SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Noor Alam Khan vs Hasina Bano Noor Alam And Anr on 11 July, 2018

rpa 1/25 wp-2070-16.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2070 OF 2016

Noor Alam Khan ]
Aged – 50 years, Occupation – Service, ]
R/at.CGS Quarter, Building No.202/2453,]
Kane Nagar, Antop Hill, Wadala ]
Mumbai – 400 030. ] .. Petitioner

Vs.

(1) Hasina Bano Noor Alam ]
Age – 36 years, ]
Occupation – Beutician, ]
R/at. 323/324, Qaim Ali Peer ]
Bhai Chawl, Room No.4, ]
S.V. Road, Andheri (W), ]
Mumbai 400 058; ]

(2) State of Maharashtra. ] .. Respondents

……
Mr.Ahmed N. Shaikh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms.Flavia Agnes a/w. Mr.Pramod Shenoy, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
Mrs.M.R. Tidke, APP for Respondent No.2 – State.
……
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATED : JULY 11, 2018.

JUDGMENT :

Heard both side for final disposal.

2 The proceedings under the provisions of the Domestic

Violence Act were initiated by respondent no.1 vide CC
Digitally signed
Rajeshri by Rajeshri
Prakash Aher
Prakash Date:

Aher 2018.07.26
16:12:27 +0530
rpa 2/25 wp-2070-16.doc

No.46/DV/2012. The said proceedings are pending before the

Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 10th Court at Andheri Mumbai.

The petitioner has challenged order dated 21 st July, 2015, passed

by the trial Court granting maintenance in the sum of Rs.10,000/-

to respondent no.1 and order dated 15th February, 2016, passed

by the Sessions Court in an Appeal preferred by the petitioner by

modifying the same and directing the petitioner to pay the

maintenance in the sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent

no.1.

3 According to petitioner, respondent no.1 has filed a

false proceedings in order to harass and extort money from the

petitioner. In the proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 false

and baseless allegations are made against the petitioner. It is

contended that respondent no.1 has suppressed that the

petitioner had pronounced three times oral Talaq “Islamic

Permissible Divorce” against respondent no.1. and thereby the

marital ties between the petitioner and respondent no.1 has come

to an end by virtue of oral Talaq pronounced by the petitioner on

16th May, 2012. The application initiated by respondent no.1 is

based on false and concocted averments. It is also contended that

the mandatory requirement of report submitted by protection
rpa 3/25 wp-2070-16.doc

officer contradicts the allegations of domestic violence made by

respondent no.1, before the trial Court in the said proceedings.

4 The Protection Officer had submitted the domestic

incident report to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 10 th

Court, Mumbai, on 24th July, 2012. Alongwith the said report, the

copy of the non-cognizable complaint made by respondent no.1

and registered with the concerned police station was also

forwarded to the Court. Respondent no.1 filed an affidavit before

the trial Court on 17th October, 2012, giving instances of

purported the domestic violence committed by the petitioner

against her. It was also stated that the details provided in the

application for grant of relief under Section 12 of the Protection

of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been entered

into on her instructions. It was further stated that the relief

claimed in the applications are urgent. The petitioner filed his

reply opposing the relief sought by respondent no.1. Learned

Magistrate by order dated 21st July, 2015, directed the petitioner

to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to respondent no.1, until

further orders from the date of application. The petitioner

preferred an Appeal before the Sessions Court challenging the

order of maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge, by order
rpa 4/25 wp-2070-16.doc

dated 15th February, 2016, confirmed the findings of the trial

Court. However, the maintenance amount was reduced from

Rs.10,000/- to Rs.6,000/-, per month from the date of the

Domestic Violence Petition.

