Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 26.09.2018 whereby the appellate court set aside order dated 06.04.2018 and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the application under section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the DV Act), afresh.

2. Application under section 23 of the DV Act was filed by the Respondent-wife inter-alia seeking monetary relief under section 20, residence orders under section 19(f) and prevention of alienation of assets under section 18(e) of the DV Act.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Respondent-wife suffered domestic violence and thus was entitled to monetary relief under the DV Act. Further it is submitted that the respondent had not only sought relief under section 20 but also prayed for residence orders under section 19 and protection order under section 18 of DV Act, which are beyond the scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C..

11. Further it is submitted that the maintenance granted under section 125 Cr.P.C. does not put an embargo on the court to pass an order granting monetary relief under the provisions of DV Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of another coordinate bench in Karamchand & Ors Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr (2011) 181 DLT

(2) 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.

(3) ***** ******

17. Cleary the scope of Section 20 of the DV Act is much wider than that of Section 125 Cr.P.C.. While Section 125 Cr.P.C. talks only of maintenance, Section 20 DV Act stipulates payment of monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered as a result of the domestic violence including but not limited to loss of earning, medical expenses, loss caused due to destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of aggrieved person. Further, Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act clearly provides that "In proceedings under the DV Act, the magistrate may direct the Respondent to pay the maintenance to 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 Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force."

21. The Judgment in the case of Rachna Katuria Versus Ramesh Kathuria (supra) relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner to contend that DV Act does not create any additional right to claim maintenance on the part of the aggrieved person and if a woman had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined, she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the DV Act is per incurium as it does not notice the very provisions of Section 20 and 23 of DV Act. Further now the Supreme Court of India in Juveria Abdul Majid Khan Patni Vs Atif Iqbal Masoori (supra) has held that monetary relief under Section 20 DV Act is in addition to maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C..