Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Smt. Sapna wd/o Nilesh Patel against the common judgment dated 18th April, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Criminal Appeal Nos.45 of 2014 and 48 of 2014. The applicant is the widow of Nilesh Patel, who died on 27.03.2010. The respondents are Pravin Ishwarbhai Patel, Nitin Ishwarbhai Patel, and Dilip Shantubhai Patel, who are relatives. The applicant filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) claiming that she was subjected to domestic violence and sought possession of the business premises 'Patel Mangal Karyalaya' and monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/-. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadchiroli partly allowed the application, directing restoration of possession of the business premises to the applicant but rejecting the claim for maintenance. Both parties appealed: the respondents challenged the order of possession, and the applicant challenged the refusal of maintenance. The appellate court set aside the order of possession and upheld the refusal of maintenance. The High Court, in revision, held that the business premises constitute a 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the DV Act, and the applicant has a right to reside therein. The appellate court erred in setting aside the Magistrate's order. Regarding maintenance, the High Court held that the applicant is entitled to maintenance as she is a widow without independent income, and the respondents are liable. The matter was remanded to the Magistrate to determine the quantum of maintenance. The revision was allowed, the appellate court's order was set aside, and the Magistrate's order was restored with respect to possession, while the maintenance issue was remanded.
Headnote
A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Shared Household - Right to Residence - Section 17, 19 - Widow's right to reside in shared household - The applicant, widow of Nilesh Patel, claimed right to reside in the business premises 'Patel Mangal Karyalaya' which was part of joint family property. The Magistrate granted possession, but the appellate court set it aside. The High Court held that the premises constitute a shared household under Section 2(s) of the DV Act, and the applicant has a right to reside therein. The appellate court's order was set aside and the Magistrate's order restored. (Paras 10-15) B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Maintenance - Section 20 - Entitlement to monthly maintenance - The Magistrate rejected the claim for maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. The High Court held that the applicant, being a widow without independent income, is entitled to maintenance. The respondents, who are running the business, are liable to pay maintenance. The matter was remanded to the Magistrate to determine the quantum of maintenance. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court erred in setting aside the order of the Magistrate granting possession of the business premises (Patel Mangal Karyalaya) to the applicant and refusing maintenance.
Final Decision
The revision is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli dated 18th April, 2015 is set aside. The order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadchiroli dated 16th October, 2014 is restored with respect to possession of Patel Mangal Karyalaya. The matter is remanded to the Magistrate for determination of quantum of maintenance payable to the applicant.
Law Points
- Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Section 12
- Section 17
- Section 19
- Section 20
- shared household
- right to residence
- maintenance
- revision
- appellate court's power
