The Allahabad High Court refuses to interfere with the court order granting maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act

The Allahabad High Court has refused to interfere in the order for payment of maintenance of three thousand rupees per month in the case under the Domestic Violence Act after the agreement was made between the husband and wife by paying the entire amount in the maintenance case Maintenance amount was paid all at once.

A single bench of Justice Shanker Prasad passed this order while hearing a sentencing appeal filed by Ram Kumar Mishra.

The criminal appeal under Section 397/401 Cr.PC was filed by the revisionist seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated April 8, 2022 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC/WP/Judicial Judge, Pilibhit The appeal case and the one dated Additional Sessions Judge Pilibhit passed order dated July 27, 2023 in the criminal appeal, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the revisionist against the order dated April 8, 2022.

Opposite party No. 2 was married to the revisionist in 2001 according to Hindu rites and rituals without paying any dowry. After some time of marriage, the relationship between husband and wife became tense and irreconcilable due to the misleading of Opposite Party No. 2’s parents, and Opposite Party No. 2 refused to join the revisionist’s society and started a matrimonial dispute.

Opposite party No. 2 filed a suit under Section 125 Cr.PC for maintenance before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, which was registered as a maintenance suit.

Thereafter, the court below recorded the statement of Mamta Devi in ​​which she stated that she had received a total maintenance of Rs 1,50,000 at one time and that she did not want to pursue this case against the revisionist.

Thereafter, the statement of Ram Kumar was recorded in which he stated that he had paid Rs 1,50,000 to his wife and now he has not taken care of her in any way. Justice Pilibhit after examining the above facts had rejected the application of the opposite party No. 2 vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.7.2009.

Thereafter, in the above case, a settlement was concluded between the two parties on 28.7.2009 in the presence of an eminent person of the society, in which the opposite party No. 2 stated that he had received the entire maintenance amount from the revisionist and there were no charges left for the revisionist left over.

Thereafter, in 2017, the opposite party No. 2 also filed a complaint under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which was registered as a complaint case. The Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC/WP/Judicial District-Pilibhit without considering the facts and circumstances of the case has allowed the suit under Section 23 of the DV Act with a direction to the revisionist to pay Rs 3,000/- per month maintenance allowance on every 10th day of the calendar month, see resolution of April 8, 2022.

Complaining about the order of Civil Judge (Jr. Div)/FTC/WP/Magistrate Pilibhit District dated 08.04.2022, the revisionist filed an appeal before the court of Additional District Judge III Pilibhit registered as an Appellate Tribunal.

Additional District Judge III Pilibhit rejected the appeal of the revisionist without considering the actual facts and circumstances of the case and confirmed the order dated 8.4.2022 passed by Civil Judge Jr. Div)/FTC/WP/Judicial Judge, District-Pilibhit vide Order dated July 27, 2023.

The two decisions of the appeal courts dated April 8, 2022 and July 27, 2023 contradict the evidence on file. The two courts listed below did not apply the judicial opinion and did not believe the objection of the revisionist and also believed the version of the opposite party No. 2.

The court found that

On an overall assessment and more detailed examination of the files of the criminal case, the statements submitted by the lawyers of the parties and also the case law mentioned above, the court comes to the conclusion that the statements made by the lawyer of the opposite party No. 2, No provisions of law such as the Hindu Marriage Act or the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act restricts any wife from filing an application for maintenance from her husband on the ground that she has already received permanent maintenance as a result of a settlement in a proceeding initiated by her under the provisions of Section 125 the Code of Criminal Procedure.

As far as the submission of the revisionist’s lawyer is concerned that since the opposite party No. 2 has been living separately from the revisionist since July 28, 2009 after the final agreement between the parties, there is no violation of the provisions of the DV Act. For revisionists, the court can refer to the provisions of Section 2 (s) of the DV Act, which defines the term “common household”.

From reading the above definition of “Shared Household” it is obvious that the use of the expression “has lived at any time” immediately after the words “person lives damaged” was used to protect the women from having anyone with the Reasons for denying that this is the case At the time of the application she was excluded from owning the house or temporarily absent.

The common household is the household that is currently the residence of an injured person. A shared apartment within the meaning of Section 2 Sentence 1 is considered to be the shared apartment of the injured person in which they lived at the time of the application or in which they were excluded from use in the recent past or in which they are temporarily absent.

“In this case, it is a recognized standpoint that the aggrieved person i.e. Opposite Party No. 2 used to live with the revisionist, hence the offense will be against the revisionist and the Opposite Party No. 2 as per the provisions of the DV Act has every right to You can request compensation at any time in accordance with the provisions of the DV Law.

Therefore, the court found no substance in the statements made by the revisionist’s lawyer that she is not entitled to compensation under the provisions of the DV Act because she lives separately from the revisionist.

“Consequently, the Court finds that there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below which would justify intervention of the Court under Section 397/401 CrPC,” the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.