Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Surekha Nanaso Jagtap, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangli, in an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The petitioner had originally filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Vita, seeking reliefs including interim maintenance. The JMFC allowed the application and directed the respondents (including the petitioner's husband and in-laws) to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month. The first respondent (husband) appealed to the Sessions Court under Section 29 of the DV Act. The Sessions Judge, while deciding the appeal, set aside the interim maintenance order, observing that the petitioner was a sister-in-law of the first respondent and that the respondents were not under an obligation to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The petitioner contended that the Sessions Judge erred in treating the DV Act proceedings as akin to Section 125 CrPC, whereas the DV Act provides an independent remedy. The High Court agreed, noting that the appellate court had considered the appeal as if it were under Section 125 CrPC, which was impermissible. The High Court held that the remedy under the DV Act is independent and distinct from maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Sessions Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence - Interim Maintenance - Independent Remedy - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 12, 29 - The appellate court (Sessions Judge) erred in treating the appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act as if it were proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, and set aside the interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 granted by the JMFC under Section 12 of the DV Act. The High Court held that the remedy under the DV Act is independent and cannot be equated with maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded to the Sessions Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court (Sessions Judge) erred in considering the appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as if it were proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and thereby setting aside the interim maintenance order passed by the JMFC under Section 12 of the DV Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order of the Sessions Judge, Sangli, and remanded the matter to the Sessions Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order.
Law Points
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 provides an independent remedy
- distinct from Section 125 CrPC
- appellate court cannot apply Section 125 CrPC standards to proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act
- interim maintenance under DV Act is not governed by the same principles as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (09) 202
Criminal Writ Petition No. 987 of 2019
Mr. M.B. Deshmukh for the Petitioner, Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for Respondent – State, Mr. Sandesh D. Patil i/by. Ms. Divya A. PawarPatil for Respondent nos. 1 to 5
Dhanaji Jalindar Jagtap & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Sessions Judge, Sangli, in an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Sessions Court order that set aside the interim maintenance granted by the JMFC under Section 12 of the DV Act.
Filing Reason
The Sessions Judge erroneously applied the standards of Section 125 CrPC to proceedings under the DV Act, which provides an independent remedy.
Previous Decisions
The JMFC, Vita, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 173 of 2017, directed the respondents to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000. The Sessions Judge, Sangli, in appeal, set aside that order.
Issues
Whether the appellate court erred in treating the appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act as if it were proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
Whether the remedy under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is independent and distinct from maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the Sessions Judge considered the appeal as per Section 125 CrPC, though the proceedings were under Section 12 of the DV Act, which provides an independent remedy.
Respondents' counsel argued that the Sessions Judge properly applied mind and correctly held that the respondents were not obliged to pay maintenance as the petitioner was a sister-in-law.
Ratio Decidendi
The remedy under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is an independent remedy and cannot be equated with maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An appellate court under Section 29 of the DV Act must not apply the standards of Section 125 CrPC while deciding an appeal against an order under Section 12 of the DV Act.
Judgment Excerpts
the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli considered the appeal proceedings as per the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though the proceedings before the Trial Court are initiated by the Petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
the remedy provided to the aggrieved person under the said Act is an independent remedy, and therefore the appellate Court should not have considered proceedings of appeal as per the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the JMFC, Vita (Criminal Misc. Application No. 173 of 2017). The JMFC granted interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000. The first respondent appealed to the Sessions Court, Sangli, under Section 29 of the DV Act. The Sessions Judge set aside the interim maintenance order. The petitioner then filed the present criminal writ petition under Article 227 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 12, 29
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 125
