{"id":259579,"date":"2022-01-06T11:00:27","date_gmt":"2022-01-06T05:30:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=259579"},"modified":"2022-01-07T11:12:57","modified_gmt":"2022-01-07T05:42:57","slug":"whether-right-to-claim-monetary-reliefs-protection-order-and-compensation-under-the-d-v-act-extinguish-on-death-of-aggrieved-person","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/06\/whether-right-to-claim-monetary-reliefs-protection-order-and-compensation-under-the-d-v-act-extinguish-on-death-of-aggrieved-person\/","title":{"rendered":"Whether right to claim monetary reliefs, protection order and compensation under the D.V. Act, extinguish on death of \u201caggrieved person\u201d? Bom HC explains"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court: <\/strong>Sandeep K. Shinde, J., examines whether an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on behalf of relatives of deceased seeking monetary relief, possession of \u2018stridhan\u2019 and compensation was maintainable or not.<\/p>\n

Question for Consideration:<\/span><\/h4>\n

Whether an application presented by the petitioners under Section 12 of the D.V. Act on behalf of deceased, Suchita Sapre, seeking:<\/p>\n

(i) monetary relief under Section 20(b) i.e. reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by petitioner 2 for the treatment of deceased, Suchita;<\/p>\n

(ii) possession of \u201cStreedhan\u201d of late, Suchita under Section 19(8) of the D.V. Act; and<\/p>\n

(iii) compensation under Section 22 from the respondents, was maintainable?\u201d<\/p>\n

Trajectory of the Case \u00a0<\/span><\/h4>\n

Petitioner 1 was the minor daughter of the deceased. Respondent 1 was the father of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 were the grandfather and grandmother of petitioner 1, whereas petitioner 2 was the mother of the deceased.<\/p>\n

It was stated that the deceased was neglected by her husband and in0laws and was subjected to physical, verbal and economic abuses by the respondent due to which she suffered serious sickness and later passed away.<\/p>\n

Petitioners alleged the respondents did not bother to look after Suchita in her lifetime and even during her illness. Petitioner 2 (mother of Suchita) would claim that, she had spent Rs 60,00,000 for Suchita\u2019s treatment and would also claim that, she had gifted gold ornaments in Suchita\u2019s marriage, which are in the custody of mother-in-law, respondent 3.<\/p>\n

In view of the above background, petitioner had presented an application under Section 12 of the DV Act.<\/p>\n

Respondents questioned the locus of the petitioners and maintainability of the present application under Section 12 of the DV Act stated that the reliefs under the said Act could not have been sought on behalf of the deceased.<\/p>\n

Later, petitioners\u2019 application was rejected and in appeal, the order of Additional Sessions Judge was confirmed, and the said orders have been assailed in the instant petition.<\/p>\n

Significant Point:<\/strong><\/span> Suchita died in the year 2013, whereas the petitioner presented the application for various reliefs in 2015.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h4>\n

High Court noted that petitioners did not claim themselves to be \u201caggrieved person\u201d but asserted their right to present an application under Section 12 of the DV Act on behalf of the deceased who as per them was an aggrieved person. Therefore, the petitioners sought enforcement of the personal rights of the deceased.<\/p>\n

The Bench held that the rights sought to be enforced by the petitioner by presenting an application under Section 12 of the DV Act was clearly not maintainable for the following reasons:<\/p>\n