Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mamta Gautam Wankhede, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the order dated 16/01/2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, which set aside the maintenance order of Rs.7,000/- per month granted to her under Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. The respondent, Gautam Sukhdev Wankhede, is the petitioner's husband. The admitted facts are that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act in 2012, and the Family Court had already granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month on 11/01/2013, which was later enhanced to Rs.7,000/- per month by final order dated 02/04/2016. This final order was not challenged by the respondent and attained finality. The Magistrate, under Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act, also granted maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the petitioner. The respondent appealed against this order before the Additional Sessions Judge, who set it aside solely on the ground that the petitioner already had a maintenance order from the Family Court. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The High Court examined the nature of relief under Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act, which is a monetary relief for losses suffered due to domestic violence. The court held that this relief is independent of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC or any other law. The existence of a prior maintenance order under another law does not bar the grant of maintenance under the DV Act. The appellate court's order was set aside as it failed to consider the independent nature of the relief. The High Court allowed the petition, restored the Magistrate's order, and directed the respondent to pay the maintenance as ordered.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence - Maintenance - Section 20(1)(d) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Independent Relief - The Magistrate's power to grant maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) is a monetary relief for losses suffered due to domestic violence and is independent of maintenance granted under Section 125 CrPC or any other law. The existence of a prior maintenance order under another law does not bar the grant of maintenance under the DV Act. The appellate court erred in setting aside the maintenance order solely on that ground. (Paras 4-6) B) Domestic Violence - Appellate Jurisdiction - Section 29 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Scope of Appeal - The appellate court under Section 29 of the DV Act must consider the merits of the case and cannot reverse a maintenance order merely because another maintenance order exists under a different law. The appellate court's order was set aside as it failed to appreciate the independent nature of relief under the DV Act. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the maintenance order granted under Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 solely on the ground that the petitioner already had a maintenance order from the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order dated 16/01/2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, and restored the order dated 08/02/2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur granting maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the petitioner under Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act. The respondent was directed to pay the maintenance as ordered.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) of DV Act is independent of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC or other laws
- Dual maintenance orders can coexist if based on different legal provisions
- Appellate court cannot set aside maintenance order under DV Act solely because another maintenance order exists under different law
