Need a judgement

2010(3) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 939

(AURANGABAD BENCH)

Before :

Kingaonkar V.R., J.

Jayesh Uttamrao Khairnar & ors. ... Petitioners.

Versus

State of Maharashtra & ors.   ... Respondents.

 Criminal Writ Petition No. 259 of 2009, decided on 7-9-2009.

 Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Secs. 12, 16, 20 & 22 - Respondent 2 filed application under sections 12, 16, 20 and 22 of Act - Asserted, she was allegedly driven out of matrimonial home by petitioners - Further petitioners were demanding Rs. 1 lac for car - Further filed complaint under section 498-A read with 34 and 504, 506 of I.P.C. - She also filed separate application for recovery of maintenance - Petitioners filed copy of judgment, which granted divorce - Complaint proceedings filed by respondent 2, after divorce decree - Further submitted, respondent 2 not preferred appeal against same - Held, in view of absence of domestic relationship of respondent 2 as on date of filing of complaint, proceedings are not maintainable and have filed with mala fide intention to harass husband and relatives. Continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Petition allowed. Proceedings initiated by respondent 2 are quashed. (Para 7)

I need a judgment "Jovita Olga Ignesia Vs. Rajan Maria"

2011Cri L J 754, 2010 (5) CRJ 448 Bombay. This is a

judgment in case of Domestic violence (economic

abuse) probably Bombay High Court. I shall be grateful if some body can help me.

@ P. Tiwari

Here is the judgment...

Mrs. Jovita Olga Ignesia
              Versus
1.  Mr. Rajan Maria Coutinho,

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 30 OF 2010

Mrs. Jovita Olga Ignesia
Mascarenhas e Coutinho,
major, r/o Opp. Assumpta
Convent High School,
Sarzora, Salcete, Goa.                                                     ... Petitioner

