Delhi High Court: A petition filed by petitioner-husband under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to quash/modify order dated 15-09-2021 passed by the MM, Tis Hazari Court whereby in an application for interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’), the husband was directed to pay Rs. 6000 per month to respondent-wife towards rent along with interim maintenance of Rs. 11,460 per month to the wife and Rs. 9,800 towards the expenditure of both minor daughters. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.*, opined that the wife could not be denied the benefit of interim maintenance under the DV Act merely based on the allegations of illicit relationship which were yet to be proved during the trial. The Court thus held that the contentions raised by the husband for quashing of the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act were without any merit and therefore, there were no reasons to interfere in the impugned order of maintenance passed by the Trial Court.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
In the instant case, the parties got married on 31-05-2010 and two daughters were born from the wedlock. The husband submitted that he had taken a loan of Rs. 7,00,000 for his wife’s medical treatment and had been paying EMIs for the same, however, later he discovered her illicit relationships with his elder brother and two other men. The husband further alleged that his wife had planned a false theft case at home of her jewellery, which she handed over to his elder brother and his wife on a false pretext took his cousin sister to a hotel where she was sexually molested by a man. The husband left his residential premises, sold the property, and started living separately with his mother and cousin sister. The wife filed a case under DV Act despite her husband maintaining her along with children. The husband also filed a divorce case under Section 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband submitted that prima facie no case of domestic violence existed.
The wife refuted all the allegations and asserted that her husband, taking undue advantages of his post got registered an FIR under Section 380 of the Penal Code, 1860 after her dowry articles were misplaced/stolen. Further, another FIR under the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘Immoral Traffic Act’) was filed by her husband on false and frivolous grounds. The wife submitted that her husband filed false criminal cases in order to settle the matter at a meagre amount. Further, she denied suffering from any alleged medical issue for which her husband had claimed to taken loan.
The Trial Court passed an order in wife’s favour granting her maintenance of Rs. 27,260 per month. The Trial Court order was challenged primarily on the ground that prima facie domestic violence was not disclosed based on the allegations in the complaint. Secondly, it was submitted that Domestic Incident Report (‘DIR’) was not called/considered by the MM, which was mandatory under Section 12 of the DV Act.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that ‘domestic violence’ might be by physical harm or injury endangering the health safety, life, limb, or wellbeing which might be mental or physical of ‘aggrieved person’. Further, ‘domestic violence’ also included physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse. The Court also opined that the object of the DV Act was to provide for more effective provisions to safeguard the rights of the women who were victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family, and for matters connected therewith or incidentally thereof.
The Court noted that the husband sold the property and shifted to a rented property without making any provision for the maintenance of his wife and children. The Court opined that prima facie, the acts and conduct of the husband constituted ‘domestic violence’ as the wife was deprived of the economic and financial resources to which she was entitled under law. The Court also opined that the disposal of the household to which the wife had an interest and was entitled to use by virtue of domestic relationship brought the case within the ambit of ‘economic abuse’ as provided under Section 3 of the DV Act.
The Court stated that the fact that the allegations of illicit relationship and filing of FIR under Immoral Traffick Act as alleged by the husband were lodged after the proceedings were initiated by the wife could not be ignored. The Court thus opined that the wife could not be denied the benefit of interim maintenance under the DV Act merely based on the allegations of illicit relationship which were yet to be proved during the trial.
Relying on the case of Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, (2022) 8 SCC 90, the Court noticed that there were clear allegations of domestic violence being inflicted upon the husband and DIR was also called through the Protection Officer for the next date of hearing i.e., 03-08-2021. The order dated 09-08-2021 passed by the MM further tok into consideration the DIR and the fact that the wife had shifted to her rented accommodation with the husband and her minor daughters and thereafter the husband left and stopped paying rent of the premises.The Court opined that since the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act was filed by the wife on her own through her counsel, there could not have been any occasion for filing the DIR by the Protection Officer or Service Provider at the said stage. However, the same was duly called for by the MM vide order dated 31-07-2021 and was considered while passing the interim direction for payment of rent and clearance of arrears. The Court thus held that the contentions raised by the husband for quashing of the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act were without any merit and therefore, there were no reasons to interfere in the impugned order of maintenance passed by the Trial Court.
[[Ajay Kumar v. UMA, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 148, decided on 05-01-2024]]
*Judgment authored by – Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Dhananjay Singh Sehrawat, Advocate with petitioner in person
For the Respondents: Digvijay, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
