Date of judgement:
13-02-2019
Bench:
Justice C.V Bhadang
Parties:
Plaintiffs – Vjayanand Dattaram Naik
Defendants – Vishranti Vijayanand Naik
SUBJECT
In this case, the High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court while holding that maintenance cannot be granted under dv act where no offense under DV act is established
OVERVIEW
- In this case, the wife had filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act against her husband.
- The Trial Court allowed the wife's petition in part and ordered the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of rupees 5000 per month.
- The Trial Court, however, rejected the relief pleaded under Sections 18, 19 and 22 of the Act.
- Furthermore, the wife, unsatisfied by the quantum of maintenance, appealed before the Sessions Judge who enhances the maintenance to Rupees 7,000 per month.
- The husband appealed against the judgment before the High Court of Bombay.
- The husband contended that no offense under the DV Act had been committed and in the absence of any such offense, maintenance under the DV Act cannot be granted.
RELEVANT PROVISION
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Section 20: Monetary Reliefs
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether maintenance could be granted under DV Act where no offense under DV Act is established?
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court observed that while the husband contended that wife being subjected to domestic violence is a sine qua non of granting relief under the DV Act, the same was not disputed by the respondents in all fairness.
- The petitioner placed reliance on the case of Koushik S/o Anil Gharami v. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2398 and Mr. Gurudas Sanvalo Naik v. Mrs. Saanvi Gurudas Naik, 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 2375, to support his contention.
- The Court took into consideration the respondent's request that the maintenance of Rupees 5,000 per month should be continued for a limited period. Such maintenance was for the wife and her minor child.
CONCLUSION
The Court thus set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court and ordered the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rupees 5000 per month to the respondent for the next 6 months.
Furthermore, the Court also noted that the respondents were at liberty to seek any other remedy permitted under law.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
