Wife Can Claim Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act Even If Maintenance Claim Is Rejected In Proceeding Under Section 125
Introduction
The present matter was a criminal revision filed by the Petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Indore whereby the Ld. Appellate Court affirmed the order of the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore wherein the application filed by the Respondent under Section 23 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was allowed and the Petitioner No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as interim maintenance to the Respondent.
Brief Facts Of The Case
Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1, the husband and Respondent, the wife was solemnized on 07.02.2004. The case of the Respondent was that after marriage, her in-laws started demanding dowry and harassed her. When the Petitioner no. 1 was posted at Hisar, Petitioner no. 2 and Petitioner no. 3 kicked out the Respondent from the house due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. Thereafter, the Petitioner no. 1 took the Respondent to Pune, where he assaulted her due to which the Respondent had to undergo an operation. The abuse towards the Respondent continued and one day the Petitioner no. 1 even choked the Respondent’s neck. After this incident, the Respondent only used to live in her matrimonial house while the Petitioner no. 1 used to stay at his home.
[Image Sources : Shutterstock]
Thereafter, an application under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the Respondent before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore but after considering the facts mentioned in the application, the Ld. Family Court dismissed the Respondent’s application for maintenance on 19.07.2018 with the findings that the Petitioners had never stopped the Respondent from returning back to their house and she was living separately from the Petitioner no. 1 on her own sweet will.
When the matter went before the Ld. Trial Court, after considering the evidence available on record and submissions of both parties, the Ld. Trial Court adjudicated in favour of the Respondent that directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance. The said order of the Ld. Trial Court was challenged by the Petitioners before the Appellate Court which rejected the appeal after considering the submissions of both parties and affirmed the order of interim maintenance passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore.
Arguments On Behalf Of The Petitioners
The Petitioners contended that the Ld. Trial Court misinterpreted the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Gyan Chand v. Smt. Rekha, wherein it was held that the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are similar in nature. Once the findings are given under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the same issue cannot be agitated between the same parties before another forum. It was also contended that the Ld. Family Court had already adjudicated that the respondent was living separately from her husband/petitioner No. 1 without any reason, and the same issue could not be adjudicated by the Ld. Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court again. Moreover, it was contended that the Respondent had malafidely suppressed the vital fact from the Court that the Petitioner no. 1 had retired from the Army and was living simply as a pensioner having the liability of his parents and little sister. In light of this, it was submitted that the orders of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were suffering from infirmity and illegality, hence, were liable to be struck down.
Arguments On Behalf Of The Respondent
The Respondent vehemently opposed the contentions of the Petitioners and submitted that since both proceedings were adjudicated on different footings, the order of the Ld. Family Court did not have any binding effect on the Courts dealing with the cases under the Domestic Violence Act.
Analysis
The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed that in Gyan Chand v. Rekha, the Court of Magistrate had given its finding under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and that finding was affirmed by the Appellate Court. In view of that, High Court of Rajasthan held that the same issue could not be agitated in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure. On the other hand, the position in the present matter was different and vice-versa. The Petitioners relied upon the order of the Family Court and requested to apply the findings of the Family Court to the Court dealing with the Domestic Violence Act but it is well settled that the proceedings under Section 125 are of summary nature. Hence, the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court opined that the facts of both cases were different.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court placed reliance on the case of NagendrappaNatikar v. Neelamma, referred by the Respondent wherein it was held by the Apex Court that proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C. are summary in nature and intended to provide a speedy remedy to the wife and any order passed under Section 125 Cr. P.C. by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Act.
Moreover, the Hon’ble High Court highlighted the landmark case of Rajnesh v. Neha, wherein while citing the decision of the Delhi High Court in RD v. BD the Apex Court was of a considered opinion that provisions of the Domestic Violence Act dealing with maintenance are supplementary to the provisions of other laws and therefore maintenance can be granted to the aggrieved persons under the Domestic Violence Act which would also be in addition to any order of maintenance arising out of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the Apex Court observed that a maintenance application decided under one statute would not foreclose the claim for maintenance under a different statute and even in case maintenance is awarded under one of the statutes, the same would not preclude the claimant from raising another maintenance claim under a different statute.
Decision Of The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the revision petition filed by the Petitioners and observed that if the application of a wife in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected by the Family Court, the wife would not be precluded from claiming maintenance or other monetary remedy under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.
The reasoning given by the Ld. Family Court for dismissing the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this particular case is irrelevant to the cases pending before the Courts dealing with the Domestic Violence Act. When the impugned order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Indore is examined from the perspective of the settled legal position, it becomes clear that the revision petition, seeking dismissal of the impugned order is devoid of merits and that the Petitioners’ arguments against the impugned judgement would not stand.
Author: Sonakshi Pandey, A Student at Symbiosis Law School in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing
References
- Bhupendra Singh Rajawat v. RanjeetaRajawat, 2023 SCC OnLine MP 4047
- Gyan Chand v. Smt. Rekha, 2010 (2) Cri.L.R. (Raj.) 1544
- NagendrappaNatikar v. Neelamma, (2014) 14 SCC 452
- Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324
