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.
