Note: By continuing to read below chapter from book you agree to be bound by copyright/IP and the terms and conditions of license (details here)
Ch 15. DV Act, procedures to follow before maintenance order
Interim maintenance and reliefs only after summary trial in DV case
Interim relief under DV Act cannot be granted without conducting inquiry as per CrPC summons case
Use this judgment when several facts in your case are similar to following\
-
If you have received summons/notice under DV Act, then file your statement/objection and use this judgment to make sure that orders for relief are passed only after your evidence is taken up by court.
-
Then even to grant interim relief to the applicant (wife), the court must conduct an inquiry as would be required in a CrPC summary trial, that is, summons case. This means that husband will be allowed to give his basic evidence etc and any order will be passed only after that.
KRISHNAMURTHY NOOKULA vs SAVITHA Y - Karnataka HC 2009
Important parts of judgment\
Note: the judgment is only in PDF scanned image format, so you can download it from here:
Comment: The order in above judgment was based on reading of Section 23 and Section 28 of PWDVA given below. Sec 23 (2) allows the grant of ex-parte order based on affidavit of petitioner.
Section 28(1) clearly says that all proceedings under DV Act will be as per Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It also allows the court to lay down its own procedure but only for sub-section 23(2) which relates to grant of ex-parte order. So court cannot create its own procedure for grant of relief if notice to respondent/husband is already issued.
So if you have received a notice under DV Act, then file your statement/objection and use this judgment to make sure that orders for relief are passed only after your evidence is taken up by court.
In Karnataka, this judgment has to be followed by all the lower courts. In other states, it is not mandatory but this judgment can be shown as a precedent of another high court to get similar relief.
No monetary relief under Sec 20 until domestic violence proved
No monetary relief under Section 20 of DV Act (PWDVA) unless domestic violence proved - Mumbai HC
Use this judgment when several facts in your case are similar to following\
-
Monetary relief under Section 20 of DV Act has been claimed by wife.
-
During trial of DV case, no domestic violence was proven as per court orders
-
Still the court granted monetary relief to wife
Note: In this judgment, the monetary relief has been denied to children, not wife. However, the principle of law invoked here would be applicable to wives too.
Koushik Gharami vs Sangeeta Koushik Gharami - Mumbai HC
Important parts of judgment\
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.
...
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.
DV petition dismissed because of prima-facie no domestic violence
DV petition dismissed because of prima-facie no domestic violence
Use this judgment when several facts in your case are similar to following\
- Not much evidence given of domestic violence by wife
Sonia versus Vinod - Delhi MM 2007
Comment: This is a trial court judgment in Delhi MM court. Though the judgment is favourable to husband and his family, the order doesn't have many reasons given except saying that prima-facie there was no domestic violence. Since protection officer was present with applicant woman and DIR (domestic incidence report) was also filed, I was hoping judge would have given the points with reference to points mentioned in the DIR. However, the judgment doesn't contain details as to what were the loopholes in the DIR. Nevertheless, the point of including this judgment is that one should not assume that courts will blindly go in favour of woman. Unexpected dismissal order can also be passed in favour of husband -- one should stick to the stand as seemingly the respondents in this case have done.
Important parts of judgment\
of the above mentioned rival submissions. I have also taken
into consideration the view points of the Protection Officer
and the Domestic Incident Report submitted by her before
this court.
8. On the basis of entire facts and circumstances of this
case, I am prima facie of the considered opinion that
behaviour of applicant is of such a nature that she is not co-
operating with the respondents. She prima facie appears to
be harassing the respondents on trivial matters. The
applicant has prima facie failed to satisfy this court that
respondent No.1 or any of his other family members have
really committed any Domestic Violence against her in the
given facts and circumstances of this case. The applicant
prima facie appears to be residing at present with her
parents without any justified reasons. Her in-laws are very
much in need of her company and support because all the
three sisters and one brother of respondent No.1 are
unmarried at present and prima facie depending upon the
earnings of respondent No.1 and the mother of respondent
No.1 appears to be quite old and physically weak in health.
She also needs the services of her daughter-in-law namely,
applicant for her own care and protection.