MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

DV Quash – Neighbour can’t compensate for husband’s violence

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 43 of 2016

SUTHAR RAMILABEN SITARAM..
Versus
RAJPUT BHAVANABEN D/O CHAMANJI JAVANJI & 6…

CORAM: MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Date : 13/06/2016

1.Heard schooled disciple Ms.Amrita Ajmera for a applicant and schooled disciple Mr.A.V.Prajapati for respondent No.1.

2.The applicant herein is strange competition No.6 in Criminal Misc.Application No.317 of 2013 before a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Visnagar. Such focus was elite by benefaction respondent No.1 being mother underneath a supplies of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 opposite her father and in-laws being respondents No.4 to 7. Whereas, benefaction applicant was assimilated as respondent No.6 being their neighbour. In further to opposite allegations, one of a claim is per attribute between respondent No.3 – father of a strange applicant with benefaction applicant. However, while traffic with a supplies of Domestic Violence Act, a law is now good staid that supplies of such Act is germane to a father and in-laws usually and not on any other persons including a chairman with whom possibly of a associate is in attribute so also neighbour or any other person. Therefore, to that extent, a record opposite a benefaction applicant underneath a Domestic Violence Act is not usually unwarranted, yet undue and bootleg and therefore, any sequence opposite a benefaction applicant underneath a Domestic Violence Act by mother of some chairman with whom atleast on a date of filing of censure compartment any sequence is passed, if there is no attribute between such third chairman and a father or spouse, then, any such sequence underneath Domestic Violence Act opposite third chairman becomes zip and it needs to be quashed and setaside.

See also  Multiple Maintenance petitions allowed?

3.Therefore, in a benefaction case, when strange complainant has definitely disclosed a benefaction applicant as their neighbour only, any instruction or order, some-more quite sequence extenuation upkeep in foster of a strange complainant is uncalled-for and needs to be quashed and set-aside.

4.If we peruse a impugned order, it becomes transparent that while creation several directions underneath a Domestic Violence Act, a hearing Court has unsuccessful to shorten such sequence usually opposite strange opponents No.1 to 5 being father and in-laws of a complainant. Unfortunately, identical mistake has been continued in Criminal Appeal Nos.9 and 10 when appellate Court has motionless such appeals on 5.12.2015. In such judgment, again a appellant Court has unsuccessful to compute a guilt of strange opponents No.1 to 5 on one palm and competition No.6 on other hand. By both a impugned judgments, both a reduce Courts have reliable a guilt of all a opponents jointly for profitable upkeep to a mother and to compensate other volume towards cost and also towards residential accommodation.

5.Therefore, so distant as impugned orders are regulating guilt of a benefaction applicant being neighbour of a competition No.1 i.e. respondent No.3 herein – father is concerned, all such instruction needs to be quashed and set-aside. However, it is done transparent that when strange opponents No.1 to 5 – father and in-laws of a complainant – mother have not elite a rider by severe a impugned visualisation and order, their guilt stays unblushing even yet this rider focus is allowed. 6.Therefore, this rider focus is authorised qua benefaction applicant usually and hence, a impugned visualisation and sequence antiquated 24.7.2015 in Criminal Misc.Application No.317 of 2013 by J.M.F.C., Visnagar so also visualisation and sequence antiquated 5.12.2015 by Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeals No.9 and 10 of 2015 qua a benefaction applicant is hereby quashed and set-aside. However, it is done transparent that this Court has not scrutinized or examined a visualisation and sequence opposite a respondents No.3 to 7 i.e. strange opponents No.1 to 5 and therefore, visualisation and sequence opposite them will sojourn in force.

See also  Maintenance case, striking off defence

(S.G.SHAH, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Maintenance case, striking off defence
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation