Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Girish Vijaysingh Pardeshi, challenged an order dated 31/03/2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 7, Jalgaon, in PWDV No. 147/2015, whereby his defence was struck out for non-payment of interim maintenance. The respondents, his wife and minor daughter, had filed a complaint under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). During the pendency of the complaint, the respondents sought interim maintenance, and by order dated 22/02/2017, the Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,000 per month to respondent No. 2 (the daughter). The petitioner failed to comply with this order. Consequently, the respondents filed an application to strike out the defence, which was allowed by the impugned order. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to strike out the defence under the DV Act. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Magistrate has inherent power under Section 23 of the DV Act to enforce its orders and that striking out defence is a permissible coercive measure to ensure compliance with maintenance orders. The court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the petition, upholding the striking out of the defence.
Headnote
A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Interim Maintenance - Striking Out Defence - Section 23 - The court considered whether the Magistrate was justified in striking out the defence of the husband for non-compliance with an interim maintenance order. The court held that the Magistrate has power under Section 23 of the DV Act to enforce its orders and striking out defence is a permissible coercive measure to ensure compliance. (Paras 1-5) B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Interim Maintenance - Non-Compliance - Section 23 - The petitioner failed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month to the wife and child despite the order dated 22/02/2017. The Magistrate struck out the defence on 31/03/2018. The High Court upheld the order, finding no illegality or perversity. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the learned Magistrate striking out the defence of the opponent for non-payment of interim maintenance is legal and proper.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the order striking out the defence of the petitioner for non-payment of interim maintenance.
Law Points
- Striking out defence for non-compliance with interim maintenance order
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Section 23
- Section 12
- Section 18
- Section 19
- Section 20
- Section 22
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
