Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., refused to grant relief to the petitioner against orders of the lower court restraining him from dispossessing the respondent from the subject property and also directing him to pay monthly maintenance to her.

Factual Matrix

Respondent had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It was stated that the respondent met petitioner in the year 2009 when she was already married. In the year 2014 after obtaining divorce, the respondent got married to the petitioner.

It is further stated that the petitioner in order to induce respondent to marry him did not disclose his marital status to her. Though petitioner executed a Marriage Agreement to how his genuineness and responsibility towards the respondent and her child from a prior marriage.

Respondent was subjected to physical and mental abuse by the petitioner. Hence, respondent had filed an FIR against the petitioner. Respondent also sought a restraining order from being evicted from the rented accommodation.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court expressed that DV Act is meant to provide for the rights of women to secure housing.  The Act also provides for the right of a woman to reside in her matrimonial home or shared household, whether or not she has any title or rights in such home or household.

What does the aggrieved have to show?

Aggrieved person has to show that the aggrieved person and the respondent (man) lived together in a shared household.

Marriage Deed was filed which recorded that after the marriage parties will reside together as husband and wife and will be faithful towards each other. There were photographs of the petitioner and respondent that gave the impression that the parties were living together as husband and wife and had married each other.

As per the school record of the child, petitioner was the father of the child. Copies of the bank accounts were filed wherein the petitioner has been shown as a nominee of the account held by the respondent.

High Court noted that the couple held themselves out in the society as being akin to spouses which fact was evident from marriage-cum-agreement deed, affidavits, the school records of the child and the bank statements of the respondent.

In the present matter, respondent was told that the wife of the petitioner was on dialysis and that she would die soon.

Petitioners’ contention was that he had not entered into any rental agreement and the agreements, affidavits and the photographs produced by the respondent were not genuine.

Bigamous and Adulterous Relationship?

Bench expressed that question as to whether the respondent herein has been duped by the petitioner or whether she was a party to an adulterous and bigamous relationship or not and whether her conduct would not entitle her to any protection under the DV Act can be determined only after the evidence is led.

Metropolitan Magistrate, after the evidence led, had concluded that the respondent was not entitled to the protection of the DV Act and hence shall return the respondent the amount received by her as interim maintenance.

High Court held that the matter be heard by the trial court and should be decided finally within a period of 1 year. [Parveen Tandon v. Tanika Tandon, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3044, decided on 7-06-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: Utkarsh and Anshu Priyanka, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Kamal Anand, Advocate

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: Madhumati Mitra, J., dismissed an application filed against the order of the Sessions Judge whereby he upheld the order passed by the Magistrate who had directed the petitioner to pay monthly monetary relief to his mother and also her medical expenses.

The respondent, the mother of the petitioner, had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), claiming various reliefs. Allowing the said application, the Magistrate passed the impugned order as stated above under Section 18 of the DV Act. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the instant application.

Abdulla Rahamani and K. Basar Bulbul, Advocates for the petitioner, submitted that there was an ongoing land dispute between the petitioner on one side and his mother along with his two brothers on the other side. Denying all the allegations, the petitioner contended that the Section 12 application was filed by his mother on the instigation of his brothers. It was further contended that the dispute was purely of civil nature between the mother and her two sons and the mother could not be regarded as an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of the DV Act.

The High Court considered that the mother, in her application under Section 12, described that she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the present petitioner. On the point of law, the Court restated: “Section 2(a) of the Act of 2005 has defined the term ‘aggrieved person’. ‘Aggrieved Person’ means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.”

It was further observed: “Section 2(f) of the Act of 2005 defines ‘domestic relationship’. Domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage,or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.”

The court noted that in the present case, the parties were related to each other, i.e., the relationship between son and mother. They have been in a relationship where both parties lived together in a residence. the Court below elaborately analysed the evidence o record, the relationship between the parties, their economic condition and the income of the other two sons of the respondent; and, thereafter, came to the conclusion that the mother was entitled to get the reliefs under the DV Act.

In such circumstances, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Resultantly, the interim application was dismissed. [Goutam Chanda v. Gouri Ram Chandan, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 3832, decided on 02-12-2019]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial), while dismissing an appeal filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 held that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India had no locus standi to file the appeal.

The appeal was filed by the IBBI against the order passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai contending that the interpretation of Section 29A  made therein by the Tribunal was not correct that resulted in selection of an ineligible Resolution Applicant and further approval of an ineligible resolution plan. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the IBBI is a regulatory body required to act in terms of Sections 196 and 240 I&B Code.

At the outset, the Appellate Tribunal observed, IBBI could not be held to be an aggrieved person under the Code. Further, it was held that the interpretation challenged as mentioned above may not be proper, but the IBBI had no locus standi to challenge the same. Referring to Section 30, the Board observed that it is the duty of the Resolution Professional to find out which resolution plans are in conformity with provisions of the Code. Further, in case of any wrong finding by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), it is the Resolution Professional, who represents the Corporate Debtor, to prefer an appeal under Section 61. While dismissing the appeal for the aforesaid reasons, liberty was given to IBBI to inform the Resolution Professional to move an appeal under Section 61. [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India v. Wig Associates (P) Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine NCLAT 386, order dated 01-08-2018]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Bharati H. Dangre, J., addressed a Writ Petition filed addressing the order of the Family Court in regard to the payment of maintenance to the wife under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 without considering the essence of Section 20 and Section 12 of the said Act in reference to the person being “Aggrieved Person” in the Act.

The petitioner-husband has submitted that the respondent-wife after taking away the children from their joint custody invoked Section 34, 37(2), 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act along with this she had prayed for a restrained order against the husband for their son Aryaman. Further, the respondent- wife under Section 20 of the said Act had preferred an application for monetary relief of Rs. 5 Lakhs per month as she was entitled for a maintenance of that much amount by taking into consideration her lifestyle and the earning capacity of the husband. For the said reasons and the filed application, order of the family court came into respondent’s favour by granting maintenance of Rs. 2 lakhs per month and primarily the reason for this order was the earning capacity of the petitioner-husband.

However, it has been contended in the present petition, by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the trial court has passed an erroneous order as they have ignored the essence of Section 12 in which such an appeal is preferred. The said S.12 focuses on the term “aggrieved person”, which clearly has been ignored in the present application filed by the respondent-wife as no pleading attributing to domestic violence has been stated which brings to no relief be granted in reference to the said Act. It has also been claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the point where the petitioner’s company was under the process of liquidation and the petitioner had already resigned from his services and he was still continuing to cater the expenses of his daughter and son was not taken into relevance at all.

Therefore, by taking into consideration all the stated facts and circumstances of the case, the high court by duly taking into consideration the point of petitioner’s earning capacity and his company being under the process of liquidation, partly allowed the petition on the basis that the family court’s approach has been grossly erroneous and it needs to be reconsidered on the matter of grant of maintenance. [Prakash Kumar Singhee v. Amrapali Singhee, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1197, dated 04-05-2018]