Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sarita Maladhare, filed a criminal writ petition challenging an order dated 24 July 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nagpur, which partly allowed the appeal filed by her husband, Sureshkumar Maladhare, against the trial court's order granting monetary reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The trial court had granted maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1000/- each to her two sons, along with compensation of Rs.5000/- under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate court reversed the maintenance granted to the wife but confirmed the maintenance for the children. The petitioner contended that the appellate court did not consider the evidence on record properly and wrongly concluded that she was not entitled to maintenance. She argued that her evidence remained uncontroverted and the respondent failed to bring any evidence to show he was not liable for maintenance. The respondent argued that the proceedings were false and that the petitioner left his company voluntarily due to financial demands. The High Court examined the submissions and found that the appellate court had not properly appreciated the evidence. The court noted that the petitioner's evidence regarding domestic violence and her need for maintenance was not rebutted. The High Court held that the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's order without sufficient justification. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's order granting maintenance to the wife and compensation.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence - Maintenance - Section 20 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Appellate court reversed trial court's order granting maintenance to wife - Held that appellate court failed to consider evidence of domestic violence and wife's entitlement to maintenance - Order set aside and trial court's order restored (Paras 1-3).
B) Domestic Violence - Compensation - Section 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Trial court granted compensation of Rs.5000/- - Appellate court did not disturb this order - Held that compensation was rightly granted (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's order granting maintenance to the wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, without properly appreciating the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's order dated 24 July 2012, and restored the trial court's order granting maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1000/- each to her two sons, along with compensation of Rs.5000/- under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 20 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Compensation under Section 22
- Appellate court's duty to consider evidence
- Burden of proof on husband to disprove domestic violence
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (09) 215
Criminal Writ Petition No.483 of 2012
Mr. A.S. Tiwari for petitioner, Mr. D.R. Upadhye for respondent
Sau.Sarita w/o Sureshkumar Maladhare
Shri Sureshkumar s/o Dhaniram Maladhare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging appellate court order reversing maintenance granted to wife under Domestic Violence Act
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing and setting aside of appellate court order and restoration of trial court's maintenance order
Filing Reason
Appellate court reversed trial court's order granting maintenance to wife without proper appreciation of evidence
Previous Decisions
Trial court granted maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month to wife and Rs.1000/- each to two sons, and compensation of Rs.5000/- under Section 22. Appellate court partly allowed appeal, rejecting wife's maintenance but confirming children's maintenance.
Issues
Whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's order granting maintenance to the wife under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Whether the appellate court properly considered the evidence on record
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that her evidence remained uncontroverted and respondent failed to prove he was not liable for maintenance
Respondent argued that proceedings were false and petitioner left voluntarily due to financial demands
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, particularly the uncontroverted evidence of the petitioner regarding domestic violence and her entitlement to maintenance. The burden of proof to disprove domestic violence lies on the husband, and he failed to discharge it. Therefore, the trial court's order granting maintenance was justified and should not have been reversed.
Judgment Excerpts
Challenge in this petition is to impugned order dated 24th July, 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nagpur, whereby appeal preferred by respondent against the order passed by learned trial Court granting monetary reliefs under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to petitioner of Rs.2000/- per month and to her sons Rs.1000/- each, respectively, and also granting compensation of Rs.5000/- under Section 22 of the Act of 2005, was partly allowed thereby rejecting amount of maintenance granted to petitioner – wife, and confirming order of maintenance granted to her children.
It is the case of petitioner that the learned Appellate Court did not consider evidence on record in its proper perspective and wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance granted by the learned trial Court.
Procedural History
The trial court (Magistrate) passed an order granting maintenance and compensation to the wife and children under the Domestic Violence Act. The husband appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nagpur, who partly allowed the appeal, rejecting the wife's maintenance but confirming the children's maintenance. The wife then filed a criminal writ petition in the High Court challenging the appellate order.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 20, 22
