Delhi District Court
Title : Vilasini Venkatesh vs Venkatesh Narasimhan on 4 June, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
C.A. No. : 04/15
Unique Case ID no. : 02403R0031382015
Title : Vilasini Venkatesh
D/o Sh. Venkatesh Narasimhan
Aged 20 years
R/o : 129, Uttrakhand, JNU
New Delhi - 110067
.... Appellant
Vs.
Venkatesh Narasimhan
House No.9, Anantran Dairy Complex
Sector13, R.K. Puram
New Delhil - 110022
Also at:
C/o Aiyyar Automobiles First Floor
Khyber Service Station
Opp. Nagpura Gurudwara
Ringh Road, Moti Bagh
New Delhi 110021
... Respondent
Date of Institution : 19.02.2015
Date of reserving : 30.05.2015
Date of pronouncement : 04.06.2015
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 26.03.2014 passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate declining interim relief under Section 23 of the D.V. C.A. No.04/15 Vilasini Venkatesh v. Venkatesh Narsimhan Page 1 of 6 2 Act and the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the petition filed by appellant daughter against respondent father under provision of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was dismissed as not maintainable.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that respondent was married with the mother of the appellant. Respondent left the house on 04.10.2011 after having arguments with the mother of the appellant. Thereafter present petition was filed seeking relief of Protection under Order under S. 20 and 22 of the DV Act, 2005 and direction to the respondent to not continue domestic violence and provide interim relief including monetary relief of Rs.24850 which includes accommodation, college fees and food etc.
3. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate declined to pass the order of interim relief and framed preliminary issue that whether the present application under S. 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable in its present form against the respondent and held that complaint/petition is maintainable against the respondent vide order dated 28.01.2015. However, she opined that the complainant resided at 129, Uttrakhand, JNU Campus, New Delhi in the 'shared household' with the respondent uptil 2005 and present petition was filed on 10.01.2014 and the incidents in the complaints are mentioned of the years upto 2011 and complaint was found beyond the period of limitation, having been filed beyond the period of one year of domestic violence. C.A. No.04/15 Vilasini Venkatesh v. Venkatesh Narsimhan Page 2 of 6 3
4. Notice of the revision petition was given to the respondent and respondent chose not to file reply.
5. I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties and have also gone through the record.
6. Firstly I shall deal with the appeal against order dated 26.03.2014 passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate declining the interim relief under S. 23 of the D. V. Act. There is delay in filing the appeal against the said order and condonation application is moved by the counsel for the appellant which is strongly opposed by the respondent.
7. It is stated in application for condonation of delay that the appeal against the said order dated 26.03.2014 is not filed due to paucity of funds and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and she is unemployed.
8. The period of limitation for filing of appeal is 30 days. Admittedly the present appeal is filed against the said order dated 26.03.2014 after about 08 months and there is no cogent explanation for the delay. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the application for condonation of delay is devoid of merit and hence the appeal against order dated 26.03.2014 is barred by period of limitation.
9. Now coming to the appeal against order dated 28.01.2015 whereby Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the petition holding the same is not maintainable. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the C.A. No.04/15 Vilasini Venkatesh v. Venkatesh Narsimhan Page 3 of 6 4 judgment in case titled as Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab and Another, (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 588, relied upon by the learned trial court, is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case domestic violence i.e. economic violence is continuing as no monetary support is being given by the respondent and hence limitation of one year does not apply. He cited in support of his case recent judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Another (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 736.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent contested the appeal and submitted that the appeal is barred by limitation and appeal is counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the respondent against his wife, mother of the appellant.
11. Only issue to be determined in the present appeal is whether the complaint is within period of limitation or not ? In the present case domestic violence alleged is of economic abuse. It is not disputed that the domestic violence includes economic abuse as per Section 3(a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Explanation (iv) (a) defines the economic abuse which reads as under:
(iv) "economic abuse" includes
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person in entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a Court or otherwise or which the aggrieved C.A. No.04/15 Vilasini Venkatesh v. Venkatesh Narsimhan Page 4 of 6 5 person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance;
12. The very nature of economic abuse is that it is continuing in nature till the payment is made. The judgment of Inderjit Singh Grewal (supra) had been distinguished by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Juveria Abdul Majid Patni (supra). The same was on its own facts. Further, the judgment of Inderjit Singh Grewal (supra) was again noticed and considered in Geeta Kapoor and Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr. MANU/PH/3866/2013 by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Limitation of one year would apply after termination of relationship and when relationship survives or alive then there is no limitation and the cause of action/incident of domestic violence is continuing.
13. In the present case, the daughter has filed case against father and relationship between father and daughter cannot be terminated and it is still alive. She has alleged in the complainant, that she is facing hardship. The domestic violence alleged is of economic abuse and her entitlements for economic abuse is subsisting. Therefore, limitation of one year does not apply. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate wrongly held by coming conclusion that alleged incidents of domestic violence were mentioned till 2011 and complaint being filed after lapse of one year and same is barred C.A. No.04/15 Vilasini Venkatesh v. Venkatesh Narsimhan Page 5 of 6 6 by limitation. Complainant has categorically mentioned her requirement of food, clothes, medication and other basic necessities for herself and other expenses as mentioned in AnnexureA. She had mentioned her current requirements. The requirement is continuing and hence economic abuse is subsisting. Therefore period of one year does not apply on the facts of the present case.
14. In view of above discussions, I am of the opinion that the appeal against order dated 26.03.2014 is dismissed and the appeal against order dated 28.01.2015 is accepted and order of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 28.01.2015 is set aside. The petition is restored. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law and parties are directed to appear before Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 06.07.2015.
15. The trial court record be sent back alongwith copy of the order. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 04.06.2015 (GURDEEP SINGH) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JDUGE NEW DELHI/ 04.06.2015 C.A. No.04/15 Vilasini Venkatesh v. Venkatesh Narsimhan Page 6 of 6