versus

1.  Mr. Rajan Maria Coutinho,
     Major, r/o House No.678,
     Dandeawaddo, Chinchinim,
     Salcete Goa.
2.  State of Goa,
     through Chief Secretary,
     Porvorim Goa.                                                            ... Respondents
Mrs. A. A. Agni, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri V. Menezes, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2.
                                                               CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J.
                                                               DATE     : 24TH AUGUST, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Heard.2
2. This petition can be considered under Section 482 of the Code
(Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).
3. This petition is directed against Judgment/Order dated 3-3-2010
of   the   learned  Additional   Sessions   Judge,  Margao,   by  which   the   learned
Additional   Sessions   Judge   has   upheld   the   dismissal   of   the   Petitioner's
application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act,  2005 (Act,  for short) by  the  learned J.M.F.C.  (Magistrate,  for
short) by Judgment/Order dated 7-10-2009.
4. The Petitioner and the Respondent were married on 10-4-2005.
They lived together till 18-4-2006. Their marriage has now been annulled by
the Patriarchal Tribunal for the Archidiocese of Goa and Daman by Judgment
dated 17-1-2009,  and  the  registration of   their  marriage has been cancelled.
Their differences now appear to become irreconcilable as efforts to reconcile
their differences have failed.
5. The   Petitioner   had   filed   a   report   and   an   application   in   the
prescribed  forms,  Forms  I  and  II  under  Section 12 of   the Act  on or  about
11-12-2007.   In  the   said  application,   the  Petitioner    had    alleged   physical
violence on  the  part  of the Respondent of assaulting her on several occasions
in   the  matrimonial   house.  The   Petitioner   had   sought   a   Protection  Order 3
prohibiting  the Respondent  in terms of Section 18,  clause (b) (i.e.  aiding or
abetting  in   the   commission   of   acts   of   domestic   violence);   clause   (d)   (i.e.
attempting   to   communicate   in   any   form,  whatsoever,  with   her   including
personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact) and clause (e) (i.e.
alienating any assets,  operating bank  lockers or bank accounts  ...  etc.).  The
Petitioner had also sought a Residence Order and that should have been under
Section 19(1)(a) and not under Section 19(8). She also sought an order under
Section 19(8) (i.e. a direction for return   of her stridhan or any other property
or  valuable security  to which she was  entitled  to).  The Petitioner  had also
sought   a  Maintenance  Order   under   Section   20(3)   (i.e.   an  Order   to   pay
appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance,  as the
nature and circumstances of the case may require). In fact, the Petitioner had
sought maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month as well as compensation for acts
of  domestic violence committed under  Section 22 of   the Act.  These  reliefs
sought by the Petitioner can be seen from a combined reading of pages 10 of
Form I and 1 and 2 of Form II. In other words, the Petitioner had sought from
the  Magistrate   six   reliefs.   It   is   conceded   that   the   Petitioner's   personal
belongings have been returned and therefore no direction need be issued under
Section 19(8) of the Act.
6. There is no dispute nor any dispute can be raised that both the
Courts below have not at all dealt with the aspect of maintenance claimed by
the Petitioner of a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month in terms of Section 20(3) of 4
the Act and therefore a remand is inevitable. Whether the Petitioner would not
be   entitled   to   the   said   amount   of  Rs.12,000/-   per  month   because   of   the
anullment of the marriage or otherwise was a matter which was required to be
decided by the learned Magistrate, and in fact has not been decided by both the
Courts below and to that extent remanding of the case to the Magistrate has
become inevitable so that the relief claimed by the Petitioner on that score can
be considered by the learned Magistrate.
7. As   regards   the   domestic   violence   or   for   that  matter   physical
abuse  is concerned,   the  learned Magistrate  is  totally silent  about   it  but   the
matter has been considered by  the  learned Additional  Sessions Judge  in  the
Judgment dated 3-3-2010 observing that the Petitioner had failed to prove any
acts of domestic violence against her, had in fact taken place, when she resided
alongwith the Respondent in the matrimonial house at Chinchinim. The said
attempt  appears  to be not  very satisfactory either,  as  the  learned Additional
Sessions Judge has misunderstood the concept of domestic violence. In fact, it
appears   that   another   Additional   Sessions   Judge   in   Criminal   Appeal
No.30/2008,  between  the same parties,  had  in fact  noted  in his Order dated
1-8-2008,  and in my view rightly,  that  domestic violence includes “physical
abuse”, “s*xual abuse”, “verbal and emotional abuse”. The learned Additional
Sessions   Judge   had   also   observed   that   to   consider   the   application(under
Section 12 of the Act)  it  is not necessary  to consider other forms of abuses 5
except the economic abuse,  since the Complainant had averred that she was
living without any monetary support, had no means to support her and that the
Respondent had deliberately kept the passbook and the FDR in his custody in
order to cause hardship to her.
8. The expression “domestic violence” has a very wide amplitude,
as   defined   under  Section   3   of   the  Act,   and   it   includes,   as   already   stated
physical  abuse,   s*xual  abuse,  verbal  and emotional  abuse,  economic abuse
which   in   turn,   inter   alia,   includes   deprivation   of   all   or   any   economic   or
financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or
custom whether payable under an Order of a Court or otherwise or which the
aggrieved   person   requires   out   of   necessity   including,   but   not   limited   to,
household   necessities   for   the   aggrieved   person   and   her   children,   if   any,
stridhan,   the property  jointly or  separately owned by  the aggrieved person,
payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance.
9. As  already  stated,   the  Petitioner  had also  sought  a  Residence
