Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. N.S. Leelavathi (mother) and Sri R. Shiva Prathap (brother), filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.615/2019, which confirmed the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.113/2018. The respondent, Dr. R. Shilpa Brunda (also known as Ayesha Zubair), is the daughter of petitioner No.1 and sister of petitioner No.2. She filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) seeking maintenance and other reliefs. The Magistrate allowed the complaint and granted maintenance. The petitioners appealed, but the Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. In revision, the High Court examined the factual matrix: the respondent was a doctor and was married to Dr. Zubair Khan; she had been residing in the shared household (property No.50/1, 1st Cross, Nehrunagar, Seshadripuram, Bengaluru) but later moved out due to domestic violence. The petitioners argued that the respondent was not residing with them at the time of filing the complaint and thus was not entitled to maintenance. The High Court rejected this argument, holding that the DV Act does not require the aggrieved person to be residing with the respondent at the time of filing the complaint; the right to reside in a shared household is a substantive right. The court found that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and that there was no illegality or impropriety in the orders. The revision petition was dismissed, and the orders granting maintenance were upheld.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence - Maintenance - Section 12, 20 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Interim Maintenance - The court upheld the orders granting maintenance to the respondent, a doctor, against her mother and brother, holding that the respondent had a right to reside in the shared household and was entitled to maintenance even if she was not residing with the petitioners at the time of filing the complaint. The court found no illegality or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the courts below. (Paras 1-10) B) Domestic Violence - Shared Household - Section 2(s) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The court held that the property in question was a shared household where the respondent had a right to reside, and the petitioners could not deny her maintenance on the ground that she was not residing there at the time of filing the complaint. (Paras 2-8) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397, 401 Cr.P.C. - The court reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the courts below and cannot act as an appellate court. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders granting maintenance to the respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are sustainable when the respondent was not residing with the petitioners at the time of filing the complaint and whether the petitioners are liable to pay maintenance.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the orders of the courts below granting maintenance to the respondent.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 can be granted to an aggrieved person even if she is not residing with the respondent at the time of filing complaint
- Shared household concept
- Right to reside in shared household
- Interim maintenance
- Revision jurisdiction limited to legality and propriety