5 Learned advocate for the petitioner made following

submissions:

(i) The petitioner had pronounced three times oral Talaq and

thereby the martial ties between the petitioner and

respondent no.1 has come to an end. Reliance was placed

on the Fatwa dated 16th May, 2012. It is submitted that the

Talaq was pronounced on 16th May, 2012;

(ii) The report of the Protection Officer is contradictory to the

allegations made by respondent no.1, in her application;

(ii) The marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.1

was not consummated. Respondent no.1 is not having any

menstruation period. Hence, the petitioner was

constrained to pronounce oral Talaq, which is supported by

the Fatwa obtained from Mufti/Qazi Aziz-ur-Rehman;

rpa 5/25 wp-2070-16.doc

(iv) The trial Court without appreciating the reply filed the

petitioner to the interim application had come to the

conclusion of granting the maintenance in the sum of

Rs.10,000/-, per month to respondent no.1, until further

order from the date of application;

(v) The petitioner was working in ASTT Garrison Engineer as

Mate (Labour) (FGM) in the year 2011 and his net pay

salary of Rs.5,180/-, after deducting all deductions which

are reflected in the salary of May 2011. The petitioner

after loosing his job again approached the employer and

started working as mate (FGM) at the same company and

his net pay is Rs.6,397/-, after deducting all deduction, as

per salary slip of the month of July 2015. The petitioner is

having net pay of Rs.6,124/-, after necessary deduction as

seen from the salary slip for the month of March 2016,

which is annexed to this petition;

(vi) The petitioner had borrowed friendly loan to clear the

arrears for the maintenance of his first wife Zarina Khatun

in respect of the proceedings which arepending in the

Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Kurla and had deposited
rpa 6/25 wp-2070-16.doc

Rs.85,000/-, towards the arrears of the interim

maintenance granted by the Sessions Court in Criminal

Appeal No.706 of 2015, at the time of admission while

granting stay to the implementation of the order dated 21 st

July, 2015, passed by the trial Court in the present

proceedings. The petitioner was required to repay the

borrowed sum of Rs.85,000/- from MSE Co-operative

Credit Society Colaba. The statement of loan obtained by

the petitioner has been annexed to the petition. The aged

parents of the petitioner are dependent on him. The first

wife Zarina Khatun had filed an application under the

Domestic Violence Act, in which the Court had granted

interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month to

Zarina Khatun and Rs.1,000/- for minor son from the date

of application. The petitioner has to pay a monthly interim

maintenance of Rs.2,200/-, per month to his first wife and

child;

(vii) The petitioner is diabetic and suffering from several health

issues. He is also required to spend amount towards his

daily basic needs;

rpa 7/25 wp-2070-16.doc

(viii) The application filed by respondent no.1 does not disclose

any domestic violence. She is not entitled for the relief

claimed in her application. The Appellate Court has not

considered the income of the petitioner while passing the

impugned order. The quantum of maintenance is very high

and it will be difficult for the petitioner to pay the said

amount of maintenance to respondent no.1;

(ix) The petitioner had produced his salary slip for the month

of July 2015 which reveals that there are deduction of

Rs.14,518/-, comprising of subscription towards GPF at the

rate of 14,000/-, per month. The Courts below have

committed an error for not considering such deductions

while calculating the income capacity. The net pay/salary

of the petitioner as per the salary slip is of Rs.6,397/-. The

Appellate Court has committed an error while deciding the

quantum of net gross pay of Rs.20,915/-, but did not

consider the net salary received by the petitioner;

(x) While awarding maintenance from the date of application,

expressed order is necessary, however, in the present case

there was no express order giving reasons as to why the

maintenance is to be paid from the date of the application;

rpa 8/25 wp-2070-16.doc

(xi) The respondent no.1 has filed the application in the year

2012, and from time to time she sought adjournments for

hearing interim application which had caused delay. The

Courts below have failed to take into consideration the

said aspect while awarding interim maintenance without

giving reasons for granting maintenance from the date of

the proceedings. Reliance is placed on the following

decisions:

(1) Kalyan Dey Choudhari Vs. Rita Dey Choudhari,
decided by Supreme Court1;

(2) Decision of the Supreme Court delivered in the case
of Shail Kumari Devi Anr. Vs. Krishan Bhagwan
Pathak @ Kishun B. Patha2

6 The submissions of Ms.Flavia Agnes, learned counsel

appearing for respondent no.1 can be summarised as under::

(a) There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Courts

below. The trial Court had analyzed the evidence on record

and had come to the conclusion that there is Domestic

Violence, and, thereafter, the maintenance was granted. It

is submitted that the Appellate Court has modified the

order of the trial Court and has reduced the maintenance

1 Civil Appeal No.5369 of 2017
2 AIR 2008 SC 3006
rpa 9/25 wp-2070-16.doc

from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. It is submitted

that while reducing the maintenance, the Appellate Court

has confirmed the findings of the trial Court qua the

existence of Domestic Violence and after taking into

consideration all the aspects of the matter including the

earnings of the petitioner had passed the order directing

maintenance in the sum of Rs.6,000/-, per month;

