Delhi District Court
Manju vs Sumer Singh & Ors. on 17 May, 2017
CC No. 4992441/16 Manju Vs Sumer Singh & Ors. 17.05.2017 Present : Respondent no.1 in person.
By this order I shall decide relief, if any U/s 23 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as DV Act).
1. Complainant states that she got married to respondent Sumer Singh on 22.05.1994 and the couple was blessed with son Sumit and daughter Shivani. In January, 2013 respondent Sumer left the house without informing anyone and returned in January, 2014. He stayed for some days and left with medical records of complainant, birth certificate of children and some important papers. Thereafter, complainant started residing at Rawata More with her two children. Complainant alleges that respondent Sumer did not used to let her talk to any neighbour and he used to harass complainant for money. He is also stated to be an alcoholic. Later complainant's father helped respondent Sumer to get a job in MCD and bought one 30 sq. yards plot for residence. Complainant also started working but respondent Sumer used to take all her salary. Complainant purchased two plots admeasuring 30 sq. yards and 25 sq. yards in the same locality. However, both the respondents gave merciless beatings to complainant and she was compelled to resign from her job. Respondents are also threatening her that they will sell the 100 sq. yards plot owned by them in the village. Complainant states that she has no place to live and no source of income while respondent is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month and he has also received arrears of Rs. 9 Lakh from MCD. It is stated that complainant is willing to live at 90B, Agar Nagar, C Block, Sultanpuri, Delhi but she is being threatened by respondents.
2. At this stage, complainant has prayed for interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month.
3. Respondents have filed reply denying all the allegations made in the complaint. It is stated that complainant deserted the company of respondent no. 1 without any justified cause. It is stated that complainant and respondent no. 1 were living at H.No. 90, Agar Nagar but complainant used to pressurize respondent no. 1 to live near her parental house. Accordingly the couple shifted to a rented accommodation at Dabur Enclave. It is stated that Manju Vs Sumer Singh & Ors. 1/3 complainant was doing a job in a private company and used to return home late. She used to insult respondent no. 1 whenever he used to question her. He alleges that complainant wants to grab her property. It is further stated that respondent no. 1 is willing to live with complainant at B-90, Agar Nagar and even his case u/s 9 HMA were decreed but complainant is not ready to live with him. It is stated that complainant is herself earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.
4. Both the parties filed their detailed affidavit of assets.
5. Complainant states that she is uneducated and her monthly expenditure is Rs. 25,637/-. She claims that her son is 19 yrs old and daughter is 14 yrs old. She claims monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/- per month and gives description of total expenditure of Rs. 17,607/-. She states that she is the owner of B-90, Agar Nagar property.
6. Respondent states that he is 10 th pass and is working as sweeper in MCD for Rs. 8,925/- per month. He claims that his total monthly expenditure is Rs. 8,434/-. He claims that he has one ancestral plot in village and owns property at B-90, Agar Nagar.
7. Heard. Perused.
8. It may be mentioned at the outset that the factum of marriage, birth of two children and that the parties resided in the same house is not disputed by the respondents.
9. The question of domestic abuse can only be decided after leading evidence. Complainant has claimed that she was harassed by respondents in a number of ways. However, it is seen that even before complainant filed the present case, respondent had filed petition u/s 9 HMA for bringing her back to live with him. In this case, complainant chose not to appear and consequently an ex parte judgment was filed holding that complainant had willfully deserted respondent no. 1 without any reasonable cause. This decree remains unchallenged till date even though, complainant is aware of the same.
There is no gain saying that maintenance under DV Act is governed by the provisions of Section 125 Cr.PC. Section 125(4) Cr.PC states that no wife is entitled to receive maintenance if she refuses to live with the husband without any sufficient reason.
Ld. LAC has relied on case of Kamadi Bhavani Vs Kamadi Lakshmanaswamy Lakshmana Rao & Ors. cited at 1994 CR.L.J. 1827 to state that ex parte decree u/s 9 HMA does not bar wife from claiming maintenance u/s 125 Cr.PC. With due respect, I am unable to agree with the ratio laid in this judgment. The said judgment having been pronounced by A.P. Manju Vs Sumer Singh & Ors. 2/3 High Court is not binding on this court. In view of the clear provision in law, complainant cannot claim maintenance after it has been observed that she willfully deserted the company of R-1 without sufficient reason. It is also to be noted that in the said judgment Hon'ble A.P. High Court observed that petition u/s 9 HMA filed merely to avoid maintenance is no ground to deny maintenance. However in the present case, the petition u/s 9 HMA was filed before the present case. As such, complainant is not entitled to any maintenance. However, in the interest of justice, it is directed that respondent no. 1 should pay Rs. 1500/- per month for each of the two children till they attain majority. This maintenance shall be payable w.e.f. filing of the present petition i.e. December, 2014.
10. Copy of the order be given dasti to both the sides.
Put for CE on 16.08.2017.
(Richa Gusain Solanki) MM/Mahila Court-01 17.05.2017 Manju Vs Sumer Singh & Ors. 3/3