have severe repercussions, including the striking off of their defense. This post delves into the legal framework, key provisions, judicial precedents, and practical steps, drawing from authoritative sources. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The DV Act addresses economic abuse as defined in Section 3(iv), which encompasses prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities to which the aggrieved person is entitled. SARASWATHY VS BABU - 2013 8 Supreme 416 Monetary relief under Section 20 includes maintenance for the aggrieved person and dependents, making it a cornerstone for financial security.
Aggrieved persons, Protection Officers, or others on their behalf can file applications under Section 12 using Form II of the 2006 Rules. No specific pleadings for monetary claims are required—Only certain particulars to be stated as regards claim raised—No specific pleading with respect to any monetary claim as such is warranted from applicant. Preceline George VS State of Kerala - Crimes (2011)
Proceedings under Sections 18 (protection orders) and 20 are civil in nature but follow CrPC procedures per Section 28, allowing courts flexibility: Courts may lay down its own procedure for disposal of the application under Section 12 or Section 23(2). Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji VS Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari - 2016 4 Supreme 481
Magistrates hold broad powers to grant interim or pendente lite maintenance under Section 23(2). For instance, trial courts have awarded interim maintenance to unemployed dependent wives against respondents capable of payment, as seen in cases from 2018 onward. Neethu VS Trijo Joseph - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 355Rajat Johar VS Divya Johar - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 4592
These orders ensure immediate relief amid ongoing domestic violence, even if it predates the Act: The Act covers violence though started prior to enactment of Act 2005, continued even thereafter. SARASWATHY VS BABU - 2013 8 Supreme 416
Here's the crux—wilful non-compliance with maintenance orders can lead to striking off the respondent's defense. Courts have held: In a proceeding under DV Act, defence can be struck off for non-compliance with an order of payment of pendente lite maintenance if default is found to be deliberate and wilful. Neethu VS Trijo Joseph - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 355 Further, Failure on part of husband to pay interim maintenance ordered by learned Magistrate as early as in 2018... is wilful and contumacious. Neethu VS Trijo Joseph - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 355
Non-payment also breaches protection orders under Section 18, constituting economic abuse punishable under Section 31: Non-payment of maintenance allowance amounts to economic abuse, enforceable under Section 31. S. Amalraj VS State rep. by Inspector of Police - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2965
This aligns with broader judicial trends on maintenance enforcement. For comparison, under Section 125 CrPC, courts emphasize assessing means and needs without inconsistencies with personal laws: Section 125 neither inconsistent with Muslim law nor violative of Articles 25 to 30 of the constitution. Shaik Hussain Saheb,In re. VS . - 1985 Supreme(Mad) 87
While DV Act proceedings are civil, violations introduce criminal elements. Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji VS Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari - 2016 4 Supreme 481 Striking defense is discretionary, requiring evidence of deliberate default. Statutory duties prioritize minor children and spouses, factoring party conduct. Rajat Johar VS Divya Johar - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 4592
Related precedents highlight interpretive flexibility. In Hiralal P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, the Supreme Court struck down adult male from Section 2(q), broadening respondent scope: this Court struck down a portion of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Vasant Ganpat Padave (D) By LRs VS Anant Mahadev Sawant (D) Through LRs - 2019 Supreme(SC) 1038 This underscores the Act's evolving, protective intent.
In disciplinary contexts, non-maintenance of records has led to procedural safeguards, emphasizing opportunities to respond before penalties—paralleling DV enforcement needs. Shibu Debbarma VS State of Tripura - 2017 Supreme(Tri) 251
To leverage these provisions:1. File Section 12 application detailing economic abuse, seeking Section 20 relief and Section 23(2) interim orders with income affidavits.2. For non-compliance, move to strike defense or initiate Section 31 proceedings, proving respondent's ability and wilful default.3. Seek early amendments for additional reliefs like residence (Section 19) or compensation (Section 22). SARASWATHY VS BABU - 2013 8 Supreme 416
Under the DV Act, non-payment of maintenance may result in striking the respondent's defense if wilful, backed by robust enforcement tools. This balances civil remedies with punitive measures against economic abuse. Key takeaways:- Act swiftly with Section 12 for interim relief.- Document default for Section 31 or strike applications.- Understand discretion: Courts weigh wilfulness and capacity.
Stay informed, but always seek professional counsel. For more on family law, explore our resources.
Word count approx. 1050. Published for informational purposes.
#DVAct #MaintenanceLaw #DomesticViolence
Whether the gift deed dated 12.12.1999 no.4176 has become redundant, due to non compliance of terms dated 15.12.1999? OPP 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration, as prayed for? ... In 1986, defendant no.1 and children filed suit for maintainance under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. ... Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 8. Whether plaintiff is stopped by his #HL_STAR....