(b) The contention of the petitioner that the order passed by

the Courts does not consider the deductions with respect to

General Provident Fund while calculating the income of the

petitioner is devoid of merits. The contention is erroneous,

as the subscription to General Provident Fund is a

voluntary deduction that is not to be considered while

calculating income for the purposes of deciding

maintenance;

(c) The Allahabad High Court in the case of Veena Panda @

Seema Panda Vs. Devendra Kumar Panda3, has

observed that the contributions towards General Provident

Funds and payment towards installments loan etc., shall not

3 2006 SCCC OnLine All 332
rpa 10/25 wp-2070-16.doc

be permitted to be deducted to work out the carry home

salary;

(d) In the case of Savita Aggarwal Vs. R.C. Aggarwal4, the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana had rejected the

deductions of General Provident Fund and other deductions

from calculations of income;

(e) The High Court of Punjab and Harayan in the case of

Mukesh Kumar Vs. Rekha Rane and Ors.5, had observed

that deductions that are made from the gross salary

towards long term savings, which a person would get back

at the end of his service and such as deductions towards

General Provident Fund, General Group Insurance Scheme,

L.I.C. Premium, State Life Insurance Loan can be deemed

to be asset that he is creating for himself. In arriving at the

income of the party only involuntary deductions like income

tax, provident fund contributions etc. are to be excluded.

Therefore, such deductions cannot be deducted or excluded

from his salary while computing his means to pay

maintenance;

4     I (1991) DMC 18
5 MANU/PH/0277/2018
rpa 11/25 wp-2070-16.doc

(f) Respondent no.1 has fully made out case of Domestic

Violence, a separate application for interim maintenance

under D.V. Act is not required.

(g) There is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts

below in granting maintenance from the date of application.

Reliance was placed on the Roznama of the proceedings

before the trial Court to show that the applicant had not

delayed the said proceedings.

(h) Apart from the decisions referred to herein above, learned

counsel for respondent no.1 also relied upon the following

decisions:

(1) Annurita Vohra Vs. Sandeep Vohra6, decided by Delhi
High Court;

(2) Harminder Kaur Vs. Sukhwinder Singh7, Decided by
Delhi High Court;

(3) Anup Varadpande Vs. Anisha Anup Varadpande8,;
(4) Sukumar Pawanlal Gandhi Vs. Bhakti Sushil Gandhi 9;

(5)      Bharat Hegde Vs. Saroj Hegde10;
(6) Vishal Damodar Patil Vs. Vishakha Patil11;

6 2004(74) DRJ 99
7 2002(62) DRJ 742
8 2010(3) MH.L.J. 777
9 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 12942
10 2007 DMC 815
11 2009 Cri.L.J. 107
rpa 12/25 wp-2070-16.doc

(7) Jaiminiben H. Vyas Vs. Hirenbhai R. Vyas12;
(8) Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan13

7 The proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act

were initiated on 24th July, 2012. The Domestic incident report

was submitted by the Protection Officer. The respondent no.1

filed affidavit dated 17th October, 2012. In the report submitted to

the trial Court, it was mentioned that the petitioner claims

maintenance in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. In the affidavit dated 17 th

October, 2012, respondent no.1 had contended that the details

provided in the application for grant of relief under Section 12 of

the said Act have been entered into on her instructions. It was

also stated that the relief claimed in the application are urgent,

as respondent no.1 would face great financial hardship and will

be forced to live under the threat of repetition/escalation of acts

of domestic violence, if the said reliefs are not granted. It was

also stated that the respondent in this proceedings (petitioner)

has threatened her of dire consequences and threatened to kill

her if she initiates any legal proceedings to restraining him from

his evil tactics. He has abused and assaulted her on several

occasions, however, she remain silent. The affidavit also gives

instances of incidents which according to her amounts to
12 (2015) 2 SCC 385
13 (2015) 5 SCC 705
rpa 13/25 wp-2070-16.doc

domestic violence. Whereas, it is contention of the petitioner

herein that false and frivolous allegations are made at the

instance of respondent no.1, which are not supported by any

evidence. It is further contended that the report of the protection

officer and the claim of respondent no.1 are contradictory to each

other. The primary contention of the petitioner is that there is no

existence of any relationship between the petitioner and

respondent no.1. The marital ties between them has come to an

end on account of oral Talaq pronounced thrice by the petitioner

on 16th May, 2012. The petitioner has placed reliance on the

Fatwa issued by Mufti/Qazi. The other contentions which are

emanating from the submissions advanced by the counsel for the

petitioner is that no case was made out for grant of maintenance.

