Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal writ petition filed by Prashant Maggidwar and his family members (petitioners) challenging concurrent orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Zari Jamni, and the Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent-wife, Ashwini, married petitioner no.1 on 22nd November 2010 and filed an application under Section 12 of the Act alleging domestic violence. She sought protection orders, residence in the flat owned by the petitioners at Nanded, and maintenance. The Magistrate allowed her application, directing the petitioners not to commit domestic violence, not to obstruct her stay in the flat, and to pay maintenance of Rs. 2000 per month. The Appellate Court confirmed these orders. The petitioners challenged the orders on the ground that the flat was not a shared household as it belonged to the parents of the husband, and that the wife was not entitled to maintenance from all petitioners. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were based on evidence and not perverse. It noted that the wife had lived in the flat after marriage, making it a shared household under Section 17 of the Act. The court also upheld the maintenance award, observing that the petitioners had not shown any illegality or irregularity. The writ petition was dismissed, and the orders of the lower courts were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence - Maintenance - Section 12, 20 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Wife entitled to maintenance of Rs. 2000 per month from husband and in-laws - Magistrate and Appellate Court concurrently found domestic violence and awarded maintenance - High Court upheld the orders as no perversity or illegality shown (Paras 1-10).
B) Domestic Violence - Residence Order - Section 17, 19 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Wife has right to reside in shared household - Flat owned by in-laws is shared household as wife lived there after marriage - Order directing petitioners not to obstruct wife's stay and not to drive her away is valid (Paras 3-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed by the Magistrate and the Appellate Court granting maintenance and residence to the wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are legal and proper.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the orders of the Magistrate and Appellate Court. The petitioners are directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 2000 per month to the wife and not to obstruct her stay in the flat.
Law Points
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Section 12
- Section 17
- Section 19
- Section 20
- shared household
- right to reside
- maintenance
- residence order
- domestic violence
- appeal
- revision
- concurrent findings
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 149
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3 of 2015
Mr. P. V. Kulkarni for petitioners, Mr. H.N. Bhondge for respondent no.1, Mr. P.V. Bhoyar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2
Prashant Prakash Maggidwar, Pravin Prakash Maggidwar, Prakash Pandharinath Maggidwar, Sau. Vijaya Prakash Maggidwar
Sau. Ashwini Prashant Maggidwar, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging concurrent orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 granting maintenance and residence to the wife.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of orders passed by the Magistrate and Appellate Court directing them to pay maintenance and not to obstruct the wife's residence in the flat.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the flat was not a shared household and that the wife was not entitled to maintenance from all petitioners.
Previous Decisions
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Zari Jamni, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 14 of 2013 allowed the wife's application; Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2014 dismissed the appeal on 4th December 2014.
Issues
Whether the flat owned by the in-laws can be considered a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
Whether the wife is entitled to maintenance from the husband and in-laws?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the flat belongs to the parents of the husband and is not a shared household; the wife has no right to reside there.
Petitioners contended that the wife is not entitled to maintenance from all petitioners as they are not her husband.
Respondent-wife argued that she lived in the flat after marriage and it is her shared household; she is entitled to maintenance and residence.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a wife has a right to reside in the shared household, which includes property owned by in-laws if she has lived there after marriage. Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on domestic violence and maintenance cannot be interfered with unless perverse or illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
The marriage took place on 22nd November, 2010 and it is still in subsistence.
The learned Magistrate allowed the application and directed the petitioners not to commit domestic violence, not to obstruct the applicant to stay in the flat, and to pay maintenance of Rs. 2000 per month.
The concurrent findings of the courts below are based on evidence and are not perverse.
Procedural History
Respondent-wife filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 14 of 2013 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Zari Jamni. The Magistrate allowed the application. Petitioners appealed to the Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2014, which was dismissed on 4th December 2014. Petitioners then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition No. 3 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 12, 17, 19, 20
