Men Rights India

  • Contact
  • Bare Acts
    • IPC 498A bare act
    • CrPC 125 Bare Act
    • The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – bare act
    • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Bare Act
  • 498a
    • 498a Tips
    • 498a Info
    • 498a Judgments
  • DV Act
    • DV Act Tips
    • DV Act Info
    • DV Act Judgments
  • Maintenance
    • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
    • Maintenance HMA 24 Judgments
  • Child Custody
    • Child Custody Visitation Judgments
    • Child Custody Visitation News
  • Misc
    • Divorce Judgments
    • Law Misuse
    • Marriage
    • Misandry
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Important Posts
You are here: Home » DV Act Judgments » No monetary relief under Section 20 of DV Act (PWDVA) unless domestic violence proved – Mumbai HC

No monetary relief under Section 20 of DV Act (PWDVA) unless domestic violence proved – Mumbai HC

19 Jan 2015 By videv 12 Comments

I think this is a very important judgment about grant of any kind of monetary relief including maintenance to wives under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence act.

👉(Read Online eBook): How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act 👈

👉(Read Online eBook): Alimony and Maintenance under Hindu Law👈

It says that unless the domestic violence alleged in the complaint is proven, no relief can be granted under Section 20 of the DV Act which grants monetary relief.  So bye bye to those complaints where wife says “I was not given food”, “I was locked in the bathroom” and the standard template of DV allegations.  Let them prove their allegations, or find a real job rather than filing cases on husbands and living life like parasites!

Note that this was on disposal of the main DV petition, so even if interim monetary relief is granted, keep fighting the main petition and get your maintenance amount to zero.

Important excerpt from the judgment below:

10. In my considered opinion, the learned Magistrate had committed an error in granting monetary relief to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 despite the fact that domestic violence could not be established. Though it is possible to say that the maintenance was permissible for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (minor children) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the monetary reliefs could not have been given to them under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The view taken by the learned Magistrate and the appellate Court, in my opinion, is not correct and hence, I pass the following order.

Full judgment text below:


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 32 OF 2014

Koushik S/o. Anil Gharami,
Aged about 40 years, 
R/o House NO.59, Shayamapalli
Khajurikala, Piplani, Bhopal­462022
Tahsil Hujur and District : Bhopal(MP)
                                                   ….   PETITIONER.

                                 //   VERSUS //

1.  Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami,
    aged about 36, Occu. Service,

2. Ku. Gayatri Sangeeta Gharami,

3. Ku. Astha Sangeeta Gharami,
    Age about 6 years,

    Respondent No.2 and 3 being minors are
    represented by their ad­litum mother the
    Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 all are R/o. C/o.
    Thakurdas Mahaldar, Post : Alapalli,
    Tahsil : Aheri, District : Gadchiroli. 
                                                    …. RESPONDENTS.

___________________________________________________________________
Mrs. Sonali Saware, Advocate with Petitioner.
Mr. C.M.Munje,Advocate with the respondent No.1.
___________________________________________________________________

 

                             CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.
                               DATED   : MAY 05, 2014.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.            Heard.

2.            ADMIT   .  Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3.            A short question that arises for determination in present writ

petition is, as to whether the minor children of the aggrieved person are

entitled for maintenance under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 if the trial Magistrate has come to a conclusion

that the domestic violence has not been proved. 

4.            Admittedly, the petitioner is husband of respondent No.1 and

father of respondent Nos.2 and 3.  Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 filed an

application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the Court

of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aheri.  The said application was heard on

merits   and   following   points   were   framed   by   the   Magistrate   for

READ:  Ambala, Haryana court denies interim maintenance under DV Act to woman who left child with husband

determination: 

           1. Does Applicant No.1 prove that she was subjected to Domestic

              Violence by Non­applicant No.1 as alleged in the application ?

           2. Do the applicants are entitled for relief claimed in their claim

              clause

           3. What order   ?

              The learned Magistrate had answered point No.1 in negative

and point No.2 was answered partly in affirmative.  The learned Magistrate

had come to a conclusion that respondent No.1 had not been able to

establish that she was subject to domestic violence by the petitioner.  The

learned Magistrate has also come to a conclusion that respondent No.1 was

not entitled for any monetary relief.  However, monetary relief was granted

to respondent Nos. 2 and 3.  The final order of the learned Magistrate runs as

under :

                  “ 1. The application is partly allowed.
                  2. Non­Applicant No.1 shall pay Rs.2000/­ per
                     month to Applicant No.2 and 3 each, for their
                     education, from the date of application.
                  3. Non­Applicant No.1 shall pay Rs.1000/­ per
                     month to applicant no.2 and 3 each, for their
                     maintenance (monitory relief) from the date of
                     application.
                  4. parties to bear their own cost.
                  5.  The amount received by Applicant No. 2 and 3
                     under interim order, Exh.No.18, be set off against
                     the amount as mentioned above    .”

5.            The petitioner had filed a criminal appeal against the said order

of the learned Magistrate.  The said Criminal Appeal was also dismissed on

9  December, 2013. 

6.            As already stated, the question that arises, whether respondent

Nos.2 and 3 could be granted any monetary relief despite the fact that

domestic violence could not be proved by respondent No.1.  In this regard,

one will have to refer to certain provisions of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act.  ‘Aggrieved Person’ has been defined in Section 2(a)

of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 :

              “ 2(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or
              has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent
              and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of
              domestic violence by the respondent; ”

7.            Chapter IV deals with ‘Procedure for obtaining orders of reliefs’.

Section 12 lays down the procedure for presenting application before the

concerned Magistrate.  Sections 18 and 19 of the Act deal with ‘Protection

Orders’ and ‘Residence Orders’, respectively.   Section 20 deals with

‘ Monetary Relief ’. 

8.            In the present petition, this Court is concerned as to whether

any monetary relief could have been given to respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

lays down :

                “ 20.   Monetary reliefs .­ (1) While disposing of an
              application under sub­section (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 as a result of the domestic violence and such relief
              may include, but is not limited to ­
              (a) the loss of earnings;
              (b) the medical expenses;
              (c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or
              removal of any property from the control of the
              aggrieved person; and
              (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 .”

READ:  Does Karnataka HC judgment allows for DV complaints on wives by husbands?

9.            It is thus, clear that the monetary relief is available for the

children of the aggrieved person if the monetary relief is required to meet the

expenses incurred by the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence.

The monetary relief is also permissible in case losses are suffered by the

aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence.  The monetary relief is

available to children of the aggrieved person under Section 20 of the Act.

However, the aggrieved person is under obligation to establish that she had

to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered due to domestic violence

on the part of the respondent.   In the present case, since the learned

Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the domestic violence could not be

proved and since that finding of the learned Magistrate has not been

challenged by the aggrieved person, it follows that no relief could have been

given to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also. 

10.           In   my   considered   opinion,   the   learned   Magistrate   had

committed an error in granting monetary relief to  respondent Nos. 2 and 3

despite the fact that domestic violence could not be established.  Though it is

possible to say that the maintenance was permissible for respondent Nos. 2

and 3 (minor children) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

the monetary reliefs could not have been given to them under Section 20 of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.  The view taken

by the learned Magistrate and the appellate Court, in my opinion, is not

correct and hence, I pass the following order.

    i. The writ petition is allowed.

    ii. The order passed by learned Magistrate in Misc. Criminal Case No. 27

       of 2011 on 12  March, 2013 and the order passed by the learned
       Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2013 on 9th

       December, 2013 are set aside. 

    iii. The amount of Rs.Twenty Five Thousand, deposited by the petitioner

       in this Court shall be refunded to him immediately.  

       The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

 

                                                         JUDGE

RRaut..

Links to Free eBooks

1. Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle

2. Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues (Read Online) (PDF book)

3. How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act (Read Online)

Links to Paid eBooks/Books


1. How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act (Digital eBook) (Print Paperback)

2. Self-study Book on Divorce for Men (Digital eBook Only)

3. Alimony and Maintenance under Hindu Law (Digital eBook) (Print Paperback)

Related Posts

  1. Interim relief under DV Act cannot be granted without conducting inquiry as per CrPC summons case – Karnataka HC
  2. Chennai HC exhorts magistrates to award lumpsum amounts at interim orders under DV Act
  3. Wife not entitled to stay in or claim her father-in-law’s house using DV Act
  4. What should be my stand in court?

Filed Under: DV Act Judgments Tagged With: HC Judgment, Maintenance, PWDVA(DV Act)

Comments

  1. VR Paraskar says

    November 19, 2017 at 8:04 am

    Can a wife without any child and separated from two years from husband entitled for share in the agricultural land acquired by her mother in law as stridhan from her father.

    Reply
    • videv says

      December 9, 2017 at 3:05 pm

      I can’t be 100% sure on this but stridhan of a woman is her own property, and in that case it is not open for inheritance by other family members/heirs etc.

      Reply
  2. Pramod says

    February 26, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    how can we download judgement copy or if any one has pls send copy praa9001@gmail.com

    pramod (delhi)
    09968633655

    Reply
  3. VIKAS says

    February 1, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    MY WIFE RESIDING WITH HER PARENTS AND SHE REFUSED TO COME BACK I M GOVT EMPLOYEE SDO NOW SHE FILED CASE OF DV UNDER SEC 12 AND SHE IS DOING OB GETTING SALARY ABOUT 25000 KYA INTERIM RELEIF FIR BHI DENA PADEGA HARRASING ME AND MY FAMILY BY CASE

    Reply
    • videv says

      February 1, 2016 at 11:39 pm

      >>GETTING SALARY ABOUT 25000 KYA INTERIM RELEIF FIR BHI DENA PADEGA

      If you don’t fight properly, it’s possible

      Reply
  4. tilak says

    November 23, 2015 at 10:38 am

    What is the range (minimum- maximum) interim maintenance that would be granted; in the case of wife and 10 year old girl child staying with in-law’s place for past 11 months without informing the husband?
    Other details:
    1.Wife changed the child’s school without informing husband 7 months back
    2. Husband’s is salaried (100,000 per month)
    Husband is told by advocate that range (minimum- maximum) interim maintenance could be 0 to 33000 (33% or 1/3rd of salary). Is it correct?

    Reply
    • videv says

      November 23, 2015 at 4:03 pm

      Only 2 kind of people can answer this kind of question: astrologers, or judges. And the judges will reserve order only after evidence and cross-exam

      Reply
  5. Jagannath says

    October 5, 2015 at 12:55 am

    Respected si, My wife staying her father’s house since 9/9/214.After ten months complete I files on Conjugal rights under section-9, after that she will put a case on me under DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT-20. Plz advice me her case will valuable as per law or not.
    Thanks & Regards.

    Reply
    • videv says

      October 5, 2015 at 9:50 pm

      Both of you have taken shelter under law… from here on it’s evidence that’s valuable, not the number and types of legal tricks people want to pull upon each other

      Reply
  6. DP says

    August 1, 2015 at 11:56 pm

    On the same lines is the judgment in Criminal Revision Application No.47/2015 (Dajvip Patkar Vs. Vina Patkar) decided by the High Court of Bombay at Goa on 06/07/2015. It has been held that the jurisdiction to grant relief under the PWDV Act is a conditional jurisdiction available upon proof of domestic violence.

    Reply
  7. anil says

    May 3, 2015 at 5:39 pm

    Please tell me if I can avoid paying maintenance for child by filing custody for him. Wife is working professional and unwilling to join and has filed for maintenance under 125crpc and DV act and also filed for divorce.

    Reply
    • videv says

      May 6, 2015 at 11:42 am

      You can surely file custody for child, but avoiding maintenance shouldn’t be the idea behind it.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Men Rights India numbers For 498A/406/Dowry Case/DV/Maintenance/child custody-visitation/abusive-wife/false cases, CALL volunteers' phone lines (for quick guidance only):
(Be respectful to volunteers, & we don't advise on divorce)

1. Kannada/Hindi/English: +919738010456
2. Tamil/English: +919962514226

Join our WhatsApp/Facebook groups for FREE guidance/discussion

Join Our Telegram Channel for FREE updates

Social

Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Instagram

Search this website

Important/Must Read/Permanent Posts

  • How to assess your false case and marriage breakup probability
  • How to take action against police or magistrate for 498A arrest without following CrPC 41 41A?
  • Why Indian men should be very careful in filing divorce
  • What to do if CAW cell/police/advocate is putting pressure to compromise
  • Innocent until proven guilty is the law, use it!
  • Advice to men on 498a, maintenance, DV, divorce, child custody, what else
  • How to find and manage your lawyer in 498a, DV, CrPC 125, divorce, RCR cases
  • How to fight false cases of DV, Maintenance, CrPC 125, 498a etc
  • How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  • Notes and questions on court procedures
  • What should be my stand in court?
  • Understanding the divorce industry in India

Book: How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act


👉(Read Online eBook)👈
(Buy Print book)
(Buy Digital eBook)
(Information about the Book)

Today’s Popular Posts

  • How to file objections/written statement to…
  • How an NRI man fought false 498a, 406 cases within 6 months
  • Divorce made easier, or rather possible – but watch out!
  • How to handle allegation of impotence by wife
  • Mumbai HC waives 6 month waiting period in mutual divorce
  • No provision to return marriage expenses to bride
  • 25% (or 50%) of husband’s salary is…
  • Procedure of CAW (Crime against women) cell
  • Strategy for Child Custody for Men
  • Right of daughter-in-law in in-laws’ property…

Tags

498A Activism Arrest Child Support Child_Custody_Visitation Commando Gyan Commando Strategy Commando Techniques CrPC CrPC 125 Cruelty Divorce Domestic Violence Industry Dowry DV Act Judgments Evidence False Case False Rape Family Law Feminazis Feminist Figures Feminist Propaganda Fight Back HC Judgment Hindu Marriage Act HMA 24 Law Making Law Misuse Laws Legal Info live-in Maintenance Marriage Men Rights NCW NRI Police Press Release PWDVA(DV Act) Rape RTI SC Judgment Supreme Court WCD Women Reservation Bill

The Benefits of Reading Men Rights India!

before reading MRI
Before


after reading MRI
After

email: I am facing false DV case. I love your blog. It really have me boost to fight this case and I feel so happy that you guys are doing such a commendable work.


comment: Your survey is 100 % true. whatever is written in this blog matches more than 90 % of my marriage life situation.


comment: The Article is really great, it’s actually happening in my life. whatever is mentioned here is the tactics are used by my wife and still going on….


comment: This is a very good article, and some points mentioned here are the real reasons males are threatened to shell out the maintenance amount


comment: This document is very help for me,becoise i am sufring for false dowry case and fiting for them.so thank for to u.


comment: The web content is very useful for its diversity and especially for atrocities committed upon men, emitting a clarion call for them to rise and defend their rights and hood.


comment: Thanks you People doing very may allah grant you Success. Ameen.


comment: This is very helpful. Thanks a lot. Your work is really a morale booster..
Search judgments at Bharat Law
Read judgments at Bharat Law
IPC 498A Judgments
IPC 406 Judgments
DV Act Judgments
CrPC 125 Judgments
Child Custody Judgments

Author on Facebook

Vivek Deveshwar

Free eBook: Surviving the Legal Jungle

Surviving-the-Legal-Jungle-Cover-Image

Featured Posts

Template/Format for newspaper apology by wife for filing false complaint or cases

6 Aug 2016 By videv 7 Comments

Delhi Mahila court denies maintenance to doctor wife from doctor husband

21 Mar 2015 By videv 3 Comments

How to boost your self-esteem using fake breasts

19 Sep 2014 By videv Leave a Comment

Warnings for foreigners marrying Indian women

23 Dec 2013 By videv Leave a Comment

Summary of PIL filed in Delhi HC towards gender neutral rape/sexual assault laws

7 Oct 2017 By videv 3 Comments

Equality for Men – Myth or Reality?

Download IMD handbook
Download IMD handbook

Recent Comments

  • videv on How to get Provident Fund (PF) details of wife
  • Raghu on How to get Provident Fund (PF) details of wife
  • videv on How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  • P2 on How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  • Child visitation monitor New Haven on Strategy for Child Custody for Men

RSS Feeds

  • All Posts
  • DV Act Judgments
  • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
  • 498A Judgments

Archives

Copyright © 2009-2021 · Vivek Deveshwar · Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Bare Acts
    • IPC 498A bare act
    • CrPC 125 Bare Act
    • The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – bare act
    • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Bare Act
  • 498a
    • 498a Tips
    • 498a Info
    • 498a Judgments
  • DV Act
    • DV Act Tips
    • DV Act Info
    • DV Act Judgments
  • Maintenance
    • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
    • Maintenance HMA 24 Judgments
  • Child Custody
    • Child Custody Visitation Judgments
    • Child Custody Visitation News
  • Misc
    • Divorce Judgments
    • Law Misuse
    • Marriage
    • Misandry
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Important Posts