THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4253 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. A. Triveni Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Smt. V. Purna Sri, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/1st respondent. The Criminal Petition is directed against confirmation of the judgment in D.V.C.No. 1 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Hindupur dated 21.01.2008 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 8 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur by the order dated 08.03.2010. On the application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) filed by the Protection Officer in the form of a domestic incident report on the complaint of the 2nd respondent herein, the learned Magistrate rendered the judgment in D.V.C.No. 1 of 2007, referring to the rival contentions of the husband and the wife and the other respondents to the Domestic Violence Case and on the evidence placed before him, concluded that the 2nd respondent was harassed with a demand for dowry and was subjected to domestic violence including through sexual abuse and sexual humiliation. With reference to the provisions of the Act, the learned Magistrate held the 2nd respondent to be entitled to monetary relief under Section 20 and compensation under Section 22 of the Act. The husband was noted to be working in a medicine factory at Bengaluru and to have not stated about the salary he was earning due to which monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- and compensation of Rs.30,000/- were awarded to the wife. In Revision against the said order between the husband and the wife only, the Court of Session passed the impugned order again referring to the factual background and noting the pendency of a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, M.C.No. 2554 of 2006 before the Family Court, Bengaluru for divorce at the instance of the husband and an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the wife seeking interim maintenance in the same proceedings. The Court noted that the marital relationship is admitted and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 was attempted to be contradicted by the evidence of the husband alone as R.W.1. With reference to the background for the enactment of the special statute, the Court of revision concluded that the learned Magistrate was justified in awarding the compensation and maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge referred to the decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 4169 of 2007 relied on by the husband, but noted that there was clear evidence on record that the wife was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by the husband even after the Act had come into force due to which the decision has no application. The confirmation of the order of the learned Magistrate by the Court of revision led the husband to file the present Criminal Petition, contending that the Petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month is pending and on all dates of adjournment, the Family Court, Bengaluru was granting Rs.750/- per adjournment to the wife whenever she attended the Court. While the Domestic Violence Act has no retrospective operation, the domestic Violence Case was instituted after the husband gave the notice seeking divorce. The couple lived happily for three years after the marriage after which all the false allegations are being made and the husband desired the orders of the learned Magistrate and the Court of revision to be quashed. The point for consideration is whether the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. The marital relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is not in dispute, but there was marital discord after three years after the marriage is also not denied. The learned Magistrate found allegations to have been made about the wife being left out of the marital home on 25.10.2006. Even the allegation of the husband was that the wife left his company in July 2006. The learned Magistrate was referring to the allegations about the wife being beaten on 25.10.2006 as per the evidence and the suffering of the wife due to sexual abuse and sexual humiliation were also considered probabalized. The events were not found to be confined only to the period prior to coming into force of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The revisional Court also found separate living to be since July 2006 and referred to the specific allegations about the wife being beaten indiscriminately and necked out of the house only on 25.10.2006. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 had come into force with effect from 26.10.2006 and domestic violence has been defined to include physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse, which may be including not only specific acts of commission and omission, but also the consequences of such acts and omissions. If a state of affairs within the scope of various abuses covered by the definition of domestic violence under Section 3 continued to exist by the time and after the Act came into force, the entitlement of the aggrieved person to seek appropriate relief under the statute cannot be in doubt and this Court by precedential law has already repelled the contention that the statute is purely prospective. That apart, there is no further material on record to deviate from the conclusion of fact by the revisional Court that there was clear evidence about the wife being subjected to ill- treatment and harassment by the husband even after the Act had come into force. While the wife cannot be deprived of the maintenance and compensation awarded with reference to any controversy about the prospectivity or retrospectivity of the legislation, on the facts of this case, the pendency of the criminal proceedings or matrimonial proceedings are no bar for the wife to claim appropriate reliefs under this statute, in the light of Sections 26 and 36 of the Act and the quantum of maintenance or compensation also cannot be considered to be harsh or heavy when the husband admitted his private employment and had conveniently not disclosed as to what his salary is. Even the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 are much higher than what was granted as monthly maintenance by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the revision Court and under the circumstances, I find absolutely no reason to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to interfere with the orders on merits on the concurrent findings by both the Courts below. Therefore, the Criminal Petition has to fail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. -------------------------------- (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 28th December 2011 ksld