Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal revision petitions filed by Kasturi (wife) and Subhas (husband) against orders passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-III, Bangalore, seeking reliefs including interim maintenance. The Magistrate passed an order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month to the wife. The husband appealed against this order before the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, who modified the maintenance amount to Rs. 3,000 per month. Both parties filed revision petitions before the High Court: the wife sought restoration of the original maintenance amount, and the husband sought setting aside of the appellate order. The High Court observed that the appellate court had modified the trial court's order without providing any reasoning or justification for reducing the maintenance amount. The court held that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Act by arbitrarily reducing the maintenance. The High Court set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter back to the appellate court for fresh consideration, directing it to pass a reasoned order after hearing both parties. The revision petitions were allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC - Maintainability - Revision petition against appellate order under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable before the High Court. (Para 1) B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Interim Maintenance - Section 20 - Trial Court's order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month to the wife was modified by the Appellate Court to Rs. 3,000 per month without proper reasoning - Held that the Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the order without recording reasons. (Paras 2-4) C) Jurisdiction - Appellate Court - Section 29 of the Act - The Appellate Court under Section 29 of the Act is a Sessions Court, and its order is subject to revision under Section 397 CrPC - The High Court can interfere if the order is illegal or improper. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to modify the order of the trial court in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and whether the trial court's order granting interim maintenance was proper.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both revision petitions, set aside the appellate order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Crl.A.No.1234/2015, and remanded the matter back to the appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after hearing both parties and passing a reasoned order.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of appellate court under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Scope of revision under Section 397 CrPC
- Interim maintenance under Section 20 of the Act
