S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022

Posted on July 13 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Paras 5 and 6,

5 A careful perusal of the order passed by both the Courts below reveal that the learned Magistrate, based on the evidence and the materials, found that the respondent/wife has not proved the domestic violence caused by the petitioner/husband, however awarded Rs.3000/- as maintenance to the child. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, in the appeal filed by the respondent/wife even though confirmed the findings of the learned Magistrate, enhanced the maintenance to Rs.5000/- without even giving any specific reason or findings.
6 It is settled proposition of law that the wife is entitled to get maintenance, if she is unable to maintain herself, invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C. and during pendency of the divorce petition also she can claim interim maintenance or she can claim permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Leaving all the above, if the wife seeks maintenance under the Act, it is the duty of the wife to prove the domestic violence caused by the husband, whereas in this case, the Magistrate given a finding that there is no domestic violence and the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, even though confirmed the findings of the learned Magistrate, without giving any valid reason or findings, enhanced the maintenance. The wife has not even filed any revision or cross objections against the adverse findings made by both the Courts below against her.

S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022

Index of DV cases is here.

Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023

Posted on July 13 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Bombay High Court held as follows,

From Paras 8 and 9,

8. In order to seek relief under D.V. Act, the aggrieved person has to prove or prima facie show that there was domestic violence. That compelled him or her to seek relief under the said Act. Domestic violence is sine-qua-non for considering the application under the D.V. Act. In this case, the wife has been residing separately since 2005 from her husband. She never claimed maintenance under either the law or by her own petition. She is getting the interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- in the divorce petition filed by the husband. It is yet not concluded.
9. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, this Court is of the view that it is well-reasoned order and with correct findings that the respondent/wife failed to prove the domestic violence. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to have not correctly examined the record, considered the rule of appreciating the evidence, and mechanically passed the impugned order. The impugned order is illegal, improper and
incorrect, and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023

Index of DV cases is here.

Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 04 Jul 2018

Posted on October 10, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench at Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when no prima facie DV is established, no relief will flow, even to children/other respondents.

From Para 3,

3. Learned trial Court taking note of such factual details in the application has disposed of the same with a direction to the respondent-husband to pay `30,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance allowance to the petitioner and her children, however, without recording any prima-facie finding qua the alleged instances of her maltreatment and her children by the respondent and his mother. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the respondent-husband has been allowed by learned Sessions Judge vide order under challenge in this petition with the observation that in a case of domestic violence in order to seek the relief of interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Act, a prima-facie case qua maltreatment and existence of the instances of domestic violence is required to be made out. Learned Appellate Court thereby has not closed the right of the petitioner to claim interim maintenance for herself and also the children and rather remanded the application to learned trial Court for disposal after arriving at a conclusion and recording findings qua the instances of domestic violence, which of course shall be prima facie.
4. The impugned judgment, as such, cannot be said to be legally and factually unsustainable. The same is upheld, however, there shall be a direction to learned trial Court to decide the application at the earliest, preferably within two months from today.

Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 04 Jul 2018

Index of Domestic Violence cases here.

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Posted on February 28, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench of AP High Court, relying on Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors here, held as follows,

In view of the principle laid down in Sangita Saha V. Abhijit Saha (2020 (3) SCC (Cri) 573), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that when the petitioner therein was unable to establish any incident of torture or demand for money or physical violence, she is not entitled for any maintenance, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order needs adjudication.

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Citations :

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144262882/

Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019

Posted on April 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

“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.”

Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019

Citations: [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 559], [2020 (3) SCC (Cri) 573]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199772841/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d848ce9714d58266e07f0be

The High Court of Kolkata judgment is here.

Key Paras:

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.

Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami and ors on 05 May 2014

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & ors on 05 May 2014

Citation: 2014 All MR(Cri) 2398

Other Sources:

The Index of PWDV Act cases here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: No Evidence for Domestic Violence No Reliefs

S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022

Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023

Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 04 Jul 2018

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019

Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami and ors on 05 May 2014