The Courts have not taken into consideration the deduction while

awarding the maintenance. The petitioner has no earning

capacity to pay maintenance awarded by the trial Court and the

Appellate Court and that the order directing payment of

maintenance from the date of application, is contrary to law.

8 On perusal of the order dated 21 st July, 2015, passed

by the trial Court, it appears that prior to filing application for

maintenance, the respondents therein (petitioner) had filed an
rpa 14/25 wp-2070-16.doc

application objecting the maintainability of the proceedings. The

said application was rejected by order dated 14 th November,

2014. The contention of the petitioner on the ground of Talaq

was rejected and that order had attained finality. It is further

observed that the contention of the petitioner that the respondent

no.1 is not legally wedded wife is devoid of any substance and

that he was liable to pay the maintenance to respondent no.1. the

learned Magistrate took into consideration the contents of the

application, the documents on record, the reply filed by the

petitioner opposing the reliefs and has come to the conclusion

that the respondent no.1 is entitled to maintenance in the sum of

Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of the application. It was

also observed that the contention of the applicant therein that the

respondent has suppressed the fact of his three marriages itself

amounts to mental cruelty to any women. The respondent therein

is neglecting the applicant by denying the fact of their marriage.

The respondent had not filed any documents to show that he had

provided any kind of maintenance to the applicant therein. The

Court referred to NC complaint which shows that the wife was

subjected to ill treatment. It was further observed that the

husband being a government servant has sufficient means to

maintain his wife. The petitioner had also contended that he is
rpa 15/25 wp-2070-16.doc

required to pay maintenance to his first wife as per the directions

of the Court. It was submitted that the salary of the petitioner

and the expenditure which is require to in curred towards the

maintenance to be paid to his first wife and towards his parents

and himself, has to be considered and thus, the quantum of

maintenance as awarded by the Courts below was contrary to

law. The Appellate Court has reduced the maintenance from

10,000/- to Rs.6,000/-. The said order had not been challenged by

the respondent no.1.

9 Learned Sessions Judge while deciding the Appeal

after analyzing the documents on record, observed that the

respondent was entitled to maintenance, however, the so far as

the quantum is concerned, prima facie, dependency on the

appellant and his income capacity is required to be considered.

After analysing the aspects relating to quantum of maintenance,

the Court was pleased to reduce the maintenance amount to

Rs.6,000/-, per month from the date of the D.V. Petition. The

Court has observed that though the petitioner is bound to

subscribe some amount towards GPF, it cannot be huge amount

of Rs.14,000/- per month, which reveals the intention of evading

maintenance amount. Though the pay slip reveals Rs.6397/-, net
rpa 16/25 wp-2070-16.doc

gross pay of the petitioner is Rs.20,915/- and the interim

maintenance is required to be provided considering the

maintenance of Rs.2,200/-, to be provided to the earlier wife, and

after considering the compulsory reductions/deductions. The

Court noted that the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- was exorbitant

in the light of the factual aspects in the present matter. The

appellate Court has also dealt with the contention of the

petitioner that the D.V. Petition was filed in the year 2012,

whereas, the impugned interim order came to be passed in the

year 2015 and, as such there was no urgency for the respondents

to have any interim monetary relief. The Court observed that no

material was produced by the appellant to ascertain as to who

has caused delay in hearing of interim relief. It was further

observed that the copy of Fatwa is in Urdu language and its

translation was annexed thereto. The appellant has not filed

affidavit of the translator to prima facie make out the sanctity of

the contents thereof. The respondent had not submitted that she

has been divorced by the appellant at any time. Under such

circumstances, the communication of pronouncement of Talaq

was required to be prima facie made out. Apart from such factual

proof of pronouncement of Talaq it is necessary to consider that

the status of the aggrieved person under the D.V. Act in relation
rpa 17/25 wp-2070-16.doc

