Apex Court has upheld the Kolkata High Court judgment wherein it has affirmed that, when there is no DV, no reliefs flow from the case.
Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019
“The respondent filed a revision before the High Court, which was allowed. The High Court set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge in the appeal by observing that the petitioner was unable to establish any incident of torture or demand of money or physical violence. In that view of the matter, the High Court was of the opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to any order in her favour. It is pertinent to state that the High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to claim residence in the shared household. But that entitlement is only in case she establishes domestic violence, which she did not.”
Citations: [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 559], [2020 (3) SCC (Cri) 573]
The High Court of Kolkata judgment is here.
Regarding residence orders passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment this Court is of the view that before passing of such order satisfaction of the concerned Court is necessary that domestic violence has been caused. In the instant case the plea of domestic violence is under consideration only on the basis of sole, solitary uncorroborated oral testimony of the aggrieved wife (opposite party herein). In the eye of law plea is not proof. Allegations of domestic violence are grave in nature and have serious impact if really proved.
Unless it is satisfactorily established that domestic violence has taken place neither any protection order under Section 18 nor any residence order under Section 19 nor any order for monetary relief under Section 20 nor any compensation order under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be passed.
In my view, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the facts that the aggrieved party wife failed to establish any incident of torture on her or any incident of demand of money and assault upon her and her father by present petitioners and said learned Judge has overlooked the factum of withholding the father and personal attendant of the opposite party from the witness box.