Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal writ petitions filed by a wife (Vibha Ashpillya) and her husband (Shailesh Ashapillya) challenging a judgment and order dated 22/07/2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha. The wife sought enhancement of maintenance and compensation, while the husband sought further reduction. The trial court had originally granted maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month each to the wife and son, and compensation of Rs.2,00,000 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Sessions Court reduced the maintenance to Rs.5,000 each and compensation to Rs.50,000. The wife argued that the Sessions Court's findings were perverse and based on surmises, pointing out three inconsistent versions of the husband's income: admission of a business with his brother, an affidavit stating no income, and a later affidavit claiming employment with A.K. Textiles with a salary certificate. The High Court considered the submissions and the affidavit filed by the husband. The court noted the husband's inconsistent statements but ultimately upheld the Sessions Court's order, finding it not perverse. The High Court dismissed both petitions, confirming the modified maintenance and compensation amounts.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence - Maintenance - Section 20, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Reduction of maintenance from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000 each for wife and son - The Sessions Court modified the trial court's order reducing maintenance, which was challenged as perverse. The High Court upheld the reduction, noting the husband's limited income and assets. (Paras 3-4)
B) Domestic Violence - Compensation - Section 22, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Reduction of compensation from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.50,000 - The High Court found the reduction justified based on evidence of husband's financial capacity. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Court's modification of maintenance and compensation amounts under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was perverse and based on surmises.
Final Decision
Both criminal writ petitions are dismissed. The judgment and order dated 22/07/2024 of the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, modifying maintenance to Rs.5,000 each for wife and son and compensation to Rs.50,000, is upheld.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Section 20
- Section 22
- Compensation
- Modification of appellate order
- Perverse findings
- Income assessment
Case Details
Criminal Writ Petition No. 856 of 2024 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 1001 of 2024
Mr. S.N. Singh for Petitioner, Mr. A.U. Deshmukh for Respondent
Vibha W/o Shailesh Ashpillya (in Cr.WP 856/2024) and Shailesh S/o Harish Ashapillya (in Cr.WP 1001/2024)
Shailesh S/o Harish Ashapillya (in Cr.WP 856/2024) and Vibha W/o Shailesh Ashpillya (in Cr.WP 1001/2024)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petitions challenging the judgment and order of the Sessions Court modifying maintenance and compensation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
The wife sought restoration of original maintenance and compensation amounts; the husband sought further reduction.
Filing Reason
The wife challenged the reduction of maintenance from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000 each and compensation from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.50,000 by the Sessions Court, alleging perverse findings. The husband challenged the same order seeking further reduction.
Previous Decisions
The trial court granted maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month each to wife and son and compensation of Rs.2,00,000. The Sessions Court modified these amounts to Rs.5,000 each and Rs.50,000 respectively.
Issues
Whether the Sessions Court's modification of maintenance and compensation amounts was perverse and based on surmises.
Submissions/Arguments
Wife's counsel argued that the Sessions Court's findings were perverse, based on three inconsistent versions of husband's income: business with brother, affidavit of no income, and employment with A.K. Textiles.
Husband's counsel argued for further reduction based on limited income.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the Sessions Court's modification of maintenance and compensation was not perverse and was based on the evidence on record, including the husband's income and assets. The court found no reason to interfere with the appellate order.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge is raised to the judgment and order dated 22/07/2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha.
The learned counsel for the wife submits that the findings of the Sessions Court in Appeal are perverse as the order of the Trial Court has been modified by granting maintenance amount to wife from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and to son from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.
Procedural History
The trial court passed an order granting maintenance and compensation. The husband appealed to the Sessions Court, which modified the amounts. Both parties filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the Sessions Court's order. The High Court heard both petitions together and dismissed them.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 20, 22
