D.V. Act Judgements in favor of Husband -No Domestic Violence – Wife not entitled to use Section 22 of D.V. Act as a weapon to gain compensation.
D.V. Act Judgements in favor of the Husband – In this article, the Calcutta High Court held that there is no prima facie case of domestic violence against the husband and there is no ground for passing an order directing the husband to pay compensation as there are no mental injuries, torture or emotional distress, abuse caused by the acts of domestic violence by the husband. The wife is not entitled to use Section 22 as a weapon to gain compensation, and she is not entitled to any compensation and alternative accommodation charges. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the husband are hereby quashed.
Case Brief- D.V. Act Judgements in favor of the Husband
According to the facts mentioned in the case, the husband retired as a Stenographer grade-I from the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata on 30.11.2018, and he is now suffering from Parkinson's disease and cervical spondylosis, and he is under continuous medical surveillance.
It is stated that the wife has been mounting pressure on the husband to stay separate from his elder brother since her marriage and the wife became violent and started mentally torture on the husband’s elder brother as well.
It is also stated that the wife left her matrimonial home in July 1998 and went to her father’s house stating that if the husband wants to lead a conjugal life with her, he will have to leave his elder brother and his ancestral home.
Case Brief- D.V. Act Judgements in favor of the Husband
It is further stated that on 13.10.1998, the wife started abusing the husband and the next day the elder brother of the wife arrived at the ancestral house and started assaulting the mentally retarded elder brother of the husband, and this incident was reported to the police by the husband, and the Gram Panchayat called the husband and wife for settlement of the dispute.
It is also stated that after that the wife returned to her matrimonial home in January 1999 and became pregnant on 20.04.1999 and on 05.12.1999 the couple was blessed with a child, but the wife left her matrimonial home along with all her belongings on 27.03.2000.
Upon this, the husband wrote a letter to Legal Aid Services, West Bengal for the return of the wife to her matrimonial home, and he arranged rental accommodation as per the direction of Legal Aid Services, and on 17.01.2001, the wife with her child came to the house of the husband and requested him to forget the past, and promised to lead a normal life in presence of her maternal uncle-in-law, and later, on 13.04.2001 the parents of the wife came to the house of the husband and abused him for staying in his ancestral home.
Case Brief- D.V. Act Judgements in favor of the Husband
Furthermore, it is stated that the wife lodged a case under Section 498A/ 34 of IPC in the police station on 23.04.2001 against her husband and his elder brother, and a final report was submitted, and on getting the notice of the final report, the husband filed a protest petition before the Magistrate, and the husband and his elder brother were discharged under Section 245(2) of CrPC on 19.05.2005 as no prima facie case was found against them.
Later, the wife filed a maintenance case under Section 125 of CrPC against her husband, and both the wife and her minor child were awarded maintenance of Rs 2000 in total.
The wife also filed another complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005 in the year 2013, after leaving her matrimonial home just after four months of her stay with the husband during 15 years of the marriage, and the wife contended that the husband had earned Rs.45000 from his service, but she had no source of income of her own, and at the house of her parents there is no space for her and her minor child, and she prayed for the return of her stridhan articles, and a monetary relief of Rs 50,000 for the education and medical expenses of her minor child, and also Rs. 20,000 for her and her child as maintenance per month.
Case Brief- D.V. Act Judgements in favor of the Husband
The Magistrate dismissed the case on finding that the wife has failed to specify the exact date on which the husband deprived the wife and her minor daughter of food and clothing and tortured them mentally and physically, and she failed to produce any documentary evidence.
The wife challenged the order of dismissal by filing an appeal petition before the Sessions Judge, Howrah, in which the court directed the husband to pay monetary aid and compensation of Rs.25,000 per month and Rs.7,000 per month for rental accommodation to the wife from the date of filing of the petition and also directed the husband that maintenance amount given under Section 125 of CrPC has to be deducted from the amount and to clear off the amount of arrear in three equal installments.
Upon this, the husband has filed the present revisional application in order to set aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge against him.
_________________________________________________
Read the Latest Article- 498A Quash Judgement 30.01.2023- Gujarat High Court – False Allegations against the Husband and Six In-laws, FIR Quashed.
