Relying on landmark judgment here, the magistrate in this case has confirmed the proposal of husband to pay maintenance only for six months, on his own will, even though there is no DV established.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c75ea7eb338d11c8d0c1bb8
https://www.legitquest.com/case/vjayanand-dattaram-naik-v-vishranti-vijayanand-naik/1E16DE
Classic case of Knife falsifying in court to grab monies from her mother-in-law. Hon’ble court held that no Shared household proved so no DV and hence dismissed the false petition.
From Para 11,
Now the point that is to be determined, whether the petitioner being daughter-in-law of respondent suffered violence as mentioned under the act by the respondent. On this aspect, the petitioner though stated rivalry stating that the respondent and her daughter harassed her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry, coming to her chief examination itself it is admitted by her that on 30.03.2010 her husband died due to ill-health, after the death of her husband when she went to her in-law’s house along with her children, the respondent did not allow her into the house, which means, it is clear that she has been residing separately along with her husband away from the house of respondent. Moreover coming to the cross-examination of P.w.2, it is admitted by him that his daughter and son-in-law used to reside separately in a separate house on rent basis and the intimation about the death of his son-in-law was informed to his mother by the owner of the house in which his daughter and her husband resided. So, from the above admissions itself it is clear that the petitioner and her husband resided separately from the respondent. So, the concept of shared house hold does not arise as it is admitted by petitioner that the petitioner resided separately from the respondent. Moreover on this aspect this Court inclined to rely upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.R.Batra and Another V. Smt. Taruna Batra (AIR 2007 S.C. 1118 and 1119), in Neetu Mittal V. Kanta Mittal and Others (AIR 2009 DELHI 72 and 72) and in Umesh Sharma V. State (AIR 2010 (NOC) 515 (DEL.).
In this case, the Knife alleged that her husband used to level false allegations of unchastity to her whenever her relatives were coming to the house of the respondent or ultimately after talking with one of her relatives over telephone, at any point of time after coming from the house of the respondent.
In Para 9, the Hon’ble Court held as
The evidence of the relatives of the petitioner who are said to have visited the house of the respondent when the petitioner was residing with the respondent, and also the evidence of the relative with whom the petitioner was talking over telephone prior to her alleged necking out from the house by the respondent are best evidence to establish the allegations of the petitioner against the respondent about the reason for imputing false allegations of unchastity to her. None of the said relatives of the petitioner are examined on the side of the petitioner to establish the very cause for the respondent to level allegation of unchastity to the petitioner leading this Court to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is not in dispute that the respondent has filed HMOP 65/2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole for divorce on the ground of cruelty against the petitioner. The cross-examination of the petitioner indicates that she has filed present petition after four or five months after coming to the house of her parents. The respondent contends that as counter blast to the HMOP 65/2014 filed against the petitioner the present petition has been pressed into service by the petitioner.
Simple principle is wonderfully upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in this judgment.
‘No domestic violence’ means ‘No reliefs under Domestic Violence Act’. Period.
Not even for Children
Especially, it was held that
9. It is thus, clear that the monetary relief is available for the children of the aggrieved person if the monetary relief is required to meet the expenses incurred by the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence. The monetary relief is also permissible in case losses are suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence. The monetary relief is available to children of the aggrieved person under Section 20 of the Act. However, the aggrieved person is under obligation to establish that she had to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered due to domestic violence on the part of the respondent. In the present case, since the learned Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the domestic violence could not be proved and since that finding of the learned Magistrate has not been challenged by the aggrieved person, it follows that no relief could have been given to respondent Nos.2 and 3 also.
From Para 10,
10. In my considered opinion, the learned Magistrate had committed an error in granting monetary relief to respondent Nos.2 and 3 despite the fact that domestic violence could not be established. Though it is possible to say that the maintenance was permissible for respondent Nos.2 and 3 (minor children) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the monetary reliefs could not have been given to them under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The view taken by the learned Magistrate and the appellate Court, in my opinion, is not correct.
Moreover, Judge ordered refund of the money deposited by the husband with the Court.
iii. The amount of Rs.Twenty Five Thousand, deposited by the petitioner in this Court shall be refunded to him immediately.
Citation: 2014 All MR(Cri) 2398
Other Sources:
The Index of PWDV Act cases here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 491 access attempts in the last 7 days.
