Delhi District Court
Asif vs . Rashida Appeal No. 59/11 on 2 June, 2012
1
Asif Vs. Rashida Appeal No. 59/11
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJ RANI MITTRA: ASJ - 05 : SOUTH - EAST, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
Appeal No. 59/2011
Asif,
S/o Sh. Hakimullah,
R/o H. No. 481, Iqram Nagar,
Loni, District Ghaziabad, UP.
.......... Appellant
V E R S U S
Smt. Rashida,
W/o Shri Asif,
D/o Sh. Imamuddin,
R/o J16, Abdul Fazal Enclave,
Thokar No.4, Near Noor Masjid,
Okhla, New Delhi.
.........Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.06.2011
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER: 02.06.2012
DATE OF ORDER: 02.06.2012
O R D E R
The present Criminal appeal U/s 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been filed against impugned order dated 02.06.2011 passed by the Court of Ms. Pooja Talwar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 2 Asif Vs. Rashida Appeal No. 59/11 Mahila Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in complaint case No. 326/3 titled "Rashida Vs. Asif", whereby the appellant was ordered to be sent to Civil Imprisonment for nonpayment of dues for one month.
2 Notice of the appeal was given to respondent and Trial Court record was summoned.
3 It has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act gives the power to the Ld. Trial Court to grant interim and exparte maintenance order. However, the Act is silent on the point of recovery of dues for the maintenance or interim maintenance and accordingly the impugned order sending the appellant to civil imprisonment on the ground of nonpayment of interim maintenance is bad in law. Further, that there was no application for execution of the orders of the Ld. Trial Court on which such an order could have been passed. That Section 18 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act deals with protection order and not with monetary relief or interim monetary order. That Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act deals with the breach of protection order U/s 18 of the Act and not with the breach of orders U/s 20 & 23 of the Act under which the monetary relief or interim monetary order can be passed by the Ld. Trial Court. It is accordingly prayed that impugned orders dated 02.06.2011 be set aside and appellant may be permitted to make payment of arrears of interim maintenance in installments. 4 Ld. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued against the appeal. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the impugned order is well reasoned and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence 3 Asif Vs. Rashida Appeal No. 59/11 Act is a complete code within itself and also provides for penalty on breach of order of the Court, hence there is no illegality in the impugned order. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed. 5 I have heard arguments and carefully perused the material placed before me.
6 A bare reading of Sections 31, 18 (a), 3(a) read with Explanation (iv) (a) of the Section of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act makes the scheme of the Act clear.
Section 31 reads as under :
A breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.
7 Section 18 of the Act provides for protection orders:
The Magistrate may, after giving the aggrieved person and the respondent an opportunity of being heard and on being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has taken place or is likely to take place, pass a protection order in favour of the aggrieved person and prohibit the respondent from
(a) committing any act of domestic violence. 4
Asif Vs. Rashida Appeal No. 59/11 8 Domestic Violence has been defined in U/s 3 of the Act itself. For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limp or wellbeing, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse.
Economic abuses has been explained under Explanation 1.
(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 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.
9 In the case in hand, the respondent (aggrieved person as per the Act) was entitled as per the orders of the Court to the amount of maintenance and violation of orders of the Court has been made punishable U/s 31 of the Act, as such the impugned order is well within the jurisdiction of Ld. Trial Court and there is 5 Asif Vs. Rashida Appeal No. 59/11 no illegality in the orders. The orders have been passed on sound reasoning. No ground for interference with the orders dated 02.06.2011 passed by the Court of Ms. Pooja Talwar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
10 Trial Court record be sent back alongwith a copy of this order. Criminal appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on the 02.06.2012 (RAJ RANI MITTRA) Addl. Sessions Judge05/SE Saket Courts, New Delhi.