Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Manju vs Rameshwar & Anr on 2 April, 2013
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CRL. REVISION NO.1268/2011 SMT. MANJU VS.
RAMESHWAR CHHANGANI & ANR.
Date of order : 2.4.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr. S.S.Rathore, for the petitioner.
Mr. Mahavir Bishnoi, for the respondents.
<><><> The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.) No.3, Jodhpur in appeal whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been rejected and the order dated 30.5.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jodhpur has been affirmed whereby the petitioner was denied maintenance under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the respondent no. 1 Rameshwar on 2 6.7.2003. It is alleged that the respondents started torturing and treating the petitioner with cruelty and ultimately she was turned out of the matrimonial home on 24.3.2004. The respondents also attempted to forcibly procure the petitioner's signatures on divorce papers. When the respondent Rameshwar (Petitioner's husband) did not take any step for maintaining the petitioner, she filed two proceedings; one in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein she has been awarded an interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month the other, an application under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act claiming maintenance as well as a direction for protection from Domestic Violence. The learned Magistrate initially rejected the application filed by the petitioner on which she filed an appeal and the matter was remanded back to the trial court. On remand, the trial court by a final order dated 30.5.2011 accepted the prayer of the petitioner for protection from Domestic Violence but refused to grant any maintenance to her taking cue from the fact that the petitioner had been awarded an interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month under the order of the Family Court in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate by filing an appeal and the Appellate Court too has affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Now, the petitioner 3 has approached this Court by way of the instant revision challenging the orders passed by the learned courts below and seeking a direction for award of maintenance at an appropriate rate.
Sh. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent husband is a government servant. He has neglected his wife since 2004 and did not offer to maintain her. He further submits that an F.I.R. was filed by the petitioner against the respondents and the other family members wherein the police has filed charge sheet under Section 498 A I.P.C. He further contends that the petitioner was having apprehension to her life and limb and that is why she was forced to live separately. He contends that the order passed by the learned courts below whereby the petitioner has been denied maintenance under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act by having resort to the fact that the petitioner had been awarded maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. runs contrary to the provision of Section 20(1)(d) of the Domestic Violence Act. He further submits that the amount of Rs. 1500/- per month which has been awarded to the petitioner as interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is grossly inadequate. He submits that the document Ex. D-4 which has been proved at the trial shows that the respondent's mother is getting 4 family pension @ Rs. 4000/- and the respondent has two more brothers who can maintain the mother and sisters of the respondent. Thus, he prays that the orders passed by the learned courts below deserve to be quashed.
Mr. Mahavir Bishnoi, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner is living separately without any justification and as such she is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the respondent. He further submits that as the petitioner is already being paid an interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., she is not entitled to claim any further maintenance. He contends that the respondent husband has his old mother and 3 sisters to maintain, and therefore, no interference is called for in the orders passed by the learned courts below.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the record. The undisputed fact available on record is that the petitioner wife has been neglected by the husband Rameshwar since the year 2004. The respondent made no voluntary efforts for either bringing her back to the matrimonial home or providing her maintenance. Ultimately facing starvation, the petitioner was forced to file the two separate proceedings for maintenance; one under Section 125 5 Cr.P.C. and the other under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner had filed an F.I.R. under Section 498A and 406 I.P.C. against the husband and other family members wherein charge sheet has been filed by the police. Upon the suggestion of the husband that he is ready to keep her with him, the petitioner has specifically stated in her deposition that she apprehends threat to her life. The provision of Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act makes it clear that the monetary reliefs under this Act can be included or can be in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Sub- section 2 of Section 20 provides that the monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. The aggrieved person in the case, i.e. the petitioner is a graduate lady. The respondent is a public servant and is said to be earning salary in excess of Rs. 15000/- per month. Therefore, a meager sum of Rs. 1500/- which has been awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be fair, reasonable and adequate or sufficient for the petitioner's maintenance. Thus, the trial court as well as the Appellate Court have committed a grave error in denying maintenance to the petitioner under the provision of the Domestic Violence Act.
6
Resultantly, the revision deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The orders impugned are set aside and it is hereby directed that the petitioner shall now be entitled to receive maintenance @ Rs. 3500/- per month from the respondent No. 1 Sh. Rameshwar under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 from the date of this order. The respondent no. 1 Sh. Rameshwar shall deposit the amount of maintenance by 10th of each month failing which the learned Magistrate shall issue warrant for recovering the maintenance amount.
Record be sent back forthwith.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/Sushil/