SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mukeshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Manjulaben W on 18 January, 2018

R/CR.RA/652/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 652 of 2017
[On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 20/12/2017 in
R/CR.RA/652/2017 ]

MUKESHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL….Applicant(s)
Versus
MANJULABEN WD/O MAHENDRABHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL
1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR NIRAV R MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RK MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH

Date : 18/01/2018

ORAL ORDER

It   seems   that   by   typographical   or   clerical   error,   name   of 
learned   APP   is   not   disclosed   in   the   judgment   and   order   dated 
20.12.2017. Therefore, such order is to be corrected by disclosing 
the   name   of   learned   APP   Mr.Manan   Mehta   appearing   for   the 
respondent­State. 

With the above observation, Speaking to minutes is allowed 
and disposed of accordingly. 

(S.G. SHAH, J.)
* Kotecha

Page 1 of 1

HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Thu Jan 18 23:41:22 IST 2018
1 of 4
R/CR.RA/652/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 652 of 2017

MUKESHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL….Applicant(s)
Versus
MANJULABEN WD/O MAHENDRABHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL

1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:

MR NIRAV R MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RK MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 2

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH

Date : 20/12/2017

ORAL ORDER

1. RULE returnable on 26.12.2017. Mr.Dipak Dave, learned
advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
respondent no.1. Learned APP Mr.Manan Mehta waives
service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the
respondent. Mr.Dave learned advocate for the
respondent no.1- wife is relying upon provision of
Sections 2 (f) ,(q), 12 and 20 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Court has
directed the payment of Rs.5000/- to the wife by her
brother-in-law i.e. brother of deceased husband.

Page 1 of 3

HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Thu Jan 18 23:41:22 IST 2018
2 of 4
R/CR.RA/652/2017 ORDER

3. It is undisputed fact that husband of applicant – wife has
expired. It is undisputed fact that wife is residing in her
husband’s premises and the Trial Court has directed not
to disturb her possession of the property situated at
Bungalow no.11, Bhagirath Society, Naranpur,
Ahmedabad. However, at present the dispute is with
reference to monthly amount of maintenance awarded
against the brother-in-law of the wife – brother of the
deceased husband of the wife. Provisions of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 nowhere
defines the words “maintenance” but only maintenance
and right for maintenance under such Act is found in
Section 20(d) which reads as under:-

“20. Monetary reliefs:

(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as
well as her children, if any, including an order
under or in additional to an order of maintenance
under section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for
the time being in force.

4. Therefore, prima facie, for considering the meaning and
quantum of maintenance award we may rely upon
Provision of section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code,
1973. It is settled legal position that under such
Provision, maintenance is to be awarded against the
husband and not against in-law.

5. Whereas, Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act makes
it clear that aggrieved person may also seek relief

Page 2 of 3

HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Thu Jan 18 23:41:22 IST 2018
3 of 4
R/CR.RA/652/2017 ORDER

available under this Act before the Civil Court, Family
Court if her civil rights are effected. Therefore, Section
26 makes it clear that civil disputes cannot be
considered in such proceedings under the Domestic
Violence Act and therefore, though there are provisions
under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act to
award maintenance to widow against in-law of the
widow if at all there are holding of the property of the
husband, such order cannot be passed in proceedings
under the Domestic Violence Act. In view of such fact,
impugned order is stayed so far as awarding the
maintenance is concerned.

6. After dictating such order, learned advocate Mr.Dave
has agreed for deciding the matter finally.

7. Registry is directed to call for the record and proceedings.

(S.G. SHAH, J.)
VARSHA

Page 3 of 3

HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Thu Jan 18 23:41:22 IST 2018
4 of 4

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation