Court:Rajasthan High Court
Bench: JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Miss Khushi & Anr Vs. State & Anr. On 4 January 2018
Law Point:
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, S.12 – Application u/s 12 of the Act – Minor daughters – Petition against mother -Petition filed by grand father with whom minor daughters are living – Held, petition is maintainable.
JUDGEMENT
These two revision petitions under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. are arising out of common judgment dated 3rd of December, 2016,rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, ‘learned appellate Court’) in cross appeals preferred by rival parties against order dated 6 th of August, 2015, passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short,’learned trial Court’), and therefore, both are heard together and disposed of by a common order.
The facts apposite are that Miss Khushi and Miss Mahima, minor daughters of Smt Babita, filed a complaint before learned trial Court under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘Act of 2005’) through their guardian grandfather Shri Bhanwar Singh claiming maintenance and other allowances besides other reliefs.Along with complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, a separate petition was also laid under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 for claiming interim relief.
It is, inter-alia, pleaded in the complaint under Section 12 as well as petition under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 that both the parents have deserted the applicants, and therefore, they are living under the guardianship of their grandfather. Insinuating non-applicant Babita for her violent and atrocious behavior, in the petition under Section 23 of the Act of 2005, interim maintenance is craved for to the tune of Rs.10,000 per month besides other amounts. A specific fact is incorporated in the petition that their guardian, grandfather, has become old and he is facing many financial constraints, therefore, is unable to maintain them.
The application for interim relief is contested by non-applicant Smt. Babita and finally learned trial Court, after considering rival submissions, partly allowed the petition and awarded interim maintenance for a sum of Rs.3000/- to each of the applicant, collectively @ Rs.6,000/- per month.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned trial Court, rival parties preferred two separate appeals under Section 29 of the Act of 2005 before Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, and subsequently, both those appeals were transferred to learned appellate Court. Learned appellate Court heard arguments of both the parties and, while fully concurring with the findings of learned trial Court, dismissed both the appeals.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
The Act of 2005 is intended to protect women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in the society.There remains no quarrel that general object of the Act of 2005 is to restrict domestic violence of any kind against women but at the same time the enactment is gender neutral. The Supreme Court, in case of Hiral P. Harsora & Ors. Vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora & Ors. [2017 Criminal Law Journal 509], while considering definition of “Respondent” within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the Act of 2005, struck down word “Adult Male” and held that physical, verbal, emotional, sexual & economic abuse can all be committed by one woman against another.While considering the meaning of “Domestic Relationship” as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the Act of 2005,the Court further held that the definition is wide and covers both the sexes and persons related by blood or marriage.
Therefore, Mrs. Babita, being mother of both the minor daughters, cannot shirk from her responsibility to take care of them, nor she can be allowed to perpetrate atrocities or violence against them. It goes without saying that a complaint/application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 can be filed by an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer of any other person on behalf of aggrieved person. As in the instant case, both the petitioners are minors and living with their grandfather, therefore, the complaint/application was competent and in accordance with law.
Upon examining the complete scheme of the Act of 2005, it is clearly evident that the protection given to women/victims is more effective than right/protection guaranteed under the Constitution of India against violence of any kind within the family.
Now adverting to facts of the case, indisputably, Mrs. Babita is mother of minors Miss Khushi and Miss Mahima, who have been deserted by her and are living with their grandfather.
Learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court has taken note of the fact that both the minor daughters were subjected to atrocious and violent behavior by their mother, therefore, in that background, at the threshold the learned trial Court in its discretion allowed the petition under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 by way of granting interim maintenance to them collectively @ Rs.6,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.3,000/- for each of the applicants.
In appeals preferred by rival parties, the learned appellate Court did not find any infirmity in the order of learned trial Court and consequently while dismissing both the appeals, affirmed the order passed by learned trial Court.
As the main application/complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 is still pending before learned trial Court and both the Courts below have concurrently recorded their findings for grant of interim maintenance, in my opinion, it would not be appropriate to exercise revisional jurisdiction against the concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below.
Generally speaking, concurrent findings of fact arrived by two Courts below are not to be interfered with by the High Court in absence of any special circumstance or the same are perverse in any manner. After examining the matter in its entirety, I am unable to find any justifiable reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts below or upset the same.
Resultantly, both these revision petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is expected to proceed with the trial of the main application/complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 with promptitude and conclude the same as early as possible.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment