APPL1CANT: NON-APPUCAN'1'S: HIOH COURT OF CHHATHSeARH. BILASPUR G-imiaal Mlsc. PeUtion No.274 of 2008 Kajesli Kuire Versus Safurabai aad othcrs Post for pTonouncctaent oforder on IIth Hovember. 2008 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge feh» ir' ^'---.^^ f-^ AFPLlCAN'l'; HIGH COURT OF CHHAVTISCiARH. BILASPUR Crimiual Misc. Petitioa No.274 of 2008 Kajesh Kiure, S/o Shobboath Kurre, aged about 25 years, by Caste Satoami, R/o Vill^e Sanpuri Banki, PoUce Station S& TahsU Mungcli, Distt. Bilaspur (CG), presently residing at Village Jlunakhurd, Police Station Ss TahsU Pandaria, Distt. Kabudham (CG) NON-APPL1CANTS: Versus 1. Saftu-abai, W/o Shri Kajesh Kurre, aged about 20 years, by Caste Satiianu, R/o VWays Saapitri - Bau.ki, PoUcc Statioa & Tahsil Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 2. Shobluiath KTUTC, S/o Sadhu Kurre, aged about 55 years, Occupation Agriculture, 3. Kakesh Kurre, S/o Shobhiiath KiMTe, aged about 23 years, Occupation Agnculture, 4. Santosfa, S/o Shobhiiath Kiure, aged about 27 years, Occupation Agnculture, 5. Smt. Baby Bai, W/o Shobfanath Kiure, aged about 50 yeais, AU by C^te Sataaini, No.2 to 5 all K/o ViU^e Sanpuri-Banki, Police Station & TahsU Mungcli, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). {AppMcation under Section 482 ofthc Code ofCnnuual Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Utkarsh Verma, cozuusel for the appUcant. Mr. N.K. Chaterjee, counseltbrnoa-applicantNo.l. Mr. Pallav Mishra, counsel for non-appUcaats No.2 to S. Sinide Beach: Hon'bte Mr. T.P. 8Ii®ma,J QRDBR (Passed on 11th November, 2008} 1. yy this petitioa, tfcie appUcaat has challcnged lcgalily & propriety ofthe judgmeat dated 17-4-a008 passed by ttie Sessions Judge, Kabirdtaam m. Crmunal Appeal No.5/2008 whereby leamed Sessions Judge has partly inodifieri the amount of nionthly maiatenaace awarded to the non-appUcauts under the piovisions of Section '20 (1) (d) of the '•s;S3fe.: B ^u <f»' '^ Protection of Women froxa Uoiuestic VioJence Act, 2005 (fbr short 'the Act1) by the Judicial Magistrate, t<'irst Class, Kawaidfaa vide order dated 14-12-2007 ia Misc. Crimmal Case No.76/2007. 2. 'i'he part of the judgment is challei^ed on the ground that while awardmg any maiatenance in accoidance with Section 20 (1) (d) of the Act, the Court is required to award inaintenaace ia accordaace with Section 125 of the Code of Crimmal Procedure, 1973 (tbr short the Codc1), but the triai Court faas not awarded maintenance m accordaace witb Sectton 125 ofttie Uode and thereby coimaitted illegaUty. 3. I have heard learned couusel for the parties and peruscd the record of ttie trial Coiut as also the appellate Court. 4. Short question raised by the applicant is that at the time of awardins any inonetary relief in terms of Section 20 (1) (d) of the Act, whether the Court is required to take iato consideration the liability aud entitlement tbr maintenance in terms ofSection 125 ofthe Code? 5. Leamed counsel for the applicaat submits that Section 20 (1) of the Act envisages that while disposing of aa appUcation under sub-sectton (1) of aection 12, the Magistrate is competent to direct the respoiident to pay monetaiy relief to ineet the expenses incurred and losses sufiered by the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence mcludin^ the maintenance for the a^rieved person as well as faer children, if any, iacluding an order under or in addition to aa OBder of maintenauce under section 125 ofthe Codc, Learued counsel further siibxalts that ia accordance with the provisions of Section 125 of the Code, the s^grieved party is required to prcwe that he or she is unable to maintaia himsetf/herseU' and having stifficicnt cause tor separate Uving aud the person against whom laanitenancc is claimed is haviag siifficient mcans, but he is not inaiatammg the ^gricved person. Theretbre, at the tuue ofdteposiag the application under Section 12 (l) of the Act if the Court directs fbr payment of any expenses includm^ maintenauce, thcn the Coiirt is required to examiae the entitlaneat and Uabitily in accordance with Section 125 ofthe Code. 6. On the other hand, leamed counsel appearmg for the non-applicaate supported the judgment impugned aad subnutted that the provisions fbr maintenance undcr Section 20 ofthe Act are in addition to an order ofiBamtenaace imder Section 125 ofthe Code therefore, at the time of ~ passing any order of maintenaace under Section 20 of the Act, tfae Court is not reqiiired to examiae the case in accordaace with the provisions of Section 125 ofthe Code. The provisions are iadcpendeat and ia addition to the provisions of maintenance under the Code. Leamed counsel further submit that Section 20 of the Act is a special provision for maiatenance to the pcrsons aggrieved under the Act. This section einpowers to order lump siun or inonthly paynients for iuaintenan.cc. Sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Act eiapowers to direct the employer or a debtor of thc nori-appUcant, to directly pay to thc aggrieved person or to deposit witfa the court a portion of the w^es or salaries or debt due to or accrued to thc credit of the respondenfc Kelief avaUabte under Section 20 of the Act is additional relief available to the aggrieved person and in accordaace with Section 26 of the Act - the aggrieved person may also avail the reinedy betbre a civil court, fetmily court or a criininai court in addltion to and atong with any other reliefs availabJe under the Act. 7. ln order to appreciate tbe contentions of the parties, 1 liave examiaed the provisions relating to m.onetary reUef provided itader Section 20 of the Act. Section 20 of tbe Act reads as fbllows: - "20. Monettu-y reliefe.—(1)While disposing of an applicatioa uader sub-section (1) of sectton 12, fhe M^istrate may direct the respoadent to pay nionetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggneved person and any child of the ^Sgrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such reliefmay iaclude, but is not lunited to,— (a) the loss ofeamings; (b) the uiedical expenses; (cj the loss caused due to tfae destruction, daxn^e or removal of an}' property fiod fhe control offhe aggrievcd person; anu (d) the inamtenance for the aggrieved person as weU as her childrea, if any, including aa order iinder or ia addition to an ordcr of inaintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for fhe tnae being ia foice. (2) The monetary reJief granted iMidcr this section shall be adequate, fair aad reasonEible aad coasisteat wifh fhe steadaRl of Uving to which the aggrieved persou is accustomed. (3) 'l'he M^istrate shall have the power to order an apprapriate lump sum paymeat or monfhly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circutnstaaces of the case inay require. 3^; -.,,rfli ;i sssB' (4) The Magisteate shatl send a copy of the order for inonetaiy relief made imder sub-section (1) to .the parties to thc appUcation and to the ia-chat^e of the police station withia the local lanits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides. (5) The respondent shalt pay the nionetary retief granted to thc a^rieved peraon wifhin the period speciGed ia the order under sub-section (1). (6) Upon ttte failure on the part ofthe respondent to inake paynient in temis ofthe order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct ths employer or a debtor of fhe respondent, to directly pay to tfae ^grievcd person or to deposit with the coiirt a portiou of fhe wagea or sateries or debt due to or accrued to fhe credit of the respondent, which ainount niay be adjusted towards ttie inonetaiy refief payable by the respondent." 8. Section 20 ofthe Act says that at the tune ofdlsposal ofthe appUcation undcr sub-section fl) of Sectioii 12, the Magistrate is competent to direct the respondent to pay monetaiy relmfto the eflfected or aggrieved person or any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the doinestic violence aad such relief may include, but is not lunited to, the mamtenance for the ^grieved peraoa as well as her children, if any, inciudtng an order itnder or iu ^ldition to an ordcr of niaintenaa.ee under section 125 of the Code or aay other law for the tiine being in force. Sub-section (2) ofSection 20 ofthe Act empowers the M^istrate to grant such relief wtaich sfaall be adequate, tair and reasonable and consistent with. the standard of Uvmg to whlch the aggrieved is accustomed. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of thc Act eanpowers the Magistrate to order aa appropriate luinp sum payment or niouthty paynients of maintenaace, as the nature aad circumstances ofthe case may require. Sub-section (6) of Section '20 empowers tfae M^istrate to direct the eniployer or a debtor of the respondcnt, to directly pay to the aggricved person. Section 26 of ttie Act iieads as follows:- "26. ReUef in other sntts and legal i»oceedl«®s.—(l) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 aad 22 may also be sought in aay legal proceediag, before a csril court, faauly coiut or a crimmal court, affecting the ^grieved person aad fhe respondeat whether such proceeding was initiated bcfore or after fhe coium.enceittent of this Act (2) Any reUef referred to in sub-section (1) niay be soiight for in addition to and along with aay other relief that the aggrieved persoii niay seek in such suit or legal proceedi&g before a civU or crirninal court. :IS:S' ^is, •i^ ^i '!; ss^ S "'^ ii .^sttSS (3) ln caae any relief has bcea obtained by the aggrieved person m any proceedings ofher fhaa a proceeding under this Act, sbje shaU be bound to inform. fhe Magfatrate of fhe grant of such relief.* 9. Section 26 of the Act s^s that reUef availablc uader sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in addition to aad atong with any other reUef wJiich the aggrieved pcrson vasey seck ia any legal proceeding before a civil court, family courtor a criminal court. Kelief of inamtenaace to wife aad children is availablc to the effected party under his entitlenient and Uability of the person agaiust whom relief is clauned under Section 125 oftfae Code, when such peison is unabJc to inauitain facrseU" and the person agauist whoin relief is clauned is luider obligation to maintain aud having sufBcient meaas to inaintain, but fails to inamtain the appJicaats. But in case of doxnestic violence, the Court is einpowered to grant such relief if the person is aggrieved as a reszilt of the domestic viotence and inay graat monetary reUef ia tenns of inaiatenan.ce wlu.ch woilld be adequate, t^ir aad reasonable aad consistent witfa the standard of living to which the ^grieved party is accustomed and also empowered to grant liunp sum or inonthly inamtenance or to direct the einployer or a debtor of the respondent to dircctly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries. However, the Magistrate is not enipowered to grant reliefin such form ia accordance with Sectk>n 125 of the Code. At the time of mterpretation of statutes, the Court is required to see whether the provisions of the statute arc plaia, unambiguous aad capable of giyiag their ordlnary meaiung, 10.In the matter ot J.P. Baasat v. State of Rajasthaa aad aaotlier1 the Apex Court has held that "When the words of a Statute are clear, plain or unam.b^uous i.e. fhey are reasonably susceptible to onJy one nieannig, the Courts are bound to give effcct to that meamng irrespective of cousequences. Thc iutention of the Legislature is prunarily to be gafhered frcfm. the laaguage used, whlcfa nieaas that attention shouM be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said." ll.Whlle dealiag with the question of Interpretotion ofStatutes, the Apex Court has held in the case of Gnrndevdatta VKSOS Maryadtt aad others v. State of Maharashtra and others2 fhat 12003 (5) SCC 134 2 AIR 2001 SC 1980 !l»»^-;'.l-^;i3» te ? Soma "... .it is a cardinal priaciple ofmterpretation of statute fhat fhe words of a statute must be imderstood. m ttieir iiatural, ordiEiary or popular sense and constonned accordiag to fheir graiasaatical meami^, uxiless such construction leads to some absurdily or unless there is somethiag ia fhe context or in the object ofthe statute t& sii^est to fhe contraiy. The golden niles is fhat the words of a statute inust prima facie be given their ordinaiy nieaning. It is yet anofher rule of construction fhat when the words of the stetute are clear, plaia and iinamb^uous then the Courts are bound to give effect to fhat Bieanjng, urespective of fhe conscquences. It m said fhat tfae words fheinselves best declare fhe iatention of fhc law giver. The Courts have adhered to the principle fhat efForts should be made to give meamng to each aad eveiy word used by the legislature and it is not a sound principle of construction to bfush. aside words in a statute as being inapposite surpluses, if they can have a proper appUcation ia circumstances conceivable withia fhe contemplation ofthe statute." 12.'l'he golden rule of iaterpretation of statutes is that the words of a statute niust prixna facie be given their ordinaiy nieaniag. The words of provisions under Scction 20 of the Act are clear, plaia and imambiguous. The provisions are independent and are ia addition to any other remedy available to the aggiieved under auy legal proceeding before the civil Court, crimiaal Court or family Court. 'l'he provisMns are not dependcnt upon Section 125 of the Code or any other provisions of the Kamily Coiuts Act. 1984 or any other Act relafuig to awatit of maintcnance. In case of award of maintenance to the aggrievcd persoa under the provisions of the Act, the Court is competent to award maiatenance to the a^rieved person and child of the aggricved person i& accordance with thc pxovfeions of Secticm 20 ot' the Act aad the aggrieved person is not required to establish his case in terms ofSection 125 ofthe Code. 13. Leamed trial Court after arriving at a finding that ttie non-applfcaats are aggrieved as a result of domestic viotence has awarcled mamtenauce ia accordance with Section 20 of the Act. The trial Court has conunitted neithcr any illegalily nor auy infinmty while passmg the order iinpugned. 14. ln the result, 1 do not find aay mcrit and substance in thc petition, same is liabte to be dismfesed and it is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- rt.P. St»arma Judge