to her marriage and divorce is not relevant. The Court relied

upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Zuveri

Abdul Majid Patni Vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori. It was further

observed that in the present case, the respondent have made

allegations of harassment by the appellant and the

pronouncement of Talaq which was allegedly done on 16 th May,

2012, is after the wife was driven from matrimonial home on 13 th

May, 2012. Prima facie the act of the appellant who had

pronounced Talaq after causing harassment amounts to domestic

violence. I do not find any reason to deviate from the findings

given by the Appellate Court

10 Section 23 of D.V. Act provides for interim relief to be

granted by the Court if satisfied that prima facie case of domestic

violence being caused to the applicant is made out in the

application. In the present case, D.V. Petition is presented to

Protection Officer in prescribed form and it reveals the instances

of domestic violence. Such instances, are further substantiated by

the affidavit filed by the respondent under Section 23(2) of the

D.V. Act. It is revealed from the submissions that the respondent

is married to the petitioner on 21st November, 2010, and she was

assaulted and abused by the petitioner. However, she remained
rpa 18/25 wp-2070-16.doc

silent to keep peace in the matrimonial relations. It is also

revealed that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he is

already married to other woman. The Appellate Court had

observed that the appellant in the reply did not specifically

disclose his monthly income and merely denied the claim of the

original applicant. The salary slip was produced before the trial

Court for the month of May 2011 and July 2015. The pay slip for

the month of July 2015, shows that the gross salary of the

petitioner was Rs.20,915/- with total deduction of Rs.14,518/-.

The modified order passed by the Sessions Court do not require

any interference. The advocate for the petitioner had tendered

document relating to loan, LIC premium, GPF subscription.

Whereas advocate for respondent tendered written submission

along with decisions of Court.

11 In the case of Shailkumari Devi (Supra), which is

relied on by the petitioner the Court dealt with issue whether

while deciding an application under Section 125 of the Code, the

Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting

maintenance from the date of application. It is observed that for

awarding maintenance from the date of application, express

order is necessary, however, no special reasons are required to be
rpa 19/25 wp-2070-16.doc

recorded by the Court. It was also held that while deciding an

application under Section 125 of the Code, a Magistrate is

required to record reasons for granting or refusing maintenance

to wife, children or parents. Another decision relied upon by

advocate for petitioner in the case of Kalyan Dey (Supra) was

relating to order of maintenance passed by High Court in Review

Petition. It was observed that maintenance is always depending

on the factual situation of the case and Court would be justified in

moulding the claim on various factors. Learned counsel for the

respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High

Court in the case of Annurita Vohra Vs. Sandeep Vohra

(Supra), wherein it was observed that the Court must first arrive

at the net disposable income of the husband or the dominant

earning spouse. If the other spouse is also working, these

earnings must be kept in mind. This would constitute the Family

Resource Cake which would then be cut up and distributed

amongst the members of the family. The apportionment of the

cake must be in consonance with the financial requirements of

the family members, which is exactly what happens when the

spouses are one homogeneous unit. The satisfactory approach

would be to divide the Family Resource Cake in two portions to

the husband since he has to incur extra expenses in the course of
rpa 20/25 wp-2070-16.doc

making his earning, and one share each to other members. In

another decision of Allahabad High Court relied upon by the

counsel for the respondents delivered in the case of Veena

Panda @ Seema Panda Vs. Devendra Kumar Panda (Supra),

it was observed by the Court that as long as matrimonial ties

subsists between the parties, the wife is entitled to live in the

matrimonial house or in a separate building. The wife should not

be relegated to a lower standard of living than that the husband

enjoys. She should be given maintenance according to status of

her husband. While considering the question of 'maintenance

pendente lite' under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act its

definition as given in Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act

should be adopted and some significant points should necessarily

be taken into account such as position and status of the parties,

reasonable wants of the claimant, towards food, clothing, shelter

and medical attendance, income of the respondent, income, if any,

of the claimant, number of persons the respondent is obliged to

maintain. In another decision of the Delhi High Court in the case

of Harminder Kaur Vs. Sukhwinder Singh (Supra), it was

observed that One could not be oblivious to the fact that equal

status has been given to Indian women under Articles 14 and 16

of the Constitution. Wife has to live according to the status of her
rpa 21/25 wp-2070-16.doc

husband. In the decision of Anup Varadpande Vs. Anisha Anup

Varadpande (Supra), this Court has observed that what is

contemplated to be income in any provision for grant of interim

maintenance, be that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,

Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure

Code, or any other similar legislation is that the wife, of her own

volition, and upon her educational or professional qualifications,

pursues a settled career either by way of service or profession or

business in which she derives her own independent, separate

income or otherwise earns income by way of investments, rents,

profits or the like from any settled source of income. The

sufficiency or otherwise of such income is required to be seen and

calculated to grant or reject her claim of maintenance.