Order under Section 19 and whether the Petitioner was entitled to the same or
not, as the house did not belong to the couple as defined under Clause 2(s) of
the Act or because it belonged to the parents of the couple, was again a matter
which was required to be decided by the Magistrate and which admittedly has
not been decided.6
10. Smt.  Agni,   learned  Counsel   on   behalf   of   the   Petitioner   has
submitted that the only relief which does not survive is the relief sought by the
Petitioner   in column no.5 of   the  application  i.e.   for   return of   the  personal
belongings   of   the  Petitioner   and   no   other   relief   as   sought   for   have   been
considered bythe learned Magistrate.
11. Although, the learned Magistrate took note in the first para of the
Judgment,   of   some   of   the   reliefs   claimed   by   the   Petitioner,   the   learned
Magistrate has not at all stated in the impugned Order as to why the Petitioner
was not  entitled  to any of the reliefs claimed by  the Petitioner.  The learned
Additional   Sessions   Judge   framed   three   points   for   determination   and   as
regards the first point, relying on Dr. Prakash v.  Joshi(unreported Judgment
of this Court dated 18-7-2009) held that an application under Section 12 of the
Act was maintainable in relation to the cause of action which took place prior
to 26-10-2006 i.e. the date on which the Act of 2005 came to force. Regarding
the second point, the learned Additional Sessions Judge completely missed the
bus by confusing the concept of physical abuse with the concept of domestic
violence and without considering at all whether the Petitioner was entitled to
the reliefs claimed by her.  Regarding  the  third point,   the  learned Additional
Sessions Judge held  that   the Petitioner  was entitled  to  the amount   in FDR
No.05140.  What   follows  from  the above discussion  is  that  both  the Courts
below were not at all alive to the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner. No reasons 7
have been assigned why  the Petitioner was not  entitled  to one or  the other
reliefs. The Act, cannot be termed as new legislation. It is in force for almost
five years now.  The Magistrates will  do well   in case  they  try  to understand
what is the concept of domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the Act
rather   than   go   by   the   ordinary   concept   of   violence.  The   procedure   to   be
followed by the Magistrate, in terms of Section 28 of the Act is that which is
prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of
the Act  provides  that  nothing contained  in sub-section (1) shall  prevent   the
Court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under
Section 12 of the Act.
12. Although  the Magistrate is required  to follow the procedure as
governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure or its own procedure, the nature
of proceedings like those under Section 125 of the Code, would be civil. (See
P.S.Thube, 1999 Cri.L.J. 2919). Magistrates will do well, after a reply is filed
by the Respondent, to find out from the parties or their pleaders what are the
reliefs an applicant is seeking in terms of the provisions of the Act and frame
issues  on  the  basis  of   the   same.  Such  a   step will  not  be  opposed  to  any
procedural   law and  that  apart   it  will  enable  the parties  to know each others
case and also facilitate a decision thereon.8
13. In civil  proceedings  after  perusing  the claim and  the  reply or
written   statement,   issues   are   framed.   Issues   are   framed  when   a  material
proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. The
object of framing issues plays a distinguished role in a civil proceeding and the
whole object is to direct the attention of the parties to the principal questions
on which  they  are  at  variance  and  they are   required  to be  framed  for   the
purpose of having  the material  points  in controversy rightly decided,  and to
bring a finality in the litigation. Unless proper issues are framed, a party who
suffers a Judgment on  the basis of findings not based on proper  issues may
have a legitimate grievance  to contend that  because of such non framing of
issues   he  has   been denied  the  opportunity  of   leading proper   evidence   for
rebutting relevant facts. Issues can be of fact or of law and the duty is that of
the Court to frame the issues. An issue can also be framed on the basis of the
reliefs. Although in cases of this nature where there are no pleadings as such
and  the  applications  are  filed  in  the  prescribed  form by  ticking  the   reliefs
sought,   it  would be  desirable   that   the  Court   after  hearing both  the  parties
frames issues on the basis of the reliefs sought by the Petitioner so that each
can meet   the   case   of   the   other   and  avoid  such  orders   of   remand.   If   this
procedure is followed there is no question of any of the reliefs going unnoticed
and undecided,   like  the case at  hand.  This can also  reduce  the controversy
between the parties, in case the columns in the application, were ticked earlier
without much application of mind.9
14. The  Petitioner  had  sought  Protection Order  under  Section 18,
Residence Order under Section 19, Maintenance Order under Section 20, and
Compensation Order under Section 22,  etc.  Both the Courts below ought  to
have marshalled  the evidence  led by  the parties on each of   the  reliefs and
given a decision thereon. That has not been done.
15. In the circumstances, therefore, I have no other option but to set
aside both the Orders of the Courts below and direct the learned Magistrate to
frame  the  issues regarding  the reliefs claimed,  after hearing  the parties and
then consider the evidence produced by the parties and the law applicable and
give a decision on each of the reliefs sought by the Petitioner. Consequently,
this petition succeeds.  The Orders of both  the Courts below are hereby set
aside and the learned Magistrate is hereby directed to decide the application
afresh in the light of observations made.
16. Parties  to appear before  the  learned Magistrate on 5-9-2010 at
10.00 a.m.  and  the  learned Magistrate  is directed  to decide  the application
within a period of  four  weeks,  and  in case a  revision or an appeal   is  filed
therefrom, the same may be decided by the Court of Sessions within a further
period of six weeks.10
17. Petition disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
                                                                                        N. A. BRITTO, J.
RD