Bombay High Court
Shahid Sheikh S/O Ikramurahim Sheikh vs Shabanaz W/O Shahid Sheikh And Anr on 16 January, 2015
Author: S. B. Shukre
Bench: S. B. Shukre
cwp122.13.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 122 OF 2013
Shahid Sheikh s/o Ikramurahim Sheikh,
aged about 30 yrs., Occp. Reliver in shop,
r/o Jawahar Ward, Desaiganj (Wadsa),
Tah. Desaiganj,
Distt. Gadchiroli. :: PETITIONER
.. Versus
..
1. Shabanaz w/o Shahid Sheikh,
aged about 23 yrs., Occp. Nil
2. Ku. Rabiya d/o Shahid Sheikh,
aged about 1 year, Occp. Nil,
through natural guardian Mother
the respondent No.1,
R/o Shashtri Nagar, Camp Area,
Mul Road, Chandrapur,
Tah. & Distt. Chandrapur. :: RESPONDENTS
...................................................................................................................................
Mr. M. P. Kariya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms P. D. Rane, Advocate for the respondents.
...................................................................................................................................
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 16TH JANUARY, 2015.
O R A L J U D G M E N T O R A L J U D G M E N T
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.
::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2015 23:45:38 ::: cwp122.13.odt 2/43. Relying upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in the case of Rachna Kathuria Vs. Ramesh Kathuria in Cri. M.C. No.130/2010 and Cri. M.A. No. A504/2010 decided on 30/8/2010, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents do not have any right to claim maintenance in a parallel proceedings when they have already availed of maintenance right in an application filed under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
According to learned Counsel for the respondents, the view so taken by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court is based upon the consideration of Sections 12 and 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the D.V. Act) and it appears that no consideration has been given to the specific provision under Section 20(1)(d) of the D. V. Act confirming special right upon the aggrieved person to claim maintenance either including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force and, therefore, this judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
4. I am in agreement with the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the respondents. From perusal of the judgment of Delhi High Court, it becomes clear that the said judgment has been ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2015 23:45:38 ::: cwp122.13.odt 3/4 rendered without considering the import of Section 21(1) (d) of the D.V. Act, which reads as under.:
20. Monetary reliefs.--
(1) While disposing of an application under sub-
section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but is not limited to -
(a) ..................
(b) .................
(c) ..................
(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.
5. From the plain reading of above referred provisions of Section 20(1)(d) of the D. V. Act, it can be seen that an additional right has been created in the aggrieved person to claim maintenance including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, this section having ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2015 23:45:38 ::: cwp122.13.odt 4/4 not been considered by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court, in my opinion, no assistance can be sought by the petitioner from this judgment. Once we consider Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act, the conclusion would be that an aggrieved person is entitled to claim maintenance under this Section in addition to her maintenance right under any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, I find no substance in the argument canvassed by learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the learned Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge have not considered the aspect of sufficiency of maintenance granted to the respondent by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class under the provisions of the D. V. Act.
7. On perusal of both the impugned orders, I find that this aspect of the matter has also been properly considered by both the Courts below. As such, I find no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.
Writ petition stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE wwl ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2015 23:45:38 :::