Top News Headlines 11th Jan 2022: LR’s Cannot Seek Monetary Relief On Behalf Of Deceased Woman Under DV Act

LR’s Cannot Seek Monetary Relief On Behalf Of Deceased Woman Under DV Act: Bombay HC

• The Bombay HC, in a recent judgement titled Kanaka Kedar Sapre and anr vs. Kedar Narhar Sapre has observed that an aggrieved person, as defined in section 2(a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act must be alive at the time of filing the petition and a legal representative cannot file an application for monetary relief under the Act after her demise.
• In the instant case, Suchitra and Kedar got married in 2009 and were blessed with a daughter in 2021. Suchutra passed away after a prolonged illness in October, 2013. Her minor daughter, through her grandparents, filed an application in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Pune alleging that her mother was subject to immense physical and emotional abuse at the hands of the respondent. It was also alleged that it was due to this abuse that Suchita was admitted to the hospital in 2013, where she consequently passed away.
• It was also alleged that Kedar and his family never took care of Suchita even during her illness and that Suchita’s mother spent Rs.60 lakhs on her treatment. She had also gifted her gold ornaments at her wedding which were in her mother-in-law’s custody.
• This application was rejected, both by the lower Court as well the court of ADJ. Aggrieved, the daughter approached the HC.
• Rejecting the application, the Hon’ble HC observed that the right to claim monetary reliefs , compensation and protection orders under the DV Act are the exclusive and inalienable rights of the aggrieved person. It is for this reason that the rights are not enforceable by the legal representatives of the aggrieved person.
• Referring to the Statement of Object and Reasons, the Court was also of the view that the term aggrieved person has to be understood in the light of the objectives of the Act. Giving a very wide interpretation to the same would defeat the intent of the legislature.
• The Court also observed that while they allow applications to be filed by any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person, the same cannot be maintained independently of the aggrieved person. Section 12 of the Act merely enables the aggrieved person to present an application through any other person. The scheme of the Act clearly denotes that the aggrieved person must be alive at the time of presenting the application under DV Act.

And now, a question for our aspirants:
State the judgement of the Hon’ble SC in which the term ‘adult male’ was struck down from section 2(q) [respondent] of the DV Act?

Wife Refusing To Go To Matrimonial Home For 10 Years Citing ‘Lack Of Shubh Muhurat’ Amounts To Desertion- Husband Granted Divorce

• The Chhattisgarh HC has granted divorce to a husband whose wife, citing a lack of ‘shubh muhurat’ (auspicious occasion) refused to return to the matrimonial home for 10 years, stating that this amounted to desertion.
• In the instant case titled Santosh Singh vs. Amita Singh the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) got married in July, 2010 and lived together for 11 days. Subsequently, the wife’s parents came and took her away on the pretext of some important work.
• The husband tried to get her back on two different occasions, but citing the lack of shubh muhurat she refused to come back. The husband moved the family court seeking a restitution of conjugal rights, which was decided ex parte but the wife did not act on it stating that she could not appear in the Court as she was stuck in some official work.
• The husband then moved the family court seeking a divorce on the ground of desertion, which was refused on the ground that the husband had been unable to prove the said ground. Aggrieved, the husband moved the HC.
• It was the wife’s contention that she was ready to live with the husband and that it was his fault that he did not come to take her when the auspicious occasion had started, which was a necessity according to their customs.
• The Hon’ble HC observed that on perusing the facts of the case, it appears that the excuse of an auspicious occasion was used by the wife to keep away from the company of her husband.
• The Court also noted that the wife sat dormant even when she knew that her husband had filed an application for the restitution of conjugal rights. Even if the excuse of her being busy in government duty was taken to be true, she could have settled the issue later with the husband outside the Court and the entire issue would have been resolved.
• Consequently, the Court came to the conclusion that the wife, under the guise of an auspicious occasion, refused to join the company of her husband for 10 years, and this amounted to desertion as envisaged in section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
• Thus, in the instant case, a decree of divorce was granted.

Proceedings Bad For Want Of Sanction Can Be Quashed Under 482 CrPC: Allahabad HC

• The Allahabad HC has observed in Mahendra Pal Singh Lekhpal and anr vs. State of UP and anr that the proceedings instituted against public servants without obtaining a sanction under 197 CrPC are bad in law and can be quashed by filing an application under 482 CrPC.
• In the instant case, during a consolidation proceeding, a joint plot was allotted to opposite party no.2 (Ram Singh) and on his application in 2006, the Settlement Officer directed that the measurements of the land be taken. It was in pursuance of this order that the applicants, both being public servants (lekhpal and kanoongo) conducted the measurements and submitted the report in November, 2006.
• However, Ram Singh filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad stating that the applicants measured the plot illegally and that there was an order dated November 15, 2006 to stop the measurements. The Court summoned the two applicants under 427 IPC, without acknowledging the fact that they both were public servants and that they were discharging their official duties.
• Aggrieved by this summoning order, the applicants approached the HC.
• Referring to the scope of section 197 CrPC, the Hon’ble Court said that the objective behind obtaining a sanction for prosecuting a public servant acting in the exercise of his public duty is to protect him from harassment in exercising his public functions. The Court also noted that the aforementioned section also has its limitations. It has to be followed only when the alleged act of the public servant is connected with the discharge of his official duty.
• The Hon’ble Court also relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020) and said that an application for quashing the proceedings under 482 CrPC is maintainable when the same are bad due to the absence of sanctions. In the present case too, the acts of the public servants are connected with the official duty assigned to them, and hence the provisions of section 197 CrPC should have been mandatorily followed.
• Consequently, the application was allowed and the summons issued by the lower court were set aside. The proceedings against the public servants were also quashed under 482 CrPC for want of sanction.