The prayers section should give anyone interested in this PIL, a fair understanding on the attack vector. The detailed analysis is available here. The Thought journey began here.

---

 

1. Strike down/amend/alter appropriately and sufficiently, the set of Sections 125 to 128 of Code of Criminal Procedure so as to be made applicable to divorced women only, as they are the only class of citizens, who are not covered by the later special enactments in DV Act 2005 and Senior Citizens 2007.

Only the divorced women should be allowed to file for maintenance under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. along with a copy of the divorce decree. All other classes of citizens those that are in married, widowed, marriage-like relationships, children (both legitimate and illegitimate), parents (senior citizens, adoptive parents, step parents should be barred to file for maintenance under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. as they are covered by the later special enactments in Section 20(1)(d) of DV Act 2005 and Senior Citizens 2007. Allowing them multiple/ dual reliefs via special laws over and above general law, under same set of facts/allegations against same respondents, is nothing but legally allowing/approving to lead to Res Judicita and this Honorable Court has sufficient power and duty to do the substantial equity and justice.

 

2. Strike down/amend/alter appropriately and sufficiently, the following provisions of 20(1)(d) of DV Act 2005, so as to remove the violative words/phrases – “including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)”. This follows from the prayer #1 above and is in consequence to the same and helps to strike down the malice/violation of fundamental rights of Senior Citizens, caused by these words/phrases.

 

3. Strike down/amend/alter appropriately and sufficiently, the Senior Citizens Act 2007 so as to remove the violative words/phrases caused by the malice/violation of fundamental rights of Senior Citizens, caused by this words/phrases.
   1. Section 9(2), hard Ceiling of Maximum monthly maintenance of only Rs.10,000/- in cash can be granted by RDO who is Maintenance Officer.
   2. Per Section 5(4), Statutory limit imposed on time taken to dispose of the case, which is 90 days.
      1. This has to be 30 days as in other maintenance laws.
   3. Per Section 16(1), Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a
      Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal
      Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.
      1. This has to be 30 days as in other maintenance laws.

 

4. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to all the Trial and Family Courts in India, adjudicating cases under all these three enactments, in every such case, where the Complainant seeks interim relief of maintenance allowance, invoke the time limit for case disposal available in the statute, mandatorily.

E.g.:

1. a) For every application filed under Sec 125(1)(d) of Cr.P.C, invoking second proviso seeking interim relief of maintenance, mandatory invocation of invoking third proviso under Sec 125(1)(d) of Cr.P.C, disposing of the interim maintenance case in 60 days, should be a must.
2. b) For every application filed under Sec 23 of DV Act 2005 seeking interim relief of maintenance, mandatory invocation of Sec 12(5) disposing of the main DV application under Sec 12(1) in 60 days, should be a must.

 

This effectively caters to the needs of the genuine victims with timely relief and hampers the mischief played by fraudulent complainants. They cannot seek one relief of Interim maintenance and not seek another relief of disposal in 60 days. This has to be viewed with an eye of suspicion.

 

5. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to all the Trial and Family Courts in India, adjudicating cases under Section 125 Cr.P.C. enactments, to convert/transfer every such case filed by a non-divorcee/any child(or)children, into a case under DV Act 2005 and dispose of same as per Section 12(5) within 60 days, under the powers of Supreme Court, High Court and Sessions Court u/s 406, 407 and 408 Cr.P.C. respectively, as the case may be.

 

6. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to all the Trial and Family Courts in India, adjudicating cases under Section 125 Cr.P.C. enactments, to convert/transfer every such case filed by any parent(s) or a Senior Citizen, into a case under Senior Citizens Act 2007 and dispose of same as per Section 5(4) within 60 days.

 

7. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to the Respondents to formulate a comprehensive maintenance enactment, catering to the needs of all the members within a family, who live in a domestic relationship and under a roof of a shared/common household, without discriminating to only certain classes of citizens such as Senior Citizens in India.
   7. Giving effect to Article 15(1) of Constitution of India is equally important as to giving effect to Article 15(3).