Arguments- D.V. Act Judgements in favor of the Husband
The advocate appearing on behalf of the husband explained the provision of Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act and submitted that in this case the appeal court has not considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned order without proper assessment of the evidence, and awarded the reliefs of compensation and alternative accommodation to the wife.
It is also submitted that the wife in her evidence had stated that she had no receipt related to stridhan articles and the husband has denied during the cross-examination of the wife of taking a huge amount of cash and bhories of gold ornaments and furniture as dowry.
It is further submitted that there is no evidence related to the allegation against the husband’s elder brother that he used to ill behave with the wife in absence of the husband as the wife has admitted that since there was no other family member in her In-law's house, the husband told her to stay at her parent’s house for popper care of the baby, and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the sessions judge by applying his judicial mind.
Arguments- D.V. Act Judgements in favor of the Husband
It is also submitted that the wife has failed to specify the exact dates on which the husband deprived her of food and clothing and committed torture upon her, and the wife had admitted to regularly receiving maintenance amount as per the order of the court and has even received Rs.5,000 for puja contingency from the husband, and this fact was also not considered, and the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 is illegal per-se.
Furthermore, it is submitted that the wife has stated that she has no income of her own but during her cross-examination, she admitted the fact that she joined a company on no work no pay basis to run the educational expenses of her daughter who was pursuing her study in class 12th, and she had an average income of Rs.5,000-6,000 per month, but the wife did not intimate to the court about her employment.
It is also submitted that the wife had left her matrimonial home out of her own volition and the application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not applicable as it was filed without verification as required under Rule 6 read with Form III of the protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Rules, so the application which is not being duly verified as required under Rule such application is not maintainable.
Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge against the husband.
_________________________________________________
Referred Judgements- D.V. Act Judgements in favor of the Husband
- Aditya Anand Vs. State of West Bengal
- Shalu Ojha Vs. Prashant Ojha
Court’s Opinion- D.V. Act Judgements in favor of the Husband
It is stated by the court that according to the face value of the evidence in the background of the facts discussed in this case, there is no prima facie case of domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the D.V. Act, and the application under Section 12 of DV Act filed by the wife in 2013, with the allegation that she was subjected to mental and physical violence cannot be viewed readily on the finding that she has left her matrimonial home out of her own volition.
It is also stated that the court is of the view that the appeal court has errored in law and was swayed by emotion while awarding alternative rental accommodation and compensation per month to the wife as the husband cannot be held guilty of committing any domestic violence according to the facts of the present case.
It is further stated by the court that there is no observation made in the evidence or in the order related to the allegation that the elder brother of the husband had a bad eye on the minor child, and the wife has admitted that since the death of her mother-in-law, the elder brother of the husband was suffering from depression and was mentally retarded and so the allegation of his ill-behavior towards the wife is not acceptable.
Court’s Opinion- D.V. Act Judgements in favor of the Husband
It is also stated by the court that there was no ground for passing an order directing the husband to pay compensation as there are no mental injuries, torture or emotional distress, or abuse caused by the acts of domestic violence by the husband, and the wife was not entitled to use Section 22 of DV Act as a weapon to gain compensation, and she was also not entitled to an amount of Rs.7,000 on account of rental charges for alternative accommodation, as the husband is ready to live together.
In view of the above discussion it was held that the court is unable to agree with the grant of reliefs given by the appeal court, and there was no justification on the part of the appeal court to grant compensation of Rs.25,000 payable to the wife every month. But if the daughter is pursuing higher studies, all expenses for her education have to be given by the husband.
Therefore, the revisional application is allowed, and the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge against the husband is hereby set aside.
_________________________________________________
Conclusion- D.V. Act Judgements in favor of the Husband
In this article, the Calcutta High Court held that there is no prima facie case of domestic violence against the husband and the application under Section 12 of the DV Act filed by the wife with the allegation that she was subjected to mental and physical violence cannot be viewed readily on the finding that she has left her matrimonial home out of her own volition.
It was also held that there was no ground for passing an order directing the husband to pay compensation as there are no mental injuries, torture or emotional distress, or abuse caused by the acts of domestic violence by the husband, and the wife is not entitled to compensation and alternative accommodation charges as the husband is ready and willing to live together with the wife and his daughter.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge against the husband is hereby set aside.
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment