Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Pushpa, filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) before the JMFC II at Belgaum, seeking maintenance and compensation from her husband, respondent No.2, and his relatives. The JMFC allowed the petition in part, directing the husband to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.25,000/- as compensation. The respondents appealed to the District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, who set aside the JMFC's order. The petitioner then filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court examined the appellate court's order and found it to be perverse, as it had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and the provisions of the PWDV Act. The High Court held that the appellate court's order was not sustainable in law and restored the JMFC's order. The revision petition was allowed, and the appellate court's order was set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Domestic Violence - Maintenance and Compensation - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 20, 22 - The petitioner wife filed a petition under the PWDV Act seeking maintenance and compensation. The JMFC allowed the petition in part, granting maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.25,000/- as compensation. The appellate court set aside the order. The High Court, in revision, held that the appellate court's order was perverse and not sustainable, and restored the JMFC's order. (Paras 1-5)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. - The High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, can interfere only if the order of the lower court is perverse or suffers from legal infirmity. The appellate court's order was found to be perverse as it failed to consider the evidence on record. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the appellate court setting aside the maintenance and compensation granted under the PWDV Act, 2005 was sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the appellate court's order dated 17.03.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.162/2014, and restored the JMFC's order dated 20.08.2014 in Crl. Misc. No.20/2012.
Law Points
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Section 20
- Section 22
- Section 29
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- Section 397
- Section 401
- Maintenance
- Compensation
- Revisional jurisdiction
- Perversity
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (06) 46
Criminal Revision Petition No.100100/2015
Sri Ramachandra A. Mali (for petitioner), Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik (HCGP for R1), Sri H.M. Dharigond (for R2 to R4)
Smt. Pushpa W/o. Yeshwant Patil
The State of Karnataka, Sri. Yeshwant S/o. Tukaram Patil, Sri. Tukaram S/o. Yeshwant Patil, Smt. Jijabai S/o. Yeshwant Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition against appellate order setting aside maintenance and compensation under PWDV Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the appellate order and restore the JMFC's order granting maintenance and compensation.
Filing Reason
The appellate court set aside the JMFC's order granting maintenance and compensation to the petitioner.
Previous Decisions
JMFC II, Belgaum allowed Crl. Misc. No.20/2012 in part, granting maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. and Rs.25,000/- compensation. The District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Criminal Appeal No.162/2014, set aside that order on 17.03.2015.
Issues
Whether the appellate court's order setting aside maintenance and compensation under the PWDV Act was perverse and unsustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence and provisions of the PWDV Act, leading to a perverse order.
Respondents argued that the appellate court correctly set aside the order as the JMFC had erred.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional court can interfere when the order of the lower court is perverse or suffers from legal infirmity. The appellate court's order was perverse as it failed to consider the evidence and the provisions of the PWDV Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner had filed Crl. Misc. No.20/2012 by invoking the provisions of PWDV Act, 2005.
The JMFC II at Belgaum, allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent No.2 herein i.e., husband of the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. and Rs.25,000/- as compensation and damages to the petitioner.
The appellate court set aside the order. The High Court found the appellate order perverse and restored the JMFC order.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No.20/2012 under PWDV Act before JMFC II, Belgaum, which was allowed in part on 20.08.2014. Respondents appealed in Criminal Appeal No.162/2014 before the District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, who set aside the order on 17.03.2015. Petitioner then filed Criminal Revision Petition No.100100/2015 before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which was allowed on 15.06.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 20, 22
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401
