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