11 The Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui

Vs. Shahid Khan14, has observed that the obligation of the

husband is on the higher pedestal when the question of

maintenance of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves

the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is

14 (2015) 5 SCC 705
rpa 22/25 wp-2070-16.doc

deprived of many comfort. Some time her faith in life reduces.

Sometime she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may

be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the

misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can

impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort.

That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to

resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of

maintenance allowance. Grant of maintenance to wife has been

perceived as a measure of social justice.

12 In the case of Sukumar Pawanlal Gandhi Vs.

Bhakti Sushil Gandhi (Supra), this Court has laid down the

requisite procedure for a claim of interim relief. It was observed

that Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of D.V. Act, is a salutary

provision which enables not only the aggrieved person but a

Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved

person to present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or

more reliefs under the D.V.Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 12

contemplates that every application under Sub-section (1) shall

be in such form and contain such particulars as may be

prescribed. Accordingly, Rule 6 of the Protection of Women From

Domestic Violence Rules, 2006, prescribes a form of application
rpa 23/25 wp-2070-16.doc

under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 and a form of affidavit under

Sub-section (2) of Section 23. Factual detailed averments are not

at all required to be made. Thus, Clause 1 provides only for

information as to whether the applicant is an aggrieved person or

a Protection Officer or any other person acting on behalf of the

aggrieved person. Clause 2 contains a list of prayers and Clause 3

of the prescribed form only gives a list of orders which are

required to be passed. Clause 4 of the form requires details of

previous litigations, if any. When an interim relief is claimed, an

affidavit in prescribed form is required to be filed. Clause 9 of

Form III requires the Applicant to specify the threat given by the

Respondent. Even going by the said form, it is not necessary to

make detailed averments therein. Therefore, if an application is

made under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 in Form II under the

D.V. Rules, or any affidavit in support is filed in Form III of the

D.V. Rules, the same need not contain detailed averments on

facts. It is not necessary to incorporate factual averments therein

making out a case that a particular act or omission or conduct of

the respondent constitutes a domestic violence within the

meaning of Section 3 of the D.V. Act. It is a matter of inquiry to be

made by the concerned Court before which reliefs under the D.V.

Act are sought. In the case of Vishal Damodar Patil Vs.
rpa 24/25 wp-2070-16.doc

Vishakha Vishal Patil (Supra), the respondent therein had filed

an application under the Domestic Violence Act and the trial

Court had passed an order directing the husband to pay interim

maintenance. It was contended by the husband that in the

absence of any interim application being made by the first

respondent, there was no occasion for the Magistrate to consider

prayer for grant of interim relief. However, the said contention

was rejected by this Court and it was observed that there need

not be any separate application for interim relief made by the

aggrieved person. In the case of Saroj Hegde (Supra), it was

held by Delhi High Court that, while considering the claim of

interim maintenance, the Court has to keep in mind status of

parties, reasonable wants of applicant, income and property of

both parties. The Supreme Court in the case of Jaiminiben H.

Vyas Vs. Hirenbhai R. Vyas (Supra), has observed that there

was no evidence of having an independent income during the

period the parties lived as husband and wife. Thus, the order of

the High Court was reversed and the husband was directed to

pay maintenance from the date of application.

13 In the light of the principles enunciated in

several decisions and considering the factual aspects involved in
rpa 25/25 wp-2070-16.doc

this matter, and, for the reasons stated above, there is no reason

to interfere in the impugned orders. The Court is also justified in

granting maintenance to the respondent from the date of the

petition under the Domestic Violence Act. Hence, the petition

fails and the same is required to be dismissed.

14           Hence, I pass the following order:

:: O R D E R ::

(i) Criminal Writ Petition No.2070 of 2016, stands

dismissed;

(ii) Criminal Writ Petition, stands disposed of.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation