Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sou. Shradha Fogla, filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment and order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola. The Additional Sessions Judge had allowed Criminal Appeal No. 33/2021 filed by respondent nos.1 to 4 (the in-laws of the petitioner) under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act), thereby dismissing the D.V. Act case (Misc. Criminal Application No. 336/2015) filed against them. The petitioner and her husband (non-applicant no.1) got married in May 2005 at Akola. After marriage, the petitioner went to the USA in September 2005 to cohabit with her husband, who worked as a doctor in Michigan. They resided together in the USA for about nine years and had a daughter, Shreeya. Disputes arose between the petitioner and her husband, and she returned to India in 2015 with her daughter, taking shelter with her father at Akola. The petitioner lodged a report at Gittikhadan Police Station, Akola, and also filed a petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, seeking reliefs including protection order, residence order, monetary relief, and compensation. The Magistrate, after hearing the parties, passed an order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to the petitioner and Rs. 5,000 per month to her daughter, and also directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 for mental torture. The respondent nos.1 to 4 (in-laws) filed an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act before the Additional Sessions Judge, who allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint against them. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the appellate court had erred in reversing the Magistrate's order. The High Court observed that the definition of 'respondent' under Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act includes relatives of the husband, and the complaint against the in-laws was maintainable. The court also held that the Magistrate at Akola had territorial jurisdiction as the petitioner had taken shelter there and alleged acts of domestic violence had occurred partly within its jurisdiction. The High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the Magistrate's order, directing the respondent nos.1 to 4 to comply with the interim maintenance and compensation orders. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Maintainability of Complaint against Relatives - Section 12, Section 2(q) - The definition of 'respondent' under Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act includes any adult male person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought relief. The term also includes any relative of the husband or male partner. The complaint against the in-laws (father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and his wife) was maintainable as they were in a domestic relationship with the applicant and had allegedly committed acts of domestic violence. (Paras 10-15) B) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 27 - The Magistrate at Akola had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the applicant had taken shelter at Akola after leaving the shared household in USA, and the alleged acts of domestic violence had occurred partly within the jurisdiction of Akola court. The fact that the in-laws resided in Mumbai or USA did not oust the jurisdiction. (Paras 16-18) C) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Appeal under Section 29 - Scope - The appellate court erred in reversing the well-reasoned order of the Magistrate without properly appreciating the evidence and the provisions of the D.V. Act. The appellate court's finding that the in-laws were not 'respondents' was perverse and contrary to law. (Paras 19-22) D) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Interim Maintenance and Compensation - Section 20, Section 22 - The Magistrate had granted interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to the applicant and Rs. 5,000 per month to her daughter, and also directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 for mental torture. The appellate court's order setting aside these reliefs was unsustainable. (Paras 23-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in allowing the appeal and dismissing the complaint under the D.V. Act against the in-laws (respondent nos.1 to 4) who are residents of Mumbai and USA, on the ground that they were not 'respondents' within the meaning of the D.V. Act and that the complaint was not maintainable against them.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the judgment and order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, and restored the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 336/2015. The respondent nos.1 to 4 were directed to comply with the interim maintenance and compensation orders.
Law Points
- Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Section 12
- Section 19
- Section 20
- Section 22
- Section 29
- Section 482 CrPC
- Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India
- Domestic Violence
- Shared Household
- Residence Order
- Monetary Relief
- Compensation
- Appeal
- Maintainability
- Territorial Jurisdiction