This present Petition has been filed under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter as to Act) by “Noble Machanical Maintainance Contractors Private Limited”, seeking relief against the respondent, inter-alia among other things, to restore the name of the company in the Register of Companies ... of the Act. ... Under Section 252(1) of Companies Act, 2013 In the matter of Noble Machanical Maintainance Contractors Private Limited. Represented by its Director....
In the said case, respondent/landlord filed an application 30-Ga under Order XV Rule V of C.P.C. contending inter alia that petitioners have defaulted in payment of rent due in each month, therefore, the defence of the petitioners be struck off. 4. ... The power to strike off defence can be exercised at any stage of the suit, upon failure to make timely monthly deposit, irrespective of whether the parties have led their evidence or not. ... Act No. 13 of 1972 after th....
regard to the evidence adduced before him with respect to the means and needs of both the parties, and arrive at an amount. ... The Court observed: ... “The Maintenance Act is an Act to amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus. ... In this view of the matter, the very argument that there is some inconsistency between Muslim Law and Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be entertained, nor can any limb of Section 125 be struck down on the ground of such inconsistency. ... in the ma....
Mukesh Jain (5), the Supreme Court allowed a Family Court to strike off the defence of the respondent, in case of non-payment of maintenance in accordance with the interim order passed. xxx xxx xxx 130. ... Later, in Mahesh (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the question as to whether the defence of the respondent in a divorce petition can be struck off on his failure to pay maintenance ordered under Section 125 of the Code, has observed that the invocation of t....
At the same time, the lower court also will consider whether it should continue to stay the trial or whether it should dispose of the main petition by dismissing the same for non-compliance of the order. ... In the totality of facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view that there was absolutely no reason for the High Court to have interfered in the present case, where the trial court had struck off the defence after finding that there was no evidence on record to show the payment#HL_E....
For respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : B.R. ... if masonry, mud, bricks, mortar, cement or other non- Rule 2 (f-1) : - exhibition, or for giving cinematograph exhibition in local theaters or halls; [ whether
Mr.N.Seshadri would submit that non-payment of maintenance amounts to contempt of Court. An inability to pay an amount, whether it is artificial or natural, cannot be used as a tool for contempt. ... Mrs.S.P.Arthi would submit that the consequences of non-payment of maintenance has already been felt by the husband since his defence in M.C.No.413 of 2007 has been struck off. ... It matters not whether it is under Section 24 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ,....
In the totality of facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view that there was absolutely no reason for the High Court to have interfered in the present case, where the Trial Court had struck off the defence after finding that there was no evidence on record to show the payment or deposit of rent ... Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. ... in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant-respondent. ... The fact of the case, so far it relates to non ....
After referring to Kaushalya (supra) and a catena of decisions of the various High Courts, it is observed as follows: "120.Striking off the Defence(i) Some Family Courts have passed orders for striking off the defence of the respondent in case of non-payment ... Later, in Mahesh (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the question as to whether the defence of the respondent in a divorce petition can be struck off on his failure to pay maintenance ordered under Secti....
However, such an order ought to be passed only as a last resort as held in Rajnesh (supra). For all these reasons, I hold that in a proceeding under the DV Act, the defence can be struck off for non-compliance with an order of payment of pendente lite maintenance if the default is found to be deliberate and wilful. The Division Bench of this Court recently in Shyju v. Nadeera (2021(5) KLT 693) has held that the Family Court can strike off the defence on failure to pay interim maintenance ordered by the court where the default is found to be wilful.
This Court having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the Act, struck down the expression “adult male” as follows: “39. 42. Hiralal P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (2016) 10 SCC 165, is a case in point. In this judgment, this Court struck down a portion of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 2(q) of the said Act defined “Respondent” as meaning any adult male person who is, or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief.
The question would be whether Section 105 of the Act, can be struck down as being unconstitutional on the aforementioned ground. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India and the learned Advocate General are right in their submission that if the prayer sought for by the petitioner to declare Section 105 as unconstitutional is granted, the land owners would be gravely prejudiced. According to Mr. M. Radhakrishnan, non-applicability of these chapters is discriminatory and there is no reasonable classification nor any intelligible differentia to include 13 enactments i....
According to Mr. M. Radhakrishnan, non-applicability of these chapters is discriminatory and there is no reasonable classification nor any intelligible differentia to include 13 enactments in the Fourth Schedule and make these three Chapters inapplicable. The question would be whether Section 105 of the Act, can be struck down as being unconstitutional on the aforementioned ground.
Whether SAV has been issued with reference to a particular Stock of foodgrains showing shortage/excess of Stock. Due to non-maintainance of Bin Card and Bin Card Register it is not possible to ascertained whether the Godown-In-charges issued SAV on reference to the particular Stock.”
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
