HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1686 OF 2008 DATE:06.07.2010 Between: P. Venkateswara Rao …… Petitioner. And: State of AP., rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1686 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. Questioning order of granting Rs.1,500/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the 2nd respondent/wife from the petitioner/husband under Sections 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gudivada in D.V.C.No.4 of 2007 which was confirmed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilapatnam in Criminal Appeal Nos.161 of 2007 and 13 of 2008, the petitioner filed this revision petition. 2. Marriage of the petitioner with the 2nd respondent took place on 12.06.2005 at Tirumala. According to the 2nd respondent, dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the petitioner apart from Rs.1,50,000/- towards ‘Pasupukumkuma’ apart from 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ‘saare’ articles worth Rs.20,000/- to her by her parents. It is further alleged that the 2nd respondent’s father gave Rs.10,000/- each to sisters of the petitioner towards ‘Adapadachu lanchanam’. On a reading of allegations in the representation made by the 2nd respondent to the Protection Officer, both the parties are living separately since prior to 14.08.2005 when mediation took place and on which date all family members of the petitioner abused the 2nd respondent’s father and quarrelled with him, when her father questioned attitude of the petitioner towards the 2nd respondent. It is further alleged that the petitioner and her family members demanded for transfer of house property by the 2nd respondent’s father in favour of the petitioner. 3. Having regard to above dates of marriage, separation and quarrel between the parties, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that since cause of action took place prior to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act) coming into force, D.V.C.No.4 of 2007 does not lie and that the Act is prospective in its application and not retrospective in operation. Though the Act was passed in the year 2005, it came into force on 26.10.2006 after the rules framed thereunder. 4. It is well settled principle of law that substantive enactment is prospective in operation unless specifically stated otherwise. There is no indication in the Act to hold that the Act is not prospective but retrospective in operation. But, simply because the Act is found to be prospective in nature, it cannot be said that provisions of the Act cannot be invoked in case marriage between the parties was prior to the Act came into force or in case separation between wife and husband took place prior to the Act came into force. It has to be seen whether the cause of action arose or cause of action continued to exist even after the Act coming into force. Section 3 of the Act defines domestic violence as follows: “3. Definition of domestic violence:- For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it :- (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or (b) harasses, harms, injuries or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person. Explanation I:-For the purposes of this section, - (i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force; (ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman; (iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes :- (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and (b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested. (iv) "economic abuse" includes :- (a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance; (b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and (c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household. Explanation II:- For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.” The above definition includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and, emotional abuse and also economic abuse within the meaning of domestic violence. When there was separation between the parties prior to the Act coming into force, there may not be possibility of physical abuse, sexual abuse; but, there may be possibility of verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse. As per Clause(iv) of Explanation- I to Section 3 of the Act, economic abuse includes deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom and requires out of necessity. Even though separation between the parties was prior to the Act coming into force still economic abuse by way of deprivation of the aggrieved person of right to residence and right to maintenance etc., would continue both before and after the Act coming into force. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the wife/2nd respondent has no cause of action to maintain domestic violence case against her husband/the petitioner after the Act coming into force. 5. The Courts below awarded monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act by way of maintenance including food, clothing, medicines and other expenses of the 2nd respondent and also compensation of Rs.50,000/- to her under Section 22 of the Act. The Courts below did not grant any other reliefs under any other provisions of the Act. In view of my discussion supra on existence of cause of action by way of economic abuse constituting domestic violence, it may not be necessary for this Court to go into oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and R.W.1 and also Exs.P- 1 to P-6 and R.1. It is immaterial whether the parties lived together for only two days or more and whether there was consummation of marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, for the purpose of deciding existence or otherwise or domestic violence by the petitioner towards the 2nd respondent. 6. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner was unemployed and that marriage was performed with an assurance to provide employment to him by the 2nd respondent’s father and that the said fact indicates domination of the 2nd respondent’s family on the petitioner and that the proceedings under the Act are nothing but abuse of process of law and that the petitioner is financially weak when compared to status of the 2nd respondent’s family. Status of the 2nd respondent’s father has nothing to do with granting of monetary relief and compensation under Sections 20 and 22 of the Act. There is no evidence to show that the 2nd respondent has got independent sources of income to maintain herself without depending herself on her father’s family. After all, what was awarded by the lower court is a pittance of Rs.1,500/- per month which works out at Rs.50/- per day towards maintenance of the 2nd respondent, which maintenance includes food, clothing, medicines etc. Even though the 2nd respondent claimed several other reliefs, the courts below granted only Rs.50,000/- towards compensation depending on cause of action which continued even after the Act coming into force. I see absolutely no infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers of revision. 7. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:06.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1686 OF 2008 Date:06.07.2010